sigh. abortion is only a problem because it's the women who gets pregnant. if men would have been able to get pregnant we would have drive-thru abortions by now.
It would be like:
"hey can i get an abortion and a cheeseburger please?"
Well, the main reason women are discriminated against so much is because of how they're designed. They need to be soft enough (physically speaking) to give birth and have kids and such. In order to do that, they're physically less capable (but they can still kick ass and are just as TOUGH as men) which makes them "lesser" to men for whatever reason. And we're designed to have periods and give birth, which makes us appear weak to them (some of them, at least) because periods and births suck.
Anyways, if men were able to give birth, they'd be on the same level and a lot more would probably agree with abortion. But it's not because they're men that they discriminate, it's because they don't know and can't relate which makes some of them more prone to ignorance and sexism.
Okay, that was confusing. But do you get the gist of what I'm saying?
Yes absolutely. I didn't mean anything offensive by my post, it's actually a joke from a swedish comedian :P But yeah, you're right, women "need" to be softer for the reasons you described, and it sucks that so many think of girls as a "weaker" species. I'm a guy, but I've always voted for the feminists/humanists, since they're working towards equality. With that said, stand strong and have a nice day :)
@antongustavos Don't worry, I didn't take anything offensively. I was just pointing that out. I mean, if men could have babies and were still somehow considered "better" than women, then you're (and the Swedish comedian, I suppose) completely right.
And, yeah, it does suck when people describe us as "weaker." Women are tough in their own way just as men are tough in their own way as well.
Anyways, I high five you for wanting equality and for being awesome. You have a nice day, too.
@vlekkie I agree with ricepudding, what are you talking about?
Who cares. Why do revert back to feminism? I'm sure a ton of men who don't want to drop half their cheque on a baby are pro abortion. Any new age, un religious, modern man is fine with it.
Grow up and stop hiding behind your mask that women are treated unfairly. If anything I would have to say they have more benefits these days. Go stand on parliament.
▼
deleted
· 11 years ago
Fluffy, clearly any rational arguments are going to fly right over your head, so to use your own words against you: you are an idiot.
@fluffybunny1982 Women ARE treated unfairly. Sure, we're a lot better off than in the 1800's, but there's still a lot of sexism and injustice. I don't understand how you can be so ignorant to something so simple.
1
deleted
· 11 years ago
@vlekkie are you saying that if women just stopped having random unprotected sex there'd be no need for abortion? It's not really that simple. Even with multiple forms of birth control, pregnancy is still possible. Pregnancy should never be a forced punishment for sexual behavior.
Something so simple? I watched 5, 230lb men get passed up for a policing job all atheletic and intelligent. All because the "quota" for women had to be filled. So in turn a 5'8" 155lbs women who can't wrestle a wedding band off a dead persons finger has the position. I'm so happy with "equality" these days, but hey as long as the right person got the job. @whocares are you out in the real world seeing how it works? Are you in the work force scratching for a living? Or are you just sitting behind your computer reading articles and commenting like every other internet cowboy SORRY cowperson around here. People like you who's voices are never heard in reality choose to write such ridiculous drivel. I've wasted enough of my time on someone so insignificant.
▼
deleted
· 11 years ago
Lol you're butthurt about affirmative action. Sure, cry/troll more.
@fluffybunny1982 Dear Lord. Clearly you don't know anything about women in the workforce. First of all, you've got to be more specific about this supposed quota in the police force. I would like to know more and check to see if it's actually true (I think there's a thirty-five percent women quota in India, but I'm not sure).
Further more, in the United States, it's still seventy-five cents to every dollar a man makes and it varies depending on what race you are. That's hardly fair. Women are sexually harassed every day and forced to have sex with their bosses in order to maintain their jobs. That's not fair.
Personally, I'm not scratching for a living. I don't have to yet. But my mother has and I see the effect it as on her and even though that's nothing compared to what it's really like, I at least have an idea. And, because of other various life experiences, I've seen some "real life."
You're right, I basically am sitting behind the computer commenting. Is that bad? Is it bad voi
(CONTINUED)
voicing my opinion, no matter how low my volume may be? Would it be better for you if I kept my mouth shut like a good little girl? Would that make you happy? Besides, my voice is heard fine as for right now. I'm not planning on anything big yet. Maybe in the future.
By the way, it's not ridiculous drivel. It's my views, beliefs, and opinions. Those can neither be labeled as ridiculous or intelligence because it's an OPINION. And calling me insignificant is the fool's retreat. But that's just my opinion, so there's no logical reason for you to get upset over it. Besides, we're all insignificant. In the grand scheme of everything, we're nothing more than mere specks, so that "insult" really doesn't affect me at all.
Okay I've just got to pop in here for a second. The idea that women are paid less than men for the same work is a myth. In overall statistics yes men do earn more, but its not because of some "privilege." Its because men tend to focus more on their careers and women tend to focus more on having a balanced lifestyle. Its because men are more likely to go for those high pay, high stress, life consuming jobs, and women just go for those jobs less often. Its because when a woman has a child she has to focus on the baby more than her career. She has to give birth, breast feed, and take care of the baby. When men get children they can still stay late at work and spend most of their energy on work, but when women get children they can't stay late at work and they need to spend a lot of their energy on taking care of their kids (this, of course, isn't a necessity. Its just that women tend to be the primary care givers of families).
Your assertion that women are constantly harassed is not true and that women are forced to have sex with their bosses is ridiculous (as if its some sort of common thing, come on now really?). Furthermore neither of these things are discrimination. They're rude and evil, respectively, but not discrimination. Sure these things happen but they don't justify any special government intervention or special victim status for women in general. You know what you do when you're forced to have sex? Report it to the police. You know what you do when you're being harassed at work? Report it to HR or leave, like any self respecting human being would do. I had a job where I got (not sexually) harassed a lot. You know what I did? Got a new job.
@cheshire23 That's absolute bullshit. Men do not focus more on their careers than women, that's unfounded and not true. Men do not go for those high pay, high stress, life consuming jobs more often. You know what's a low pay, high stress, life consuming job? Teaching and that's a field in which women work more than men. When a woman has a child, she does not always focus more on the baby. Besides, not all women have children anyways, so should we punish all of them for something only SOME do (besides, men can take time off as well, this isn't limited to women). And are you saying that we should pay women less when they have a child? Yeah, that's logical. When men get children, sometimes they can't stay late at work and they spend a lot of energy on their kids. This isn't limited to women. That's ridiculous.
Just because it's not too common doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And this rarely happens to men, which just furthers my point on how being a working woman is hard. And I never sai
(CONTINUED)
said the government should step in or that they should be given victim status for women in general. Where did you get that? Anyways, a lot of people don't have the option of reporting to the police or to H.R. because a lot of people don't have anywhere else to go. I mean, lucky for you that you have other options, but a lot of people don't and they can't take a stand because that means they'll lose their jobs and won't have another one to go to.
Why should women be punished for having families? Workplaces should give wages and support for all their employees. Also, there is a gender inequality problem when careers that are traditionally considered masculine are paid more for the same amount of skill and time than traditionally feminine careers.
@ricepudding I'm not suggesting that women be punished for having families. Its not a punishment its a consequence of choice. If a women chooses to have a family (and is the primary care giver of her children) then she simply has less time to invest in her career and will therefore make less.
@vlekkie Well I hope you at least learn something.
@whocares Teaching is not a high stress job. Its a great deal where you get to degrade the mental integrity of children as you wait for your pension to start and laze around during an entire quarter of the year you get off.
She does have to focus more on the baby. Unless there is someone else whose going to be the primary care giver, to not focus on her baby is extremely abusive. Jesus. Do you realize that neglect actually causes more physical damage in the brain than sexual? If you choose to have a child you need to take care of that child or be with someone who will. Its a hell of a lot more than just feeding, clothing and changing a baby.
CONTINUED
It takes A LOT of time.
Men do tend to go for higher stress jobs for example: soldier, cop, miner, firefighter, oil rig worker, and I believe surgeon. These are all fields dominated by men (I've never actually seen a female firefighter, is that a strength thing?). I'd also like to point to the fact that men live shorter lives than women.
At this point I'd like to make sure everyone understands I believe in gender equality. I think women are perfectly capable of doing whatever job a man can, its just, statistically, they tend to stray away from certain jobs. Wouldn't want you all to get the wrong impression.
I'm sorry about this but I forgot to mention in my previous comment that women who don't/haven't started their families yet make just as much as men. Women who are not their child's primary care giver (ex- husband takes this role) also make just as much as men. Women are not punished with lower pay because of the choices of other women.
CONT
You're right, you didn't say anything about the government stepping in. Its just that whenever I hear those claims its always followed by an enthusiastic "And the government should DO something about that!" It was my own personal bias reading into your comment and I apologize. If you don't suggest government intervention as the solution, what do you think would be a good way to solve those problems?
fluffybunny1982 I'd like to ask you to not agree with me. You're the guy that supported a eugenics program up above. I really don't need the support of those sorts.
However if you are going to agree with me and say anything I'd appreciate it if you did so with less vitriol and ad hominen than in your previous comments.
Because if it involves their body, they have the right to choose what they do with it. An unwanted child is more likely to grow up in an abusive household.
120,000 babies are put up for adoption per year, and if abortion was made illegal, that number would go through the roof. If there isn't enough families seeking to adopt, do you know how many children wouldn't be adopted?
Oh ok so it's better to kill the babies? It's better that nobody tries? It's better to just give up and kill the baby? That's so nice
And no, it's not really your body, it's a babies body, that your killing
And Angela, it does also involve the woman who is carrying the baby. Aborting them may not be the best decision, but from a political view, women are people too and should be able to make their own decisions. The only reason why I am slightly for it is strictly because of women to have the right to choose. Nobody is going to agree with everybody, but we can at least respect others decisions, regardless if we think its right or wrong.
I would like to point out that pregnancy is different for everyone. Someone mentioned in another post that a lot of disabled kids aren't wanted for adoption, which is true. And also being pregnant is expensive itself and a lot of people don't have that money. There's a dozen different scenarios for dozens of women which is why I think abortion should be legal. You can't just take away that right from someone. And if you did, I imagine a lot more women would be dying from back-alley procedures in the middle of the night.
There are also many health risks to the mother that may need to be considered, both physical and mental. If a woman was raped and conceived..imagine carrying that memory with you....
Exactly. And don't say something like "you could apply for an abortion if it was rape" because that doesn't work. Dozen of women today are being called liars when they accuse rape, pregnant or not, and dozens of rapists are getting off for things such as "she was dressed provocatively" or "she was already a hooker" which goes to show how unfair the legal system is as of now. Not to mention rape is incredibly traumatic and plenty of women never tell anyone because they just CAN'T. And, the simple thing is, they shouldn't have to get permission. It's THEIR body, let them do what they want.
As for the physical aspect of it, what if the woman's body physically can't support a pregnancy or giving birth? What if the woman will die if she gives birth? Should we forbid her from aborting the baby then?
Or what if they work in an industry where it's important to be fit and/or skinny? Like a model or an athlete? Pregnancy would ruin that for sure. Most would lose their jobs right before they h
Personally I think abortion is awful, a tragedy in every case. I don't know if its immoral. Its hard to say for such a complicated issue. Even though I don't like it I still think it should be legal. If you're thinking of something illegal you need to remember that to use a law is to use force. We're all comfortable using force to drag a murderer to jail, and to escalate that force if they resist, all the way to even shooting them if they resist enough. I for one am not comfortable dragging a woman to jail for having an abortion. I'm not comfortable escalating the use of force against a woman for getting an abortion. While I don't like abortion I think that a law is the worse evil. What I think we should do is encourage women to go through adoption if there aren't complications, and to shame the trollops who use abortion as a form of birth control.
Well said, cheshire23. I agree. I think it's better to do adoption than abortion, but I can't say that for every woman because of what's above. Besides, I don't think it's fair for a bunch of middle-aged men to decide what I can and can't do.
I think that every human being should be sterile to begin with. Have to fill out an application and go through a screening process of equities and psychological interviews etc to have a child. All these people having children that are on subsidized housing and mothers allowance are ridiculous. Subsidized daycare just mommy can go grab a bottle of hooch, stand on the corner and find the next lucky man who can't afford a child. I'm pro abortion as it is the lesser of the two evils.
But the thing about that is the government gets much tighter control on things and we begin to lose our personal freedoms. Things like being qualified to have a child can easily go back to gay marriage and forcing us to be "qualified" to marry.
fluffybunny1982 that's called a eugenics program. I don't know what country you're from but quite a few countries tried this is large and small doses before WW2. America was one of these countries to try it out and it ended up being a terrible thing, which from my point of view seems the obvious result. I agree with you that there are tons and tons of people who are absolutely not qualified to have children, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to sterilize other people, that's just horrible. We all know that what you subsidize increases and what you tax decreases. Single and married people are being taxed to subsidize single mothers who've made bad choices. This is a terrible way to run a society. Children really need to have two parents, be they gay or hetero. Its simply to hard to raise a child yourself, especially if you're working.
I don't think abortion is right in most cases. Ive known of some people, due to their circumstances, who have had to have an abortion because the fetus would not survive through pregnancy.
But in non-medical cases, I strongly believe abortion is wrong. Pregnancy only lasts 9 months. It's 9 months you would have to sacrifice for another LIFE.
Adoption is a realistic option. Even if the baby has no family and is put through the system, they can still make a life for themselves after they turn 18. Give the child a chance.
An argument that a fetus is a life, is the fact that Will and Kate's fetus was called the "royal baby" before he was even born.
Then why do people have babies they are just going to kill? It makes no sense, and it doesn't matter if it doesn't feel pain. It's growing, it's real, it's not a game. And sure it's a choice, a bad one. I mean being brought to life so it would be killed so quickly? Ok so you are supporting death. What if the baby was born then killed? You will probably say it's different they feel pain, talking like the baby is a dog.
▼
deleted
· 11 years ago
You're assuming that people are always intentionally getting pregnant. Obviously abortion is not a game or an easy choice. However, there are times when it's preferable to the alternative.
Some examples: not enough income or desire to support a baby so multiple forms of birth control used. Pill fails and there's a microscopic tear in the condom. In that case, the couple has been smart and done everything they could. Another example: the single mother became accidentally pregnant using birth control. She works with dangerous chemicals and is unable to change jobs at that point. Rather than putting herself and her child at risk, it is safer to terminate. Further examples: cases of rape/incest. Another: the pregnancy is so hard on the mother that her life is at stake if she carries to term. More: a mother with an inherited disability who doesn't want to pass on the condition.
As I've mentioned before, the adoption system is not powerful enough to support every single unwanted pregnancy.
Okay well let's put you into a scenario. Let's say you're pregnant, okay? You go to the doctor and find out you have a medical condition that would kill you if you continue to carry this baby. Your chances of survival after birth is slim and there's a chance the baby could die anyways before or after birth. You could go on and carry the baby and die at the end, with your baby growing up without a mother, assuming the baby is healthy when born, or you could save your own life, and abort the baby, knowing that there's a chance the baby could die anyways if you were to die while giving birth. Which would you choose?
And don't try to say the scenario is unrealistic because women have been forced to make a choice like this.
Ok, so if you get pregnant by mistake, it's ok to kill it because you don't want it. That's nice. Mistake or not it needs to live.
▼
deleted
· 11 years ago
There are also some chromosomal conditions where the baby's life expectancy is only up to a few months old and would require a lot of (expensive!) medical support during that short life time. Sometimes it's easier on the family to terminate by choice early on.
3
deleted
· 11 years ago
Why should a bundle of unthinking, unfeeling cells have more rights than sentient people? It's not just about casually rejecting it, but being unable to care for it for one reason or another.
Well isn't abortion equal to murder ? Not by law just if you think about it.
▼
deleted
· 11 years ago
Murder involves intentionally and maliciously ending a person's life. An embryo does not have a consciousness, emotions, memories, or the ability to be aware of its surroundings. (Not until late in the pregnancy, anyway. For the record, I am against late-term abortion except in extreme cases.) An embryo is also incapable of supporting life on its own. Therefore, it is not a person and can't be murdered.
He doesn't grow into a human, but that's my opinion
▼
deleted
· 11 years ago
My point was that at that stage an embryo has no more of a human mind than a tapeworm does.
Also, the potential to become a human is not the same as actually being one. A blank canvas with tubes of paint and brushes is not yet a painting, even though all the pieces are there. Likewise, a developing embryo is not human. You can't murder something that isn't human.
Your comment "he doesn't grow into a human" implied that a fetus does, and therefore is not yet considered human. I took that to mean we were agreed on that point. My definition of murder came from an online dictionary: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".
1
deleted
· 11 years ago
Yes, we are having a debate that involves opinions, but some of it can be supported by evidence. The lack of consciousness in embryos isn't my opinion, it's fact.
It is still alive although not conscious, that is also a fact. It can grow up to be the President of the USA, looking it from a Christian point of view, God has a plan for everybody by abortion the little "person's" plan is shattered.
▼
deleted
· 11 years ago
I'm not getting into a religious debate here; I am personally atheist and the Christian point of view is not relevant to my arguments. I think that's a whole other discussion. The only thing I will say regarding god is that for all we know he could have intended for abortions to happen as part of his plans.
2
deleted
· 11 years ago
Regarding the potential of the embryo: people do not have limitless potential. An unwanted child is much more likely to grow up in a home that doesn't provide the necessary nurturing to support his possible role in society. The chances are even lower if he has a disability. To say that all unborn children have the potential to be world leaders is a fantasy.
Please note: I have studied child development and early education. I work with young children and I'm well aware of what they are capable of. Nothing in my argument is anti-children.
So you infer that because that the fetus doesn't feel or know anything, it's ok to kill it. I agree it is like murder if you think about it. Murder is intentionally killing someone, aren't you doing that? All that was said it that it doesn't feel or know anything and has no memories. God has a plan for every single person, shattering somebody else's isn't good. Also, it doesn't have to be from a Christians point of view, but could also be anybody's point of view. There are plenty of people that say you were put in this planet for a reason. Killing a fetus is kinda like killing a helpless person. Sure it can't do anything, so killing it would be fine? Right? No.
▼
deleted
· 11 years ago
As I said, maybe god planned for those embryos to be killed in abortions. :) You aren't really adding new points to the argument, so I'll just refer you to my previous points.
Oh yes that makes sense God made a new living person to be killed
▼
deleted
· 11 years ago
The point I'm making is that you have no more idea than I do as to what a god would intend. Vlekkie says the fetus could be president. I say it could commit genocide. All we can do is speculate. That's why there's not much point in making a religious argument.
Yes, but you don't need that much support you can just try. I know a lot of people who grow and grew up in difficult surcumbstances and they are doing great. But I do then also get the effects it's going to have on the adoption system, I just think they need a new reliable way to stop this.
·
Edited 11 years ago
deleted
· 11 years ago
Vlekkie, it actually takes a lot of support to succeed. You may know a few exceptions, but that doesn't change the general rule.
It would be nice if there were a better adoption system. There would still be the matter of going through the actual pregnancy itself though.
1
deleted
· 11 years ago
Angela, you say it doesn't make sense for god to make a new living thing die, but what about miscarriages and newborn deaths? Either killing babies is part of your God's plan, or he's not powerful enough to stop it.
Miscarriages come because of mistakes, you scientifically made a baby. Gods plan wasn't meant for you to have it. God doesn't have plans for people to kill them
▼
deleted
· 11 years ago
Angela, you remind me of a famous quote. "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
Sure, though it's kind of off-topic and I don't really want to get into a debate about it. Basically, I see religions as myths: stories that were made to explain phenomena before the scientific method was developed. It lives on because people either find comfort in it, fear it, or don't understand the actual explanations. Some believe that religion is the cause of morality; I disagree entirely. Human beings have a vast capacity for empathy, and do not need the threat of hell or the promise of heaven to do good. Sure, it's a nice thought to believe that everyone on earth was put here for a reason and can go to heaven, but I just don't agree. We can choose our own meaning and purpose. Sometimes people might think that I've denounced god because of some personal trauma. (The "bitter atheist" stereotype.) On the contrary, I am quite happy with my life and don't need supernatural forces to feel complete. (Continued)
1
deleted
· 11 years ago
From a rational perspective, the existence of god always raises more questions than answers. For example, there is tons of evidence for evolution, yet others reject it in favour of intelligent design. Some even think that god started evolution. However, that doesn't explain where the god would have come from. Faith for the sake of faith is illogical. Also, the scientific method means that theories change over time as new evidence is discovered. Rather than being wishy-washy, it shows flexibility and the ability to synthesize the ever-expanding pool of knowledge. Religion, on the other hand, ignores change and clings to the same ideas from thousands of years ago. Or sometimes ideas do change and you end up with different sects, each one believing to know the truth.
Anyway, I think that's pretty much my beliefs in a nutshell. As much as I find religion irrational, I would never try to deny others the right to believe. (As long as they aren't being giant dicks.) =)
Haha , there is also physical evidence of christianity.
▼
deleted
· 11 years ago
The existence of god can't be proven with the scientific method, and so I have no reason to believe.
Anyway, back to abortion. Are there any other points to be made that don't depend on religion? I'm not really interested in arguing whether or not a bundle of embryonic cells has a soul or greater purpose.
Ok ricepudding let's debate about the dinosaur thing
deleted
· 11 years ago
Fluffy, rice pudding is delicious. I hardly ever get to have it though because of the lactose. :( The rice adds a very nice texture. I would recommend trying it.
Vlekkie, I'm not really very interested in dinosaurs. Also, I think it would be better to start a new debate on a new thread since this one is so full of posts.
It would be like:
"hey can i get an abortion and a cheeseburger please?"
Anyways, if men were able to give birth, they'd be on the same level and a lot more would probably agree with abortion. But it's not because they're men that they discriminate, it's because they don't know and can't relate which makes some of them more prone to ignorance and sexism.
Okay, that was confusing. But do you get the gist of what I'm saying?
And, yeah, it does suck when people describe us as "weaker." Women are tough in their own way just as men are tough in their own way as well.
Anyways, I high five you for wanting equality and for being awesome. You have a nice day, too.
@vlekkie I agree with ricepudding, what are you talking about?
Further more, in the United States, it's still seventy-five cents to every dollar a man makes and it varies depending on what race you are. That's hardly fair. Women are sexually harassed every day and forced to have sex with their bosses in order to maintain their jobs. That's not fair.
Personally, I'm not scratching for a living. I don't have to yet. But my mother has and I see the effect it as on her and even though that's nothing compared to what it's really like, I at least have an idea. And, because of other various life experiences, I've seen some "real life."
You're right, I basically am sitting behind the computer commenting. Is that bad? Is it bad voi
voicing my opinion, no matter how low my volume may be? Would it be better for you if I kept my mouth shut like a good little girl? Would that make you happy? Besides, my voice is heard fine as for right now. I'm not planning on anything big yet. Maybe in the future.
By the way, it's not ridiculous drivel. It's my views, beliefs, and opinions. Those can neither be labeled as ridiculous or intelligence because it's an OPINION. And calling me insignificant is the fool's retreat. But that's just my opinion, so there's no logical reason for you to get upset over it. Besides, we're all insignificant. In the grand scheme of everything, we're nothing more than mere specks, so that "insult" really doesn't affect me at all.
Just because it's not too common doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And this rarely happens to men, which just furthers my point on how being a working woman is hard. And I never sai
said the government should step in or that they should be given victim status for women in general. Where did you get that? Anyways, a lot of people don't have the option of reporting to the police or to H.R. because a lot of people don't have anywhere else to go. I mean, lucky for you that you have other options, but a lot of people don't and they can't take a stand because that means they'll lose their jobs and won't have another one to go to.
@vlekkie Well I hope you at least learn something.
@whocares Teaching is not a high stress job. Its a great deal where you get to degrade the mental integrity of children as you wait for your pension to start and laze around during an entire quarter of the year you get off.
She does have to focus more on the baby. Unless there is someone else whose going to be the primary care giver, to not focus on her baby is extremely abusive. Jesus. Do you realize that neglect actually causes more physical damage in the brain than sexual? If you choose to have a child you need to take care of that child or be with someone who will. Its a hell of a lot more than just feeding, clothing and changing a baby.
It takes A LOT of time.
Men do tend to go for higher stress jobs for example: soldier, cop, miner, firefighter, oil rig worker, and I believe surgeon. These are all fields dominated by men (I've never actually seen a female firefighter, is that a strength thing?). I'd also like to point to the fact that men live shorter lives than women.
At this point I'd like to make sure everyone understands I believe in gender equality. I think women are perfectly capable of doing whatever job a man can, its just, statistically, they tend to stray away from certain jobs. Wouldn't want you all to get the wrong impression.
I'm sorry about this but I forgot to mention in my previous comment that women who don't/haven't started their families yet make just as much as men. Women who are not their child's primary care giver (ex- husband takes this role) also make just as much as men. Women are not punished with lower pay because of the choices of other women.
You're right, you didn't say anything about the government stepping in. Its just that whenever I hear those claims its always followed by an enthusiastic "And the government should DO something about that!" It was my own personal bias reading into your comment and I apologize. If you don't suggest government intervention as the solution, what do you think would be a good way to solve those problems?
However if you are going to agree with me and say anything I'd appreciate it if you did so with less vitriol and ad hominen than in your previous comments.
And no, it's not really your body, it's a babies body, that your killing
Except if you debate ice cream. Cuz that stuff is amazing!
As for the physical aspect of it, what if the woman's body physically can't support a pregnancy or giving birth? What if the woman will die if she gives birth? Should we forbid her from aborting the baby then?
Or what if they work in an industry where it's important to be fit and/or skinny? Like a model or an athlete? Pregnancy would ruin that for sure. Most would lose their jobs right before they h
had a kid. And even if you're not planning to keep the child, pregnancy is expensive.
But in non-medical cases, I strongly believe abortion is wrong. Pregnancy only lasts 9 months. It's 9 months you would have to sacrifice for another LIFE.
Adoption is a realistic option. Even if the baby has no family and is put through the system, they can still make a life for themselves after they turn 18. Give the child a chance.
An argument that a fetus is a life, is the fact that Will and Kate's fetus was called the "royal baby" before he was even born.
As I've mentioned before, the adoption system is not powerful enough to support every single unwanted pregnancy.
And don't try to say the scenario is unrealistic because women have been forced to make a choice like this.
Also, the potential to become a human is not the same as actually being one. A blank canvas with tubes of paint and brushes is not yet a painting, even though all the pieces are there. Likewise, a developing embryo is not human. You can't murder something that isn't human.
Please note: I have studied child development and early education. I work with young children and I'm well aware of what they are capable of. Nothing in my argument is anti-children.
It would be nice if there were a better adoption system. There would still be the matter of going through the actual pregnancy itself though.
Anyway, I think that's pretty much my beliefs in a nutshell. As much as I find religion irrational, I would never try to deny others the right to believe. (As long as they aren't being giant dicks.) =)
Anyway, back to abortion. Are there any other points to be made that don't depend on religion? I'm not really interested in arguing whether or not a bundle of embryonic cells has a soul or greater purpose.
Vlekkie, I'm not really very interested in dinosaurs. Also, I think it would be better to start a new debate on a new thread since this one is so full of posts.