Abortion vs. Adoption

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

But the thing is, I also named a 100% effective way of not getting pregnant that doesn't remove anything from your everyday life or health that you just failed to reference.

Never leaving your house is a very effective way of not getting murdered. But it isn't 100% effective. Someone might break into your house and kill you.

Just like not having sex isn't a 100% effective way of not getting pregnant. You could get raped.

Bad comparison.

Having sex and getting pregnant unintentionally is more like walking by yourself in the bronx at 3 am with 3,000 dollars cash in a ziplock bag tied around your neck while wearing a t-shirt that says "guns are for cowards!" with a baseball cat that says "I'm not from around here" written on it.

You're just asking for something to happen

It's a very good comparison, actually, whereas yours is pretty terrible. Your example is like having sex without contraception. I would agree if that is what you were arguing. But it is a very different situation if you use contraception. Contraception is a very effective way of preventing pregnancy. Your example only applies to having sex without using any form of contraception whatsoever.

I have no idea why you bothered to debate that example, but I' guess I can play to.

What if the driver has a stroke at the wheel?

Fair enough, but that doesn't apply to sexual intercourse while using contraception, unless you apply it to the example of the contraception failing. The driver can't account for having a stroke at the wheel, since depending on his condition this is unlikely, and the sexual intercourse with various means of contraception can't account for that contraception failing. If you think people shouldn't have sex because that risk exists, however small, then people should never get in cars, because the risk is also small depending on their health.

Or, more sensibly, *cough* not having sex *cough*

Or more sensibly, never leaving the house will lower any chance of you getting murdered. Never driving will lower any chance of ever being in an accident. Never eating will lower any chance of you choking. And so on, and so forth.

Contraception. Account for it, mate.

Wow, you just compared pregnancy to getting a disease.

So what? To many, it is. That's why people take measures to prevent it.

Anyway, let me try this example:

Cocaine has been proven to kill people who try it only for the first time. Although the odds of that happening are like 1 in 2 thousand.

You're at your friends party, and their passing around a coke pipe and doing a few lines. You've never done this before, but seriously, the odd of this happening are one in two-thousand? What are the odds of-HOLY **** YOUR HEART JUST EXPLODED!

Who's fault is that?

Actually, the odds of cocaine having a detrimental effect on your health are high. The odds of sex having a detrimental effect, if you use contraception, are less than ten percent. You'd know this if your schools taught you basic sex education, or if you even paid attention during those lessons. If you use multiple forms of contraception at once, this lowers to below one percent.

First off, promoting a song actually and getting it noticed is just as vital song writing in a music career. And if you've ever seen "an American dream" you'd understand what hard work that could be.

True, but in many cases you don't need to write that song or promote the song yourself. You just have a good voice, and by chance, you get noticed, sing what people tell you to sing, and make a fortune.

Secondly, MC hammer made some of the popular songs of all time. His kids grew up on welfare.

That's unfortunate for them. He failed to leave them the copyright licence, clearly.

o_o

Dude, aren't you from whales? Shouldn't you know this? queen E the 2nd was one of the most influential and prominent political figures of the last century. she doesn't do it much anymore because the the woman is 82 years old. And even then, other members of the family stand in for her now.

I am from Wales, not Whales. If you can't make the distinction between a country and an ocean-dwelling mammal it doesn't surprise me that you can't hold your own in an argument. I am also a student of the British Legal System, which is precisely why I know what the Queen's job is. Her job is as I described it - assenting to Acts of Parliament (putting her name on pieces of paper, without even needing to read them), making a speech a few times per year (which isn't even written by her, just that people want to hear HER saying it), and meeting with the Heads of States of other countries for a cup of tea and a chat. The British taxpayer pays her wages for virtually nothing. Everything she does could easily be done by a Prime Minister, who actually DOES have a job besides that of a figurehead, but her role is outdated and archaic.

Ok, as someone who played football growing up, IT'S HARD WORK. But them not deserving what they earn is matter of opinion. Regardless, they have to go get it in order for it to come in.

My mother stocks shelves five nights a week all year. Not days, nights. Works her arse off, loses her daytimes, loses her social life, in order to work. She makes maybe £20,000 per year. If she's lucky. Including overtime.

Footballers spend their lives working out and kicking a ball around a field. Many people do this as a hobby, and actually pay to do it. Footballers get £25,000 a WEEK.

What is it with you and these horrible examples?

First off, my mother can't be considered lucky to be without a home, income, and a child at the age of 17.

I meant that she got lucky later down the line. Other homeless 17 year old mothers may not raise themselves up beyond the $40,000 earning bracket as you stated your mother does. It is just not within their capability. Not everyone has the same skills.

Secondly, your example is bad because wounds don't heal themselves all the time just like situations never fix themselves. One could say that her busting her ass to make things right is the situational equal to going to a hospital if hurt.

That wasn't you were initially arguing. Your logic was that if your mother put up with it, other people can as well. My mother put up with a pretty deep wound, therefore others can as well. You have redefined your argument.

going to have to do better that what you have been doing.

Likewise.


And again, you've failed to actually argue why those who get pregnant should not have the choice to have an abortion. Only how they could avoid getting pregnant to begin with, but poorly at that.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Never leaving your house is a very effective way of not getting murdered. But it isn't 100% effective. Someone might break into your house and kill you.

Just like not having sex isn't a 100% effective way of not getting pregnant. You could get raped.

That was actually one of the instances in which I can understand abortion. But....(!!!) I ALREADY SAID THAT.

Also, take note that leaving the house is mandatory in everyday life in order to stay healthy, eat, etc.

Sex is....because you want to.

It's a very good comparison, actually, whereas yours is pretty terrible. Your example is like having sex without contraception. I would agree if that is what you were arguing. But it is a very different situation if you use contraception. Contraception is a very effective way of preventing pregnancy. Your example only applies to having sex without using any form of contraception whatsoever.

the basis point is that if you don't want to get robbed WHAT THE HELL WERE DOING IN THE BRONX ALONE ON THE STREET AT 3 AM!?

Fair enough, but that doesn't apply to sexual intercourse while using contraception, unless you apply it to the example of the contraception failing. The driver can't account for having a stroke at the wheel, since depending on his condition this is unlikely, and the sexual intercourse with various means of contraception can't account for that contraception failing. If you think people shouldn't have sex because that risk exists, however small, then people should never get in cars, because the risk is also small depending on their health.

Again, uh, getting in cars is how alot of people maintain their everyday lives.

If you have sex...it's.....because you felt like it.

Or more sensibly, never leaving the house will lower any chance of you getting murdered. Never driving will lower any chance of ever being in an accident. Never eating will lower any chance of you choking. And so on, and so forth.

Contraception. Account for it, mate.

MORE BAD EXAMPLES! CURSES!

Dude, eating is MANDATORY. You won't DIE if you don't have sex.

So what? To many, it is.

The ****? to many it is?

The fact is it's NOT. Ok, THAT might get sigged.

Actually, the odds of cocaine having a detrimental effect on your health are high.

I didn't say anything about it effecting your health as it has a 100% chance of doing that, I said it has the low chance of kill you on your first try.

The odds of sex having a detrimental effect, if you use contraception, are less than ten percent. You'd know this if your schools taught you basic sex education, or if you even paid attention during those lessons. If you use multiple forms of contraception at once, this lowers to below one percent.

Chance is still there. And seeing as it's a risk you don't even have to take (fill in the blank)

True, but in many cases you don't need to write that song or promote the song yourself. You just have a good voice, and by chance, you get noticed, sing what people tell you to sing, and make a fortune.

uh, yeah, but then you have to pay the person doing that and usually agree to his/her terms. In that situation, you;re actually making someone else rich and their using you as a product of THEIR hard work.

That's unfortunate for them. He failed to leave them the copyright licence, clearly.

Uh, yeah, thus supporting my point. Nothing is free.

I am from Wales, not Whales. If you can't make the distinction between a country and an ocean-dwelling mammal it doesn't surprise me that you can't hold your own in an argument.([b]Tigerboi: oh snap!)I am also a student of the British Legal System, which is precisely why I know what the Queen's job is. Her job is as I described it - assenting to Acts of Parliament (putting her name on pieces of paper, without even needing to read them), making a speech a few times per year (which isn't even written by her, just that people want to hear HER saying it), and meeting with the Heads of States of other countries for a cup of tea and a chat. The British taxpayer pays her wages for virtually nothing. Everything she does could easily be done by a Prime Minister, who actually DOES have a job besides that of a figurehead, but her role is outdated and archaic.

That doesn't counter-point what I just....you know what, nevermind.

My mother stocks shelves five nights a week all year. Not days, nights. Works her arse off, loses her daytimes, loses her social life, in order to work. She makes maybe £20,000 per year. If she's lucky. Including overtime.

Footballers spend their lives working out and kicking a ball around a field. Many people do this as a hobby, and actually pay to do it. Footballers get £25,000 a WEEK.

Your mom should've been a footballer then? Either way, having to keep up with feirce competition is hardly something I'd consider easy or free.

I meant that she got lucky later down the line. Other homeless 17 year old mothers may not raise themselves up beyond the $40,000 earning bracket as you stated your mother does. It is just not within their capability. Not everyone has the same skills.

Is that what we're going to say now? No, it wasn't luck. She just dug herself out of a hole. Luck had nothing to do with it. She earned it.

That wasn't you were initially arguing. Your logic was that if your mother put up with it, other people can as well. My mother put up with a pretty deep wound, therefore others can as well. You have redefined your argument.

What?

My point from the very start was that if she can turn a situation like that around BY HERSELF AND WITHOUT ANY HELP anyone else can. Look back, I even used myself as an example.

And again, you've failed to actually argue why those who get pregnant should not have the choice to have an abortion. Only how they could avoid getting pregnant to begin with, but poorly at that.

LOL

Dude, look back at what I've been saying. Look at my few posts on the first page. I've NEVER SAID that people shouldn't have the choice. I've been saying that IMO people should, if they don't want kids bad enough to abort a pregnancy just because of what they WANT, then they might not want to have sex at all.

I don't have a problem with abortion. I just have a problem with people using it as an alternative to birth control pills.

EDIT: Infact, lemme quote myself.

I'm neither pro or agianst abortion.

But the reason why people are pro abortion (and I've said this before) is because birth is actually not a good idea in some cases. Like, let's say Aziel gets pregnant. Then abortion must come like swiftly like death upon a salmon at the hands of a grizzly!

No, seriously. I encourage abortions in scenarios that include it being an alternative to a lifetime of physical suffering or immediate death after birth anyway. Like, what's the sense of giving birth if you have AIDS?

HOWEVER, alot of people are anti-abortion simply because people abuse it in order to escape the responsibility of raising a child. "I can't afford a kid". Tough luck *******, go get a batter paying job.

"I don't like kids." Well, in that case you might want to stop having sex then.

M point; there are people that get abortions for NO ****ING GOOD REASON at all.

So both sides are understandable. And both sides are equally ****ing stupid.

And stop spelling my name with a "y"

I never said it shouldn't be an option. I just don't agree with getting one because of wha I consider to be DUMB REASONS like "Eh, i don't want one. I don't have enough money."

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

That was actually one of the instances in which I can understand abortion. But....(!!!) I ALREADY SAID THAT.

Also, take note that leaving the house is mandatory in everyday life in order to stay healthy, eat, etc.

Sex is....because you want to.

No it isn't. Home delivery, and many people work from home. Ever hear about agoraphobiacs? **** scared of the open world outside their homes.

the basis point is that if you don't want to get robbed WHAT THE HELL WERE DOING IN THE BRONX ALONE ON THE STREET AT 3 AM!?

I don't know. But if you didn't want to get pregnant, what were you doing having sex without contraception? The "without contraception" corresponds with the "alone".

You seem to think that this extends simply to the question of "why were you having sex if you didn't want to get pregnant?" but it isn't that simple. That is why contraception exists - specifically to prevent pregnancy. Just like why, if you want to go to the Bronx at 3 am, you take some form of protection. Body armour, maybe a weapon, or bring some friends with you. Or you go to the Bronx at a different time of day. You don't have to just not go to the Bronx altogether, just like you don't just have to not have sex altogether.

Again, uh, getting in cars is how alot of people maintain their everyday lives.

If you have sex...it's.....because you felt like it.

That's retarded and you should feel retarded.

Many, many people cannot afford cars. Many people can't even drive. So they use public transport, or take a bike. Or hell, they even walk. Some people drive distances that they could easily walk, but only drive for the sake of convenience. That's all driving is - a convenience. Just like sex.

MORE BAD EXAMPLES! CURSES!

Dude, eating is MANDATORY. You won't DIE if you don't have sex.

Some of them were mandatory, but they are perfectly valid examples because they show exactly how small the risk you're comparing is compared to the actual action being taken and the benefit gained from that action. The risk of choking during eating is small, whereas the benefit of eating is large. The risk of being murdered when you leave the house is relatively small depending on where you are, but the benefits of leaving the house are massive. The risk of getting pregnant when having sex, when using contraception, is probably even smaller, yet sex is fun.

The ****? to many it is?

The fact is it's NOT. Ok, THAT might get sigged.

Go ahead, anyone with any sense will realise it's perfectly valid. The whole point of using contraception is that you do not want to get pregnant, just like the whole point of getting vaccinated is that you do not want that disease. A disease is, by definition, something that makes life harder for you. "Dis-ease". Something that dissipates ease. A baby can, therefore, be a "disease" in the literal sense of the word.

In biological terms, a baby drains from the mother. Some mothers become anaemic because of their pregnancy. This is not a beneficial physical condition. The baby becomes a parasite. It also causes various hormonal imbalances, and physical changes in the mother. It's easy to see why people would see babies as more trouble than they're worth.

I didn't say anything about it effecting your health as it has a 100% chance of doing that, I said it has the low chance of kill you on your first try.

Cocaine forms a biological addiction, however, which sex does not. The analogy does not stand as there is a substantial difference between taking cocaine, even only once, as it can form a biological addiction and still causes harm even if only minor, and having sex using contraception, which has a low chance of giving you a disease, a low chance of forming any biological addiction, and a low chance of getting you pregnant.

The thing is, you're concentrating on only the death, when there are a variety of other risks to taking cocaine which are pretty high. To sex, there's only STDs, and pregnancy, and if you use contraception, there is a very low risk of either.

Chance is still there. And seeing as it's a risk you don't even have to take (fill in the blank)

I don't even need to give any examples here. You say you were a football player. There is a chance that you could suffer serious injury while playing this sport. You did not have to play the sport, but you chose to. Why? Probably because you enjoyed it.

If this is not the case for you personally, it is to many others. Should they stop playing sports because of that miniscule risk? No, especially if they take countermeasures to prevent it (wearing various pieces of kit to lessen the risk of injury, for example, exactly like contraception).

uh, yeah, but then you have to pay the person doing that and usually agree to his/her terms. In that situation, you;re actually making someone else rich and their using you as a product of THEIR hard work.

Yeah, but they're doing work, whereas the artist is not doing nearly as much work, and yet the artist is still getting rich for very little work. That was your initial point, that everyone who is rich has earned it. I was simply demonstrating that this wasn't always the case.

Uh, yeah, thus supporting my point. Nothing is free.

No it would have been free if he'd simply left them the copyright in his will. There are many people who are living off the royalties of a product their parents made right now - Christopher Tolkien is living off the money that the Lord of the Rings is making, which was written by his father, J.R.R. Tolkien. Christopher Tolkien has also written his own stuff on the side, but that was his choice - he didn't have to, he would have been able to maintain wealth without it. All you need is to be born in the right family. Such as the royal family, or a family of peers in Britain, or the family of a wealthy CEO or someone with a life interest in something that generates a large income.

That doesn't counter-point what I just....you know what, nevermind.

Yes it does, you seem to be under the impression that the Queen is actually important and deserves the money she is receiving. I have demonstrated successfully that she does not. That is her job, and every year she is paid millions for it. Her job and the amount she is paid are heavily imbalanced. The only reason she is so lucky? Because she was born into the right family.

Your mom should've been a footballer then? Either way, having to keep up with feirce competition is hardly something I'd consider easy or free.

It's easy because you're not doing nearly as much work as people who don't get paid as much as you do. You practically said that if you are rich, you deserve it. I'm again demonstrating that this is not always the case.

Is that what we're going to say now? No, it wasn't luck. She just dug herself out of a hole. Luck had nothing to do with it. She earned it.

How did she earn it? Did she get a job? That, in and of itself, is harder these days than it seems. If she happened to find a job soon after having you, that was luck, quite simply. Some mothers won't be that fortunate.

What?

My point from the very start was that if she can turn a situation like that around BY HERSELF AND WITHOUT ANY HELP anyone else can. Look back, I even used myself as an example.

Alright, but it's not as easy as you make it sound. Therefore you shouldn't deny people abortions on the basis that your mother succeeded, or that you succeeded, because not many people have the necessary skills.

LOL

Dude, look back at what I've been saying. Look at my few posts on the first page. I've NEVER SAID that people shouldn't have the choice. I've been saying that IMO people should, if they don't want kids bad enough to abort a pregnancy just because of what they WANT, then they might not want to have sex at all.

I don't have a problem with abortion. I just have a problem with people using it as an alternative to birth control pills.

That's a contradiction in terms. "I don't have a problem - I just have a problem."

As I've been repeatedly pointing out, and you've been disputing, if you use contraception you don't need to have an abortion or a birth control pill. If the contraception fails, they should not be blamed for that, and so they should be allowed an abortion in that scenario.

If indeed they are having sex without taking any measures at all to avoid pregnancy, then the healthcare service should not have to pay for their abortion. In America however you don't have the NHS, and so the customer can pay for whatever they can afford. So there's no reason to deny an abortion to people who are willing to pay for it, and to whom it would not cause a detrimental effect. After all, you're all about people earning their money right? Why shouldn't a person who's pregnant be allowed to use money they supposedly earned to pay for it? For what reason do you have a problem when people wish to use abortion as a form of birth control when they are willing and able to pay for the procedure themselves? There is no need to respond to the rest of this post, if you cannot answer this question, your entire argument falls apart, as it will have no basis. Your argument stems from something, this question is to find out what that is.

Stop feeding the troll; he's not worth your time.

Meanwhile, we've gotten Rew's thread completely off-topic, which is a TERRIBLE birthday present to him.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

It removes any chance of them having a good life (or any life for that matter) as well. Why do you seem to think that an adopted child is doomed to suffer? There are plenty of people who were given up for adoption/foster care that have and happy and successful lives.

Lets use a simple analogy for this. You are given a puppy for your birthday, and you don't want it. Would you return it to the person who gave it to you, or would you smash it with a concrete brick? Adoption is a infinatly better option, the baby gets to live and the mother doesn't have to deal with it.

Never said they were doomed, I only understand that many of them don't actually get adopted, and the foster system is complete trash.

I prefer mercy.


TB, you shouldn't talk about your wife that way. For shame.

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

Dude, eating is MANDATORY. You won't DIE if you don't have sex.

Living is hardly mandatory. Please redefine your premise.

The fact is it's NOT. Ok, THAT might get sigged.

You've already been "sigged", my friend.

@Sapphira

To be honest: i'd be very surprised if Rew wasn't expecting this on an abortion thread.
But I could be wrong....
*shrugs*


....why didn't anyone tell me we had a newcomer? geesh you guys's stealing all the fun....

I will be more than happy to argue the values of having a monarchy with you, assuming you make a thread for it. As Sapphira said I don't think Rew would appreciate further derailment of his thread.

I think that adoption is preferable to abortion.

Living is hardly mandatory.

Well according to the law I'm not allowed to kill myself and no one else is allowed to kill me so doesn't that mean living is mandatory in a way? Quite forceful of them isn't it? XD

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

If you're a mentally (meaning no disabilities) and physically (and I've seen people in wheel chairs work and raise kids) able to work there's no good excuse why you can't raise a child that's healthy, that YOU conceived. End of story.

Not everyone would be better off or being able to handle a kid at the age of 16 just because a condom breaks. Maybe you didn't want to study further - but I'd prefer, if possible and if both parts agree on it, an abortion so I can study forward in peace and make sure I give my kid the best upbringing possible, both for mine and the child's sake.

AND, we could take the example of rape. A fifteen year old gets raped, and pregnancy occurs. Why, oh why, should she be forced to take care of a kid that is due to rape? Why **** up her childhood even beyond that? Why does the child have to live with the fact that its father is a rapist?


Moral of your arguing: "Don't have sex, because if you get pregnant when using contraception, you must **** your life over by taking care of your kid lol."

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

Well according to the law I'm not allowed to kill myself and no one else is allowed to kill me so doesn't that mean living is mandatory in a way? Quite forceful of them isn't it? XD

It is illegal to willfully kill yourself. But that doesn't man you have to keep yourself alive. So you could just let yourself starve to death and there's nothing illegal about it.

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

Well according to the law I'm not allowed to kill myself and no one else is allowed to kill me so doesn't that mean living is mandatory in a way? Quite forceful of them isn't it? XD

In Britain suicides are not illegal.

Originally Posted by Linkey

Moral of your arguing: "Don't have sex, because if you get pregnant when using contraception, you must **** your life over by taking care of your kid lol."

I think the moral of that argument goes like this: "They choose to have sex, they knew that contraceptions are not 100% foolproof. They should have th bear the brunt of their consyquences, because they made the choice in the first place,"

I agree with that line of reasoning, if someone got pregnant from having consentual sex then it should be thier responsability, as it was their choice. Abortion should NOT be used as birth control.

That being said I find it hard to say that a child who was raped should keep the child, the emotional aspects of being raped are far more severe then most people realize, and having to deal with the product of that day after day would be a knid of tourture no person so go through. So I am a little bit iffy about that one.

Abortion is a trickey subject, n one hand the right say "Abortion should be illegal," but that brings many problems into the open. Such as illegal Abortions causing in possibly the death of the mothers, and the rape exception, among other things. And on the other hand Allowing anyone at anytime to have an abortion cannot be tolerated as it could turn into just a birth control method, which it should not be. People should face the consequences of their actions, but even then there are some cases where if the child was born his life would be so miserable it might be better to let them go before they devolope a conciousness.

Though there are various view on what to do with abortion, I think the main thing that the goverment, and we the people should do. is try to lower the rate of teen pregnancy in the first place, through clearer sex education, and more promotion of safe-sex, which I for one as a student never taught, other then from watching TV. I think attacking the problem of rising abortion rates at it's route, would at least satisfy to a little extent both sides.

It's a tricky issue, and I have noticed so many stick to their side and refuse to comprimise.

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

I think the moral of that argument goes like this: "They choose to have sex, they knew that contraceptions are not 100% foolproof. They should have th bear the brunt of their consyquences, because they made the choice in the first place,"

That would sound very good and such, if it wasn't for the fact that I find it a very weak point against abortion; and the risk is eeeeeeextremely small - that's why it's called contraception.

I don't want to use abortion as birth control - it should be there when needed, but nothing to abuse.

Originally Posted by Linkey

That would sound very good and such, if it wasn't for the fact that I find it a very weak point against abortion; and the risk is eeeeeeextremely small - that's why it's called contraception.

I don't want to use abortion as birth control - it should be there when needed, but nothing to abuse.

But there is still a chance, and they know the risk when they have sex. Honestly If someone has sex and gets pregnant, them da breaks, it's still possible to have a life with your child(My Mother raised me and my brother basically alone, and got through University while working two jobs).

Abortion is a tricky subject, but I find it hard to say "You had sex and got pregnant? Well sure you can kill your unborn child," There are cases when it;s not so clear cut and abortion may be needed. But as a general rule, I think one should take responsability for their actions, ya know?

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

I think the moral of that argument goes like this: "They choose to have sex, they knew that contraceptions are not 100% foolproof. They should have th bear the brunt of their consyquences, because they made the choice in the first place,"

I agree with that line of reasoning, if someone got pregnant from having consentual sex then it should be thier responsability, as it was their choice. Abortion should NOT be used as birth control.

I argued against that line of reasoning, however, because here it's basically saying "even if you take measures to prevent something, you are responsible if it goes wrong, no matter how small the chance is of it happening". Having sex with contraception has a tiny risk of pregnancy, so if the contraception fails, they're responsible for getting pregnant. Likewise, I could argue that leaving the house during the day has a tiny risk of getting you killed or injured, and so if you do get killed, you only have yourself to blame.

That being said I find it hard to say that a child who was raped should keep the child, the emotional aspects of being raped are far more severe then most people realize, and having to deal with the product of that day after day would be a knid of tourture no person so go through. So I am a little bit iffy about that one.

So you're totally forgetting about the mothers who took measures to avoid pregnancy, which failed, and were refused further help. They have to spend day after day looking at a product which they didn't even want. The child will suffer as a result, too - some parents will gladly remind their child day after day that they were never wanted to begin with. Again, you protect the very state of living but disregard the quality of that life, but I've yet to see justifiable reason for that.

Though there are various view on what to do with abortion, I think the main thing that the goverment, and we the people should do. is try to lower the rate of teen pregnancy in the first place, through clearer sex education, and more promotion of safe-sex, which I for one as a student never taught, other then from watching TV. I think attacking the problem of rising abortion rates at it's route, would at least satisfy to a little extent both sides.

Here in Britain we have excellent health classes, such that many people I know have never had to have "the talk" with their parents. Unfortunately many people don't pay attention or just don't understand, so that doesn't help the teen pregnancy rate here.

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

But there is still a chance, and they know the risk when they have sex. Honestly If someone has sex and gets pregnant, them da breaks, it's still possible to have a life with your child(My Mother raised me and my brother basically alone, and got through University while working two jobs).

Abortion is a tricky subject, but I find it hard to say "You had sex and got pregnant? Well sure you can kill your unborn child," There are cases when it;s not so clear cut and abortion may be needed. But as a general rule, I think one should take responsability for their actions, ya know?

Every time you get in a car there's a small risk you could have an accident. Is it your responsibility just because you decided to get into the car?

Every time you leave the house there's a small risk you could get mugged, raped, and murdered. Is it your fault for leaving the house? Actually the same could happen even if you're IN your house. Purely by existing, there is a chance you could die at any moment. Is it your responsibility just because you continue to choose existing?

That's also a facetious chauvanistic argument as well. Every time a woman chooses to leave the kitchen, she exposes herself to the possibility of being raped. Is it her fault if she gets raped? Under your argument, this would mean even getting raped shouldn't allow abortions, because after all, it's her fault for leaving the kitchen to begin with!

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

I argued against that line of reasoning, however, because here it's basically saying "even if you take measures to prevent something, you are responsible if it goes wrong, no matter how small the chance is of it happening". Having sex with contraception has a tiny risk of pregnancy, so if the contraception fails, they're responsible for getting pregnant. Likewise, I could argue that leaving the house during the day has a tiny risk of getting you killed or injured, and so if you do get killed, you only have yourself to blame.

Good point. I suppose this is what I was trying to get, we may disagree on this facet of the issue, we can still agree that measures should be taken to redcue Teen pregnancy and Abortion in general.

So you're totally forgetting about the mothers who took measures to avoid pregnancy, which failed, and were refused further help. They have to spend day after day looking at a product which they didn't even want. The child will suffer as a result, too - some parents will gladly remind their child day after day that they were never wanted to begin with. Again, you protect the very state of living but disregard the quality of that life, but I've yet to see justifiable reason for that.

I am a product my mother never really wanted. As is my brother, as is my sister. Yet my mother was able to build us a great life, disipte the harships she faced, I understand the Quality of life is important, and some people should not be parents. What I am saying is, Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control, and Abortion shouldn't be used when the parent in question can give the child a worthwhile life.

Here in Britain we have excellent health classes, such that many people I know have never had to have "the talk" with their parents. Unfortunately many people don't pay attention or just don't understand, so that doesn't help the teen pregnancy rate here.

Yes i suppose their is that problem as well. I am not sure about britan, but where i live the only thing i learned about sex was from the internet, or TV.

Every time you get in a car there's a small risk you could have an accident. Is it your responsibility just because you decided to get into the car?

Every time you leave the house there's a small risk you could get mugged, raped, and murdered. Is it your fault for leaving the house? Actually the same could happen even if you're IN your house. Purely by existing, there is a chance you could die at any moment. Is it your responsibility just because you continue to choose existing?


That's also a facetious chauvanistic argument as well. Every time a woman chooses to leave the kitchen, she exposes herself to the possibility of being raped. Is it her fault if she gets raped?

It is never the victims fault they got raped.

You are using a flase anology, sex is preformed to acheive basically two things. I get pleasure, and to have children. Walking out of the kitchen is not "asking" to get raped, and a reaction to walking out of the kitchen is not "getting raped' I fail to see how your anology applies.

I also don't see how I am being Chauvanistic, I think the Male involved should help mraise the child as well, as the result was at much his fault as hers.

Put bluntly: The Pourpose of Sex is to have children. If you choose to have sex that is a responsability you should be willing to bear, if it does happen.

The pourpose of walking outside is not to get raped, murded or mugged. Your anology is false, and not applicable.

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

Good point. I suppose this is what I was trying to get, we may disagree on this facet of the issue, we can still agree that measures should be taken to redcue Teen pregnancy and Abortion in general.

I agree, see. In Britain, the taxpayer has to pay for abortions because the NHS is funded by the state, so abortion should only be used as a last resort. I don't restrict it to rape or the mother's biological health, however.

In America, it's a different situation. You have to pay for any medical treatment you get. So I don't see any valid grounds to deny a paying customer what she wants.

I am a product my mother never really wanted. As is my brother, as is my sister. Yet my mother was able to build us a great life, disipte the harships she faced, I understand the Quality of life is important, and some people should not be parents. What I am saying is, Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control, and Abortion shouldn't be used when the parent in question can give the child a worthwhile life.

But again, you've not given reasons why. You're just dictating that. Your mother managed to achieve it, some other mothers are not as able. You shouldn't wish such unease on people. If people want to take that repsonsibility, it is their choice. If they do not, it is their choice. There is no valid reason to deny them that choice.

If your mother chose to take you on as her responsibility, that was her choice. I commend her for it. That does not mean you should force anyone to do the same, because you can't really make an argument for adoption in that scenario either. Under your argument, if you get pregnant, it's not only your responsibility to bear the child, but also to raise it.

It is never the victims fault they got raped.

You are using a flase anology, sex is preformed to acheive basically two things. I get pleasure, and to have children. Walking out of the kitchen is not "asking" to get raped, and a reaction to walking out of the kitchen is not "getting raped' I fail to see how your anology applies.

I also don't see how I am being Chauvanistic, I think the Male involved should help mraise the child as well, as the result was at much his fault as hers.

Put bluntly: The Pourpose of Sex is to have children. If you choose to have sex that is a responsability you should be willing to bear, if it does happen.

The pourpose of walking outside is not to get raped, murded or mugged. Your anology is false, and not applicable.

Firstly I wasn't saying you were a chauvanist, but in all honesty any man who thinks they can control a woman's womb must be. Regardless.

Secondly my analogy is perfectly correct in your situation, because your argument was, quite simply, that if you do something knowing that there is a small risk of a particular event occurring, it is your responsibility if that event occurs, no matter what measures you take to prevent it. But now that you've moved the goalposts of your argument (because what you just said wasn't what you were originally arguing), your argument still doesn't apply.

The purpose of anything we do is with the intention that we do it. We, as humans, have rational thought, and if we give something a meaning and purpose beyond what it might have been originally created or used for, there's no reason we shouldn't. You can buy tools that do one thing, and use them for something completely different, never even intending to use them for the reason they were created.

People who have sex for pleasure, and not to have kids, take measures not to have kids. That is the entire point of contraception - to allow sex to be recreational without reproductive value. No one can say in this day and age that sex is purely for reproduction, because quite frankly we have given it more purpose than that, and now thanks to contraception you can have sex without worrying about getting pregnant, in the same manner that you can go outside and not worry about getting raped, because the two are equally unlikely.

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

But there is still a chance, and they know the risk when they have sex.

Absolutely. Still, the risk is as minimal and probably less than driving a car.

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

Honestly If someone has sex and gets pregnant, them da breaks, it's still possible to have a life with your child(My Mother raised me and my brother basically alone, and got through University while working two jobs).

It definitely is - but for a lot of people, it definitely wouldn't be the best life.

Originally Posted by Robin Goodfellow

Abortion is a tricky subject, but I find it hard to say "You had sex and got pregnant? Well sure you can kill your unborn child,"

I'm sure no one puts it like that.

Originally Posted by Linkey

Absolutely. Still, the risk is as minimal and probably less than driving a car.

True dat. Driving a car is hard work, even a minor lapse in concentration can put you into a wall.

I'm sure no one puts it like that.

I'd personally put it "You had sex and got pregnant? Well sure we can remove that foetus."

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

I agree, see. In Britain, the taxpayer has to pay for abortions because the NHS is funded by the state, so abortion should only be used as a last resort. I don't restrict it to rape or the mother's biological health, however.

In America, it's a different situation. You have to pay for any medical treatment you get. So I don't see any valid grounds to deny a paying customer what she wants.

I don't live in america xD

So if i pay an assasin to kill you...I should be allowed to do that because I am a paying customer, and that is what I want?

But again, you've not given reasons why. You're just dictating that. Your mother managed to achieve it, some other mothers are not as able. You shouldn't wish such unease on people. If people want to take that repsonsibility, it is their choice. If they do not, it is their choice. There is no valid reason to deny them that choice.

If your mother chose to take you on as her responsibility, that was her choice. I commend her for it. That does not mean you should force anyone to do the same, because you can't really make an argument for adoption in that scenario either. Under your argument, if you get pregnant, it's not only your responsibility to bear the child, but also to raise it.

I am not trying to force anyone to do anything. You are misunderstanding my statements, I do not think Abortion should be illegal, but I do not think it should be reccomended, or used a birth control. I think in some cases, as i have said before, abortion may be the only option to acheive health and saftey for the mother, and insure the child does not have to suffer.

Firstly I wasn't saying you were a chauvanist, but in all honesty any man who thinks they can control a woman's womb must be. Regardless.

I am not trying to control a womens womb, only suggestion they should take responsability for what goes in their

Secondly my analogy is perfectly correct in your situation, because your argument was, quite simply, that if you do something knowing that there is a small risk of a particular event occurring, it is your responsibility if that event occurs, no matter what measures you take to prevent it. But now that you've moved the goalposts of your argument (because that wasn't what you were originally arguing), your argument still doesn't apply.

What was i origionally arguing? i hope I didn't misrepresent my views.

But there is a difference between the two. I don't see how the two are applicable, as having babies is caused by having sex. Getting mugged isn't caused my walking outside, it is correlated(as usually you need be outside for it to be done) but it is not caused.

The purpose of anything we do is with the intention that we do it. We, as humans, have rational thought, and if we give something a meaning and purpose beyond what it might have been originally created or used for, there's no reason we shouldn't. You can buy tools that do one thing, and use them for something completely different, never even intending to use them for the reason they were created.

I onced used a rachet as a hammer, and it worked. But that was not it's intended purpose. Actually I am not sure what point I am making here xD

People who have sex for pleasure, and not to have kids, take measures not to have kids. That is the entire point of contraception - to allow sex to be recreational without reproductive value. No one can say in this day and age that sex is purely for reproduction, because quite frankly we have given it more purpose than that, and now thanks to contraception you can have sex without worrying about getting pregnant, in the same manner that you can go outside and not worry about getting raped, because the two are equally unlikely.

They take measures but understanding the rick(or so I would hope O-o). I am not saying sex is purely for reproduction, only that repoduction is inheritly caused by sex.

I am not trying to dictate who should and should not have abortions, only trying to say that it shouldn't be used as Birth Control, and that it shouldn't be promoted as something anyone who has sex should use. You know?

Perhapes if the world wasn't so obsessed by sex abortion would not happen as much. Ah to dream.

Absolutely. Still, the risk is as minimal and probably less than driving a car.

Cars where not designed to crash.

It definitely is - but for a lot of people, it definitely wouldn't be the best life.

My life isn't the best, far from it. However I love my life, and the fact I was able to keep it.

I'm sure no one puts it like that.

No, they are probabbly nicer about it. However that is the jist of what I hear from most people.

Edit: I should have known better then getting involved in such a partisan topic, of dear what have i wrought

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

True dat. Driving a car is hard work, even a minor lapse in concentration can put you into a wall.

Yet, it isn't outlawed.