I'm going to skip the big bang stuff because you've obviously demonstrated that you have no comprehension of the subject, let alone basic chemistry and biology, and it's completely off-topic.

I'm not stupid, I know what the big bang theory is. Geeze.

Yes, you are killing it. No one is saying that you're not killing something. And I'm not sure what you mean by a person not being human.

Well according to definition it's not a person per say. But is it a human?

Originally Posted by Hayzel

I'm not stupid, I know what the big bang theory is. Geeze.

Based on what you said, I beg to differ, but it's off topic anyway.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Well according to definition it's not a person per say. But is it a human?

Is it a human (noun)? No, it is not. Is it human (adjective)? Yes. It's just as human as a severed hand or a strand of hair or the baby tooth you put under your pillow. But it is not a whole human by any means.

And plus, even if a fetus has a heartbeat, it doesn't have a brain or a conscience (well, at the early stages that is). All it is, as Keyori put it, is a clump of cells living off of the mother. Almost parasitic, as Naluc said. :o

I'm not necessarily for aborting a fetus that has begun to mature into a baby, but if an unwanted pregnancy happens, and it's still really early, I see no trouble. I mean, unless expenses come into play, why wouldn't someone abort at the early stage of pregnancy anyways? Now that's not a serious question, I was just saying...

I remember hearing, on the radio, that some insurance agencies are beginning to deny women help in funding for this operation. I forgot the specific details, but I was on the road when I heard it and I remember feeling bad for those women and, perhaps, that is why a woman ends up waiting till a later stage before she can afford to abort.

I have contradicting beliefs within myself. I feel that a child is not a punishment, irregardless of the situation, and if you don't want a child, then use condoms. However, I do know that humans are a sexual race. Sex is a part of what we are and things happen. Yay for "where do we draw the line"-topics...

Originally Posted by demoscout

I'm not necessarily for aborting a fetus that has begun to mature into a baby, but if an unwanted pregnancy happens, and it's still really early, I see no trouble.

This is how the laws in most states already are. The later you are in your term, the more difficult it is to obtain permission for an abortion.

Originally Posted by demoscout

I forgot the specific details, but I was on the road when I heard it and I remember feeling bad for those women and, perhaps, that is why a woman ends up waiting till a later stage before she can afford to abort.

I'm not sure that's really the reason that women have abortions late into term, since the longer you wait, the more costly the procedure becomes. Now, I'm just speculating on this, but I believe that many women who abort later rather than sooner are doing one of three things:

1) Aborting based on the undesired sex of the fetus (which is illegal in several states, but I personally think should be illegal in all states).

2) Are unaware of their pregnancy until late into term (several women even carry to term and don't realize they're in labor until they're in a hospital bed pushing out a child... it's weird, but it happens).

3) Terminating a pregnancy that risks the health of the mother or fetus due to complications that were not detected earlier in the term.

I'm about to go to lunch, so I don't have any sources off-hand to back this up, but these are what my initial thoughts on the matter are.


Edit: I found a study.

These 420 women [who had abortions after the 16th week of pregnancy] were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents."

So really, is the problem with late-term abortions really the abortion itself? Or is the problem the fact that women aren't receiving useful education about sex and pregnancy? Perhaps we could reduce these abortions by properly educating women, instead of by providing them with no resources until after the fact.

I realize that these figures add up to more than 100%; My guess is that the women were allowed to choose more than one reason.

I'd also like to footnote by saying that the study was done about 20 or so years ago, so these percentages may have shifted. I'll continue to look for something more recent.

Nah, I was a bit tired this morning and forgot about those additional things.
The first one that you mentioned, especially. I had just recently gone over that with fellow students in my Crit-reasoning class.

edit: that is an interesting study you found, there. I can agree that one of the problems is Improper education or no education at all when it comes to sex.

I know that this was brought up way earlier in this thread, but some women totally abuse, what I think, the true purpose of an abortion. I may be wrong about this, but this is how I see things. I've always seen the core value of abortion as a method of relieving the woman of the stress of either a surprise/unwanted pregnancy or complications which would put the mother's health at risk if the baby was born. I just can't stand that some women would intentionally have unprotected sex and then shrug it off by thinking they can just abort OR abort just for the sake of gender preference. I know that gender preference is, for the most part, a cultural thing in some parts of the world, but I still feel it's an abuse of the method.

/end rant
^^;

Originally Posted by demoscout

I know that this was brought up way earlier in this thread, but some women totally abuse, what I think, the true purpose of an abortion. I may be wrong about this, but this is how I see things... I just can't stand that some women would intentionally have unprotected sex and then shrug it off by thinking they can just abort OR abort just for the sake of gender preference. I know that gender preference is, for the most part, a cultural thing in some parts of the world, but I still feel it's an abuse of the method.

I can agree with that. Though, I think you'd be happy to know that over half of the women who get abortions are at least using contraception; the problem lies with women who don't use it consistently. (source)

Again, I think this is an education issue. A lot of women who are on the pill, for example, can become "super-fertile" if they suddenly stop taking it (the pill was originally developed to help cure infertility by forcing a woman's body to overcompensate hormonally after a period of chemically-induced infertility). So this might be part of it, as it isn't really in the pamphlet you get with your contraception. I think the common conception is the opposite--that it takes a while for the chemicals to "flush out of your system" and will thus keep working for a period after you stop taking them.

I'd also like to note that almost 90% of abortions occur before the 12-week mark. Meaning, second-trimester abortions are rare (and are usually done by teens who wait too long). Third-trimester abortions only make up 1% of all abortions, and are extremely rare (and extremely difficult to obtain).

80% are even before the 10-week mark, when an embryo becomes a fetus.

Yeah, I don't know these percentages, so I'm left with using "some" women. xD

I am, actually, glad to see that, but there is still that small percentage of women who do what I mentioned above.
Those women are the ones who just don't use contraception at all and go to abortion as their savior.

Indeed, another issue is women who do not consistently stay on their birth control. There are definitely other methods of preventing pregnancy like getting the tubes tied. I'm sure it's much more expensive than a pack of B.C. pills, but it's definitely an alternative. Better yet, it's reversible. My mom did that some number of years after she had my sis.

You know, I understand why some people would get an abortion. Like Rape victims or when it endangers the mother's health, however I disagree with the fact that the majority of states in the United States don't even require parents notification of an abortion of a minor. I think abortions should be saved for the people who really need them instead of stupid kids and inconvenienced women.

But then again, only about 6% of abortions are done for the health of the mother and less than 1% are done because of a rape or incest.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

I think abortions should be saved for the people who really need them instead of stupid kids and inconvenienced women.

Poverty is merely an inconvenience? Not being able to finish high school is merely an inconvenience? Are you aware how difficult it is to find a job right now, let alone without a high school diploma or even a 2-year degree, and try to find someone to care for your child while you work? You would really rather them be on welfare for the rest of their lives?

Originally Posted by Guttmacher Institute Study

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

Which would you prefer: a child being born to a mother who doesn't want it and/or can't care for it and having an unhappy, unloved, and possibly impoverished life, or that same child never being born and not having to suffer that life? It needs to be a woman's choice whether or not she gives birth. If it isn't, the world becomes overpopulated with children born into unhappy lives.
Furthermore, what if the woman or the fetus has a medical condition that will cause either the baby, the mother, or both to die if she goes through with it? Should she really endanger both herself and the child by trying to give birth?

Unwanted childbirths ruin both the baby and the mother's lives. The mother might not have a job yet, might not be able to finish high school (much less college), might be kicked out of her parents' home, might be in an abusive relationship, might simply not have the resources, time, or love to give an extra person. The baby might be born into poverty, born to a mother who never went to college and therefore can't keep a steady career, might be born homeless, or to an abusive father, or to a mother who can't care for it and/or can't find love for it, because she never wanted a baby in the first place.

Poverty is merely an inconvenience? Not being able to finish high school is merely an inconvenience? Are you aware how difficult it is to find a job right now, let alone without a high school diploma or even a 2-year degree, and try to find someone to care for your child while you work?

Then maybe you kids shouldn't be getting pregnant before they finish high school or before they can afford a child. Contraceptives aren't that expensive and there's is always the option of adoption which people seem to be so against it's ridiculous.

You would really rather them be on welfare for the rest of their lives?

I'd rather that the children be on welfare than dead, yes.

Which would you prefer: a child being born to a mother who doesn't want it and/or can't care for it and having an unhappy, unloved, and possibly impoverished life, or that same child never being born and not having to suffer that life?

There is something called adoption and there's also Child Services if the child is being abused or neglected in some way. And at least they have the chance to make a life for themselves.

It needs to be a woman's choice whether or not she gives birth.

It's her choice to get pregnant in the first place. THAT is when she makes the choice.

If it isn't, the world becomes overpopulated with children born into unhappy lives.

Did you know that if you took EVERYONE in the world, put them into families of four and gave them half an acre, then you wouldn't even fill up Texas? What's this problem of overpopulation? And there are such things as contraceptives that do the same thing, prevent birth only they prevent pregnancy as well.

Furthermore, what if the woman or the fetus has a medical condition that will cause either the baby, the mother, or both to die if she goes through with it?

You should've read my post. I said if it's life threatening for the mother, I understand the abortion. But only about 6% of abortions are done for this reason.

Are you saying retarded people aren't people too? There is always a chance of survival because Doctor's don't know everything.

Unwanted childbirths ruin both the baby and the mother's lives.

So instead of adopting and making both happy, you just ruin one life. That makes lots of sense. Yes, preventing the fetus from fully developing is preventing a child from living a full life.

The mother might not have a job yet, might not be able to finish high school (much less college), might be kicked out of her parents' home, might be in an abusive relationship, might simply not have the resources, time, or love to give an extra person.

If she's got that many problems then she should 1. Not get pregnant. and 2. Not keep a baby if she DID get pregnant.

The baby might be born into poverty, born to a mother who never went to college and therefore can't keep a steady career, might be born homeless, or to an abusive father, or to a mother who can't care for it and/or can't find love for it, because she never wanted a baby in the first place.

Hell-oooo. It's called responsibility. If you can't afford a child, don't get pregnant. That's done by using contraceptives or using the BEST birth control: no sex until a baby is actually affordable. There is also adoption in which case ALL MEDICAL BILLS are paid for by the adopting parents.

There are some "fetus' " that also survive abortion, especially late abortions. If we're killing a fetus that could survive by breathing and being able to eat and pass waste then that's murder.

Also, about 51.8% of all abortions occur to women whose yearly family income is greater than $30,000. What about those women? Almost 70% of all abortions occur in women who are 22+, being that 22 is the age the average person graduates from a 4-year college.

Source

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Then maybe you kids shouldn't be getting pregnant before they finish high school or before they can afford a child. Contraceptives aren't that expensive and there's is always the option of adoption which people seem to be so against it's ridiculous.

You say that like all these minors even have access to contraceptives. Only 21 states and D.C. allow minors to consent on their own to contraceptive services. 21 other states limit which minors can consent. Summary, Full report. I'd like to emphasize the study's finding that minors who have to involve their parents are less likely to seek these services. Only three states even fully-fund contraceptive services for minors.

Additionally, even though these contraceptives aren't "expensive" to you, most of the girls getting pregnant are already below the poverty line, and if they're a minor, they're likely not using insurance because their parents would find out (and that's assuming they have any). My old low-dose pills were $56 a pack for generics without my insurance coverage. I could easily spend that same $56 on two weeks of groceries for myself.

If we can't, as a nation, pull our heads out of our butts and properly fund comprehensive sex education, contraceptive education, and STI/STD/HIV education, and couple it with unrestricted (but not necessarily free) access to contraceptive services, then we're sure as hell going to see more reactive birth control methods (such as Plan B and abortion) than preventative methods.

There is something called adoption

Adoption doesn't solve the issue of an unwanted pregnancy. I doubt you'd find anyone actually against the notion of adoption, hell, I want to adopt my first child--it just doesn't solve the problem of the pregnancy. To suggest adoption as the solution is to take away a woman's control of her own body, by forcing her to go through the laborious process of carrying and birthing a child, not to mention postpartum recovery and lactation, which can be extremely painful on its own.

You're also assuming that the pregnancy and birth is without complications. If the girl has to have a cesarean (as nearly 1 in 3 births are), she reduces the chances of any of her future children surviving childbirth. So basically, you're saving an unwanted child now, just to inadvertently kill a wanted child later. Source.

You say that like all these minors even have access to contraceptives. Only 21 states and D.C. allow minors to consent on their own to contraceptive services. 21 other states limit which minors can consent. Summary, Full report. I'd like to emphasize the study's finding that minors who have to involve their parents are less likely to seek these services. Only three states even fully-fund contraceptive services for minors.

They don't check ID when buying condoms, the most basic form of contraceptive. You can even buy female condoms without ID. I think the contraceptives they're talking about are things you have to go through a doctor for. Also, most planned parenthood places hand condoms out for free.

Additionally, even though these contraceptives aren't "expensive" to you, most of the girls getting pregnant are already below the poverty line, and if they're a minor, they're likely not using insurance because their parents would find out (and that's assuming they have any). My old low-dose pills were $56 a pack for generics without my insurance coverage. I could easily spend that same $56 on two weeks of groceries for myself.

Could you get some support for your statement of most girls being below poverty line, because there is no evidence to support that idea when over half of all abortions are happening in households where either the mother or the father of the aborted fetus has an income of at least 30,000 dollars a year. The ones who are lower than that are probably still in high-school, however there is no evidence saying that it's the rich kids or the poor kids getting pregnant. Also, there is always the option of just not having sex since the point of sex for every species except humans is to reproduce.

Adoption doesn't solve the issue of an unwanted pregnancy. I doubt you'd find anyone actually against the notion of adoption, hell, I want to adopt my first child--it just doesn't solve the problem of the pregnancy. To suggest adoption as the solution is to take away a woman's control of her own body, by forcing her to go through the laborious process of carrying and birthing a child, not to mention postpartum recovery and lactation, which can be extremely painful on its own.

Unwanted pregnancies? Don't get pregnant. Don't have sex or again, use contraceptives. There are consequences to having sex, pregnancy. And since when is being uncomfortable for a year equal to the potential entire life of a child? SHE made the choice to GET pregnant in the first place. I'll bet everyone will say "no she didn't" but guess what, she did. She made that choice when she had sex. If you don't want a pregnancy, don't have sex. It's as simple as that. Sex is not required to live, sex is an act of reproducing, that's what it is! If a Woman wants to control her body, then tell her to control her sexual desires, because it's not like it's the "fetus'" fault for being there.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Could you get some support for your statement of most girls being below poverty line, because there is no evidence to support that idea when over half of all abortions are happening in households where either the mother or the father of the aborted fetus has an income of at least 30,000 dollars a year.

Surely.

* In 2006, there were 66,380,710 women of reproductive age (aged 13-44) in, the United States, 36,214,680 of whom were in need of contraceptive services and supplies. Of these:
o AGE: 2,233,560 were under the age of 18; 2,822,470 were aged 18-19; 15,582,000 were aged 20-29; and 15,576,910 were aged 30-44.
o INCOME: Among women aged 20-44, 4,478,170 were below 100% of the federal poverty level.
o RACE/ETHNICITY: 22,523,500 were Non-Hispanic white; 5,094,380 were Non-Hispanic black; and 5,857,390 were Hispanic.
* In 2006, there were 17,485,330 women in in need of publicly supported contraceptive services and supplies. Of these, 5,055,790 were in need of publicly supported services because they were sexually active teenagers, and 12,429,570 because they had incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level.
* In 2008, 20% of women aged 15-44 in the United States were uninsured, as were 39% of poor women of reproductive age. 13% of all women aged 15-44 were enrolled in Medicaid.

Link to source.


For abortion specifically:

WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

• Fifty percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 17%.[7]

• Thirty-seven percent of abortions occur to black women, 34% to non-Hispanic white women, 22% to Hispanic women and 8% to women of other races.**

• Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic.[3]

• Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions.[3]

• About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.[7]

• The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women).

* Poverty guidelines are updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 USC 9902(2).

**These numbers add to 101% because of a small overlap between the Hispanic, black and other categories.

Link to source. Emphasis mine. And in case you're having trouble with interpreting the math, it's saying that the rate of abortion for women making less than $9,570 is four times the rate for women who make more than $29,250 (or the equivalents, for families not made up of single women with no children). I would assert that a 4:1 ratio is "more than half" of abortions, not to mention that figure doesn't even account for the women between those two values (and unless you can have "negative" abortions, that ratio will continue to increase on the side of women making less than $30k a year). So do your homework before asserting that there is "no evidence," especially when the second source is one I've already linked to. (P.S.: Your source cited the same one I did--the Guttmacher Institute--except my studies are 10 years newer than yours, from 2006 instead of 1996)

Unwanted pregnancies? Don't get pregnant. Don't have sex or again, use contraceptives. There are consequences to having sex, pregnancy.

So you basically want to punish women for having sex. Why? And where's the punishment for men?

Why not, instead, promote the proper education of sex and contraception? It's less expensive than abortion OR adoption!

Why not, instead, promote research for things such as artificial wombs? Cryogenic stasis for embryo? Of other methods of postponing or transferring pregnancy that we haven't even thought of yet? Why does it have to be "have the baby or keep your legs shut?" That's narrow, backwards thinking, in my opinion.



Edit: I missed this one.

...the point of sex for every species except humans is to reproduce.

You REALLY need to consider coming up with sources to back up these ridiculous assertions you keep making. Like, real ones, that are up-to-date. This source contradicts your statement. And this one. Oh, and this one, since homosexual behavior obviously doesn't result in reproduction.

Next time you respond to this thread, get some freaking facts. No one cares about your "b-b-b-but the embryo!" arguments. Legislating morality is what keeps us in the dark ages. Try to come up with some ideas that will actually help instead of punish women and condemn them to lower classes, furthering the gender gap.

You're also assuming that the pregnancy and birth is without complications. If the girl has to have a cesarean (as nearly 1 in 3 births are), she reduces the chances of any of her future children surviving childbirth. So basically, you're saving an unwanted child now, just to inadvertently kill a wanted child later. Source.

But there is also a difference between purposefully killing an unwanted child and an death due to complications of a wanted child. Why should there even be a difference between an unwanted and a wanted child? Why is it we get to decide which child won't have a life and which child will? I never assumed pregnancy and birth are without complications. If there are complications and if the mother's life is being threatened, I see no problem with abortion. My problem is when kids are careless and going out and having sex because if they get pregnant oh they can just go get it aborted. It's also with those women who can afford children or could easily have the baby adopted but choose to abort because they don't feel like it.

Also what about the risks of abortions?

Abortion has been linked to long-term mental problems such as eating disorders, sexual dysfunction, alcohol and drug abuse, suicidal thoughts, depression, and relationship problems.

Physical problems include breast cancer, damage to internal organs, death, severe bleeding, infection, lack of fertility, and has been shown to dramatically increase the number of miscarriages that happens in future pregnancies.
Source

With modern medicine, the maternal mortality rate during childbirth is incredibly low, however there is no actual mortality rate for women who undergo abortion procedures because many go unreported.

Here's something interesting. 30% of women who have a single abortion, and go on to later have children will have a tubal pregnancy(It's in the falopian tube instead of the uterus). If they've had more than 1 abortion this number is x4. 12% of women who have this problem will die from a pregnancy-related death.

So of all those teenagers that have 1 abortion as teenagers, almost 4% of them are certain to die from pregnancy-related death.

The current maternal mortality rate is below 4.7 out of 100,000 births. This registers lower than .1 percent. This includes any death relating to pregnancy, childbirth or relating to the pregnancy within 42 days after childbirth.

Also, the whole thing about it being riskier for teenagers to give birth is a myth. If given proper care, the babies will fare just as well and there are no increased risks for teenage births than there are for older women giving birth.

Source

Link to source. Emphasis mine. And in case you're having trouble with interpreting the math, it's saying that the rate of abortion for women making less than $9,570 is four times the rate for women who make more than $29,250 (or the equivalents, for families not made up of single women with no children). I would assert that a 4:1 ratio is "more than half" of abortions, not to mention that figure doesn't even account for the women between those two values (and unless you can have "negative" abortions, that ratio will continue to increase on the side of women making less than $30k a year). So do your homework before asserting that there is "no evidence," especially when the second source is one I've already linked to.

50% of abortions comes from women below the age of 25. So all the kids who are getting pregnant in high-school and have no jobs or minimum wage jobs because they still live with their parents(no indication on what their parents make) would technically live below the poverty level. The age cut-off for the kids living with their parents is not necessarily 18.

That right there shows a huge flaw in your statistic.

So you basically want to punish women for having sex. Why? And where's the punishment for men?

1. Since when are consequences bad? Consequence simply means outcome of an event.

I also prefer you don't put words in my mouth. I said don't have sex. Not get punished for having sex. Also, show me a figure that states how cheap education is.

Why is it narrow-backwards thinking?(not that it's credible since it's just an opinion) If someone is not going to use contraceptives and does not want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex. I find it funny how you totally skip over part of my posts and only quote one line from here and there that you don't like.

HUMANS are the ONLY race that has sex for a purpose OTHER than baby-making. That's fine, but let's make sure we define sex here.

Sex -> the act of a male and female coming together in a process to create offspring. It is the action of procreation. That is how our bodies our designed, to procreate when having sex. That's what sex is. The fact that it feels good is a nice little bonus.

Compare it to driving. If you don't want to get into an accident then 1, don't drive or 2, drive safely. It's not a punishment, it's just something that happens as a result of something else.

And btw, I am all for tracking men down to pay childcare. Men have risks too, they can just as easily contract STD's and there are laws requiring a man to pay for a child he fathers.

Despite it not seeming 'fair' that women get 'punished' for sex and men don't, here's a simple fact: we're different, and therefore it will never be fair. Women live longer than men, is that fair? Men get taller than woman typically, is that fair? The gender's are different, and if someone has a problem with that, they really need to get over it.

You REALLY need to consider coming up with sources to back up these ridiculous assertions you keep making. Like, real ones, that are up-to-date. This source contradicts your statement. And this one. Oh, and this one, since homosexual behavior obviously doesn't result in reproduction.

So tell me how they know this? How they KNOW the animals are not trying to reproduce but to only do it for pleasure?

Next time you respond to this thread, get some freaking facts. No one cares about your "b-b-b-but the embryo!" arguments. Legislating morality is what keeps us in the dark ages. Try to come up with some ideas that will actually help instead of punish women and condemn them to lower classes, furthering the gender gap.

Have I once made that argument here? No. In fact I still call it a fetus. I'm not in it for the morality. I'm in it for the logic. What seems more logical? Preventing an entire life or discomfort for a year? We KNOW fetus' turn into kids. So by killing a fetus we KNOW we are thereby preventing that life from happening. I'm appealing to logic, because morality appeals do nothing for those who have no sense of morality.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

50% of abortions comes from women below the age of 25. So all the kids who are getting pregnant in high-school and have no jobs or minimum wage jobs because they still live with their parents(no indication on what their parents make) would technically live below the poverty level. The age cut-off for the kids living with their parents is not necessarily 18.

You're right--parents can kick their kids out much earlier, especially when their daughters do something as embarrassing as becoming teen pregnant. Add to the fact that the girls who do get teen pregnant rarely finish high school or get a GED, let alone go to college, which (at least, before recent health care legislation) disqualifies them from getting health insurance through their parents, and basically puts them into the welfare pool because they'll start getting state aid, regardless of their parents' support. State aid is based on HER income, not the income of her parents.

Why is it narrow-backwards thinking?(not that it's credible since it's just an opinion) If someone is not going to use contraceptives and does not want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex.

It's backwards because you're oversimplifying the issue, ignoring any other possible solutions, and basically forcing women to do something to their bodies that they don't want to do. It shouldn't matter that they chose to have sex--contraception fails, girls get raped, accidents happen. 60% of women who get abortions have already had a child. They're trying to hold their families together--you're trying to condemn them to a life of poverty. How is that NOT backwards?

I find it funny how you totally skip over part of my posts and only quote one line from here and there that you don't like.

Need I remind you of your behavior in the Halloween thread? Hypocritical much?

HUMANS are the ONLY race that has sex for a purpose OTHER than baby-making.

I addressed this in the last post, with not one, but three sources.

And btw, I am all for tracking men down to pay childcare. Men have risks too, they can just as easily contract STD's and there are laws requiring a man to pay for a child he fathers.

Who tracks them down? And I don't think you know a damn thing about child support. Let me brief you on the issue: child support is set by a court. If a father makes no money, obviously he doesn't pay child support. If he makes low wages, he won't pay very much. However, if his wages change, like if he gets a job or a promotion or whatever, the mother must take him back to court to get the child support adjusted. It is not something that happens automatically, and I dare you to try to tell me that taking someone to court is something easily afforded by single mothers with a crappy job and a child or two. Let me help you: it's not.

P.S., you also have to assume that the mother somehow knows that the father even got a wage increase. If I were him, I'd shut my mouth about how much I make around her, if I talk to her at all.

Mind if I jump in? Good, I thought not.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Abortion has been linked to long-term mental problems such as eating disorders, sexual dysfunction, alcohol and drug abuse, suicidal thoughts, depression, and relationship problems.

Women feel a range of emotions after an abortion, obviously not all of them positive, no different from if the woman had kept the child or given it up for adoption. However, there is no connection between mental disorders and abortion. The APA says so.

Physical problems include breast cancer, damage to internal organs, death, severe bleeding, infection, lack of fertility, and has been shown to dramatically increase the number of miscarriages that happens in future pregnancies.

There is no link between breast cancer and abortion. From what I gather, that was based on a very badly done study quite some time ago and has since been debunked by the National Cancer Institute.
Abortion also typically does not affect future pregnancies. There is no correlation between abortion and infertility/ectopic pregnancy/etc unless an infection complicates the abortion. Abortions performed in the second trimester can occasionally lead to future premature births or low birth weight, but not significantly.

In addition, complications that actually require hospitalization occur in less than .5% of abortions.

Here's something interesting.
21% of women experience a pregnancy complication of some sort. By comparison, .9% of women studied here experienced a complication following abortion, and hardly a fraction of them had a complication serious enough that hospitalization is necessary. Seems to me that pregnancy has a lot more issues.

I also prefer you don't put words in my mouth. I said don't have sex. Not get punished for having sex.

Er, then what are you suggesting the child is? A fun adventure for the mother?

If someone is not going to use contraceptives and does not want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex.

Let's totally ignore the idea that contraceptives can fail and human error can and does happen. Because it is YOUR fault if your birth control fails or your condom breaks. A good portion- 17%, if my memory serves- of women having abortions say they were using birth control correctly when they got pregnant. No matter what you do, pregnancy CAN happen if you're having sex even if you're having sex as safely as is humanly possible.

HUMANS are the ONLY race that has sex for a purpose OTHER than baby-making.

Highly debatable and more than likely untrue. We obviously cannot prove that animals have sex for pleasure, but precious little else explains activities like masturbation, oral sex and homosexual sex. Source

What seems more logical? Preventing an entire life or discomfort for a year?

You say that like the child will magically disappear after the pregnancy is over. Having a baby you are not prepared for is hardly comfortable, and not every woman is comfortable with adoption.
To look at it this way: That life you speak of couldn't care less if it never comes to fruition. I mean, the only reason one can care whether or not they were aborted is because they obviously WEREN'T. Is it really, honestly less cruel to bring a child into a world where it is completely unwanted and reasonably unlikely to ever end up living above the poverty line, or even having a family? A fetus doesn't give a damn if you abort it. A child certainly cares if they aren't loved and well cared for.

You're right--parents can kick their kids out much earlier, especially when their daughters do something as embarrassing as becoming teen pregnant. Add to the fact that the girls who do get teen pregnant rarely finish high school or get a GED, let alone go to college, which (at least, before recent health care legislation) disqualifies them from getting health insurance through their parents, and basically puts them into the welfare pool because they'll start getting state aid, regardless of their parents' support. State aid is based on HER income, not the income of her parents.

How about some statistics on how often a daughter is "kicked out" for getting pregnant? Also source me some stuff that say teen girls rarely finish high school or get a GED. Because of the six girls I know(myself included) who got pregnant during high-school, none of them dropped out. NONE. High-schools are becoming more equipped to handle mothers with children, some high schools are even setting up nurseries and child care for them. One of my friends, during her last trimester came into school only on Friday to turn in homework for that week and pick up homework for the next week. She was still getting credit for school as long as she turned in all her work. There are also tons of other options now such as Cyber School. For example, Connection Academy Cyber School is not only FREE, they pay for your internet service, send you a free laptop, printer/scanner/copier and ink, they'll also pay for things like gym memberships and things like that. All the schoolwork is done from home, they can full credit and they can at the same time have a job, or a child. There really is no excuse to not try a cyber school, because they pay for everything. If you don't have internet, they'll help you set it up. Anyone can get an education, child or no child.

It's backwards because you're oversimplifying the issue, ignoring any other possible solutions, and basically forcing women to do something to their bodies that they don't want to do. It shouldn't matter that they chose to have sex--contraception fails, girls get raped, accidents happen. 60% of women who get abortions have already had a child. They're trying to hold their families together--you're trying to condemn them to a life of poverty. How is that NOT backwards?

-> I have already stated in the case of rape, I think abortion is understandable.
-> If they are not ready to have a child, what is the justification of having sex?
-> 50% of abortions happen to women who are making more than 30,000 dollars a year.
-> I'm not condemning anyone to life of poverty. It's their choice to risk getting pregnant in the first place.
-> If they can't afford the child, Adoption has basically the same emotional toll as abortion and ALL MEDICAL BILLS are paid for by the adopting family. Plus the family now gets a child that will be loved and cared for. So that's 18 years of happiness and life at the cost of 1 year of discomfort.

In addition, complications that actually require hospitalization occur in less than .5% of abortions.

That's because the stuff I stated earlier is risks in pregnancies following an abortion. It's not counted as "complications of abortions."

A study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found: “Among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women.”

Source

Those findings are pretty incredible, don't you think?

Need I remind you of your behavior in the Halloween thread? Hypocritical much?

1. That has no implications on this thread. Totally different debate.
2. You obviously haven't read much of it because I explained that I skipped portions that I agreed with.
3. At least I have a reason for doing it. You just seem to be doing it because you don't have a response to legitimate arguments.

Here's something interesting.
21% of women experience a pregnancy complication of some sort. By comparison, .9% of women studied here experienced a complication following abortion, and hardly a fraction of them had a complication serious enough that hospitalization is necessary. Seems to me that pregnancy has a lot more issues.

I don't see that 21% anywhere for one, and second, they don't define how serious of a complication. In fact, if labor goes slowly, that's considered a complication. Miscarriage is another complication which probably makes up most of that 21% you stated. You should really look for some numbers that list the complications involved with full-term pregnancies and actual childbirth.

I addressed this in the last post, with not one, but three sources.

But your picking again and seemed to totally skip over my response to those sources.

Who tracks them down? And I don't think you know a damn thing about child support. Let me brief you on the issue: child support is set by a court. If a father makes no money, obviously he doesn't pay child support. If he makes low wages, he won't pay very much. However, if his wages change, like if he gets a job or a promotion or whatever, the mother must take him back to court to get the child support adjusted. It is not something that happens automatically, and I dare you to try to tell me that taking someone to court is something easily afforded by single mothers with a crappy job and a child or two. Let me help you: it's not.

There are laws in the works for requiring fathers to pay childcare that will be cheaper options. Also, you're so stuck on all these girls being poor when really not that many of them are. The number you threw out earlier can be easily broken down by kids in highschool still living with their parents. Because we don't have a further breakdown of the abortions coming from highschool teens, we have to assume the averages. Meaning the average teen who has an abortion really isn't that poor.

And you know what, I'm okay with girls who are actually on the poverty level having abortions. But seeing as there are 50% of abortions happening at 3x the poverty level, I still think that something needs to be done.

Er, then what are you suggesting the child is? A fun adventure for the mother?

Viewing a child as a punishment is narrow-minded and only an opinion. Most don't see children as punishments. And if that's the case, then I'm sure one woman's punishment could easily be an adopting parent's blessing.

Let's totally ignore the idea that contraceptives can fail and human error can and does happen. Because it is YOUR fault if your birth control fails or your condom breaks. A good portion- 17%, if my memory serves- of women having abortions say they were using birth control correctly when they got pregnant. No matter what you do, pregnancy CAN happen if you're having sex even if you're having sex as safely as is humanly possible.

So don't have sex. Best birth control in the world. Sex is also not required to live, so the lack of it until a woman is financially able to have children isn't going to hurt anyone.

Women feel a range of emotions after an abortion, obviously not all of them positive, no different from if the woman had kept the child or given it up for adoption. However, there is no connection between mental disorders and abortion. The APA says so.

I beg to differ. Source. Source. Source.

Highly debatable and more than likely untrue. We obviously cannot prove that animals have sex for pleasure, but precious little else explains activities like masturbation, oral sex and homosexual sex.

I am horrified first of all that anyone would use wikipedia for anything. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and if you use it as a source even in highschool, you stand subject to failing the assignment. Wikipedia is not a credible source. Also, let's see some actual proof that animals masturbate, and have oral sex for pleasure.

You say that like the child will magically disappear after the pregnancy is over. Having a baby you are not prepared for is hardly comfortable, and not every woman is comfortable with adoption.

Then they shouldn't be having sex.

To look at it this way: That life you speak of couldn't care less if it never comes to fruition.

You know this how?

Is it really, honestly less cruel to bring a child into a world where it is completely unwanted and reasonably unlikely to ever end up living above the poverty line, or even having a family?

If the mother doesn't want it, it shouldn't be too difficult for her to give it up for adoption. Either way, abortion or adoption, she doesn't have to keep the baby.

A fetus doesn't give a damn if you abort it. A child certainly cares if they aren't loved and well cared for.

Mkay, let's see some evidence stating that fetus' don't care if you abort them or not. They are living right? And there is a little something called self preservation. The only problem is, a fetus can't defend itself at all. It's at the mercy of the will of it's mother. The reason it isn't considered a person is because it cannot yet survive outside the womb, however this does not in anyway lead to the conclusion that it does not have feelings or it does not care if you kill it.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

Also source me some stuff that say teen girls rarely finish high school or get a GED.

Perhaps an exaggeration on my part, but this statistic still trumps your anecdotal evidence. Girls are more likely to not finish school if they get pregnant. 40% is a pitiful number. (Source)

Life may be difficult for a teenage mother and her child. Teen mothers are more likely to drop out of high school than girls who delay childbearing. Only 40 percent of teenagers who have children before age 18 go on to graduate from high school, compared to 75 percent of teens from similar social and economic backgrounds who do not give birth until ages 20 or 21.

-> If they are not ready to have a child, what is the justification of having sex?

Because it strengthens the relationship? Because women who have already had children don't necessarily want to stop having sex with their husbands? What is the justification for telling women only to have sex if they intend to procreate?

-> 50% of abortions happen to women who are making more than 30,000 dollars a year.

A. Your study was older than mine.
B. My study was newer than yours.
C. The studies came from the same source (Guttmacher).
D. The newer study I provided does not support your assertion. I'll post it again since you seem to be blind.

And in case you're having trouble with interpreting the math, it's saying that the rate of abortion for women making less than $9,570 is four times the rate for women who make more than $29,250 (or the equivalents, for families not made up of single women with no children). I would assert that a 4:1 ratio is "more than half" of abortions, not to mention that figure doesn't even account for the women between those two values (and unless you can have "negative" abortions, that ratio will continue to increase on the side of women making less than $30k a year).

Let me know if you're having trouble with the math still.

Additionally, you saying that "high schoolers" aren't poor because they have parental support doesn't mean anything. Grandparents are under zero obligation to provide support for their grandchildren. They're also under zero obligation to provide support for their own children beyond basic needs such as food, shelter, a clean living environment, and an environment free from abuse or violence. None of which necessarily translate into money that the teen can use to support her child. When I was in high school, I got zero money from my parents. I got my lunches made for me, my clothes bought for me, and I lived in my dad's home. Any cash I wanted for myself, I had to earn. I'm still a dependent of my father, due to my status as a college student, but if I had a child right now, neither he nor I would be able to support it, because A) I make less than the poverty level and B) my dad is unemployed and doesn't give me a dime in anything, including college tuition or housing. Just because a girl has parents doesn't mean she has support. You cannot equate the two.

Additionally, the father of my would-be child makes half of what I do, and he is his mother's dependent, who is currently in debt for a number of things and would also not be able to support said child. I'm lucky enough to have a disorder that renders me, for the most part, unable to have children, so it's not something that I have to worry about. My fiance has made it very clear that he opposes the notion of abortion, but understands that, were such an unlikely pregnancy happen, the only way we will be able to pay off our school debt (which can't be forgiven by bankruptcy, by the way), get decent jobs, and basically, avoid poverty altogether, is to abort the child. Adoption is not an option--that takes me out of school far too long and will cause my debt to skyrocket. I will also lose my health coverage.

I'm not condemning anyone to life of poverty. It's their choice to risk getting pregnant in the first place.

And it's apparently your choice as a Real American (tm) to take away that woman's choice with how to handle an unintended pregnancy. Roe v. Wade stood up because it is the medically sensible thing to do--keep abortion legal and accessible so that women aren't in back alleys with coat hangers doing god-knows-what to unborn children. You think that fetuses are surviving abortions now? The process is much worse when it's done illegally. Making it illegal will not stop abortions, and keeping it legal provides the opportunity for women to abort before the unborn becomes a fetus. Embryo cannot survive outside of the womb, which discredits any of your emotional appeal, which, by the way, is not a valid argument.

If they can't afford the child, Adoption has basically the same emotional toll as abortion and ALL MEDICAL BILLS are paid for by the adopting family. Plus the family now gets a child that will be loved and cared for.

Provide a source stating that all children put up for adoption are, indeed, adopted immediately and are not put into foster care or a state care center. Also, provide a source that states that all of these medical bills are paid for, even if the child isn't adopted by a family.

There are laws in the works for requiring fathers to pay childcare that will be cheaper options.

What laws? And how does this even solve the problem? Laws "in the works" are not enforceable, sorry.

Originally Posted by Hayzel

-> If they can't afford the child, Adoption has basically the same emotional toll as abortion and ALL MEDICAL BILLS are paid for by the adopting family. Plus the family now gets a child that will be loved and cared for. So that's 18 years of happiness and life at the cost of 1 year of discomfort.

I disagree; whether or not adoption is easier than abortion is entirely dependent on the woman. For some, going through nine months of pregnancy and/or giving up the child is more difficult than just having an abortion. If it weren't, do you think abortions would happen?

That's because the stuff I stated earlier is risks in pregnancies following an abortion. It's not counted as "complications of abortions."

And I also posted a link stating that there are virtually no risks to future pregnancies after abortion.

Those findings are pretty incredible, don't you think?

That particular study that you quoted was done in 1994; the study I posted was done ten years later after the NCI admitted that the '94 study was flawed. Other, better studies also indicate that there is no link.

I don't see that 21% anywhere for one, and second, they don't define how serious of a complication. In fact, if labor goes slowly, that's considered a complication. Miscarriage is another complication which probably makes up most of that 21% you stated. You should really look for some numbers that list the complications involved with full-term pregnancies and actual childbirth.

I did some simple division to come up with a percentage. However, I'm known to suck at third grade math ;)
I included all complications of pregnancy, like I included all complications of abortion. Even if you assume only a third of those complications are actually serious, the rate of complication for pregnancy is still way, way higher than the rate of complication for abortion.

And you know what, I'm okay with girls who are actually on the poverty level having abortions. But seeing as there are 50% of abortions happening at 3x the poverty level, I still think that something needs to be done.

So because you CAN take care of a child, you HAVE to?
Your argument here appears to contradict your others. If the fetus' life is of value, why is it morally okay for some women to abort? Last I checked a fetus conceived by rape or to a poor woman is still intrinsically of the same value as all other fetuses. Or, alternately; why do you care about the plight of some women and not others? All women have reasons to get abortions, and if you asked I'm sure you'd find they are perfectly valid.

Viewing a child as a punishment is narrow-minded and only an opinion. Most don't see children as punishments. And if that's the case, then I'm sure one woman's punishment could easily be an adopting parent's blessing.

When actually wanted, a child is not a punishment. However, when you are forced to keep a child you don't want because "you shouldn't have had sex"... what does that sound like to you?

So don't have sex. Best birth control in the world. Sex is also not required to live, so the lack of it until a woman is financially able to have children isn't going to hurt anyone.

Yes, because married couples who don't want children are definitely going to just want to be abstinent forever. People like sex. People want to have sex and they're GOING to have sex; asking them to do anything otherwise is never, ever going to happen. Ever.

I beg to differ.

I gave you a link to a study performed by a highly respected organization.. and you give me back pro-life propaganda? Sorry, not buying it.

I am horrified first of all that anyone would use wikipedia for anything. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and if you use it as a source even in highschool, you stand subject to failing the assignment. Wikipedia is not a credible source. Also, let's see some actual proof that animals masturbate, and have oral sex for pleasure.

Because when all else fails, let's insult the credibility of Wikipedia, right? Has it occurred to you that Wikipedia is probably 5,000x more credible than sites like "afterabortion.com"? Either way, it's irrelevant.
If you're not happy with the source I provided, please find me some proper counter evidence rather than Wiki-bashing and then I will feel more encouraged to find you other sources as well.

Mkay, let's see some evidence stating that fetus' don't care if you abort them or not. They are living right? And there is a little something called self preservation. The only problem is, a fetus can't defend itself at all. It's at the mercy of the will of it's mother. The reason it isn't considered a person is because it cannot yet survive outside the womb, however this does not in anyway lead to the conclusion that it does not have feelings or it does not care if you kill it.

It's difficult to say exactly when a fetus (or baby, even) begins to be properly conscious, but a fetus does not have the necessary brain development to be conscious until at LEAST 20-30 weeks. If it can't realize it's being aborted, how can it possibly care?

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Okay??? and why is that?

Because they tend to be the women who can't support a child. These are single women/older teenagers (in most cases who are high school drop outs) who sleep around. They don't have the resources for the child because they don't have a job that pays enough for taking care of a child along with themselves. And if they had the child, it would go to child services (if not soon after birth, the child would go their eventually). And we have too many children in foster care and orphanages here in the US as it is. We should be trying to give those children a good home and making the number of children who are in Children's services, not making it bigger.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Maybe they should prioritize their life better...>.> Work before play is the responsible choice ^_^

They don't know how to prioritize their lives. As I said, these are women who for the most part never learned those kinds of skills.

Women who have gone to college and have well paying jobs (and usually married) would have the resources to raise the child if they got pregnant. Those are the women who could pay for an abortion, but the majority of the time, they'll have the child because they can support it.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Correction, younger generations are the welcome ones...it is the older people that should be removed from the world to make room in the world for the new. We put too much emphasis and value on life and forget that without death, life is not possible.

Children's Services is crap. Foster care ends up being hell for these kids, and they end up growing up not having a sense of what family is like because the majority of these children don't get adopted. They never get to live in a family where they have two parents that love them. These kids get moved around all the time from foster home to foster home and that can be a pretty damaging experience for a child. They don't get the chance to make connections or have a real parental figure in their life. I may not know this from experience, but I know some people who do and have told me this. I don't want to see kids be put through that kind of life...We need to be getting these kids out of foster care and get them adopted into loving families.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

I am not advocating denying anyone. I am just denying guaranteed safety as that is not a right to anyone at any time. If safety is a guaranteed right, then I want in on it too for everything that relates to my life.

There can never be a 100% guarantee on the safety of any abortion procedure, but the ones performed in abortion clinics from my experience have a very low death rate for the woman.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

So what if they aren't safe? Who ever guaranteed safety to any of these people? Again, I want in on the guarantee ^_^

What I feel like your suggesting is that we go back to what the situation here in America back in the 50s.....because it was illegal, women either had to attempt to perform the abortion themselves with a coat hanger or go to some back alley doctor where the environment was pretty unclean so there was a risk of infection for the woman...So many women died because of that.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

If they die, it leaves room for newer generations. It is a healthy thing for the species, I see no problem with it. They oughta prioritize their life more if they don't want to be unsafe. Work and Education before sex. If they choose not to do that, they can deal with their choices. Every choice has a consequence, that is theirs.

The women I was talking about before....a lot of times they don't receive that education so they can make safer choices about sex. If you want your system to work, there needs to be more effort in spreading knowledge about different forms of contraception so these women can make good choices.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

No I'm not. I am not denying abortion, simply denying specific expensive methods that I feel they have done nothing to allow themselves to be entitled to it.

....what your suggesting is that middle class women and upper class women are going to be able to afford to have an abortion, and women who live in poverty and are uneducated about other alternatives to abortion (i.e.: herbs, the morning after pills, etc) will be denied being able to have an abortion because they can't afford it.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Yep, unhealthy individuals dying off quicker and making room for newer generations is completely healthy for the species overall. I see nothing wrong with it. As far as I am concerned education and technology about how to prolong individual lives is one of the major contributing causes to overpopulation and will be the death of our entire species and possibly everything else. We value life way too much....it will backfire.

okay. touche on that one. That is a valid point.

A human fetus prior to the development of certain brain functions can't be considered any more "alive" than a human body that has experienced brain-death*. Both may be considered biologically living and both may have a beating heart, but neither has the capacity for the brain functions necessary to be considered, in the medical world, a live person.

Personally, I view this issue from a less fetii-centric perspective than most, and I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that there is no fundamental right to live inside or off of another person's body against their will. This right doesn't exist for fetii, and it doesn't exist for born human beings with full rights.

in my opinion abortions are discusting i would never do that to my body and my child
but i guess i can understand why some people would do it, a baby can screw up your plans

I believe that for something to be considered alive*, they must have a heartbeat AND a brainwave. Anything before those two criteria are met, and it's just a bunch of cells. So, up until that point, I'm ok with abortion, because the only thing you're really aborting is a tumor with a heartbeat. Yes, I said tumor. Because that's what it is, a group of growing cells that is feeding off the mothers body to grow, in sometimes harmful ways, and other not so harmful. So, maybe parasite would be a better analogy. Either way, you get my point.
Also, the whole "Life is precious" thing. Why is an unborn, non-living life precious? Obviously that cow, which was fully alive, had a heartbeat and a brainwave, and was killed in a more inhumane way than the unborn, non-living thing probably would have been killed, you ate when you had a hamburger's life wasn't precious. What makes an unborn and non-living baby any better? To go with that statement, you have to also say ALL forms of life are precious, and not just those of your own species.
For those who say; "Well, how do you know the fetus isn't living? It could have feelings." Let me say this, feelings are processed emotions, emotions are a form of thought, and thought processes take place in the brain. Said unborn, non-living has no brain. How do we know it has no brain? We don't, not for sure, however, it possesses no brain wave, so we can assume. But we can't prove that plants don't have feelings either, yet people could care less about plants. Again, referring to the whole "own species" thing.
So, up until the unborn has both a heartbeat and a brainwave, it isn't considered anything in my book, and if you can't support it, then I'm fine with it being aborted. Just don't let it happen more than twice (Unless in danger of death or complication). That's where I'm stop caring about weather it's living or not, you're just being too careless by then. Because after twice, there's really no excuse, you should have learned and you should have the right of abortion taken away, and the child once it's born. Because, honestly, if someone can't be sure to not get pregnant after two abortions, then they can't be trusted with a child.
That's all I have to say.
*By alive, I mean living breathing animal. Plants and cells while still considered "living" they don't have any form of consciousness, making them just as unliving as the clump of cells that's a fetus. In my book anyways.

Koatic if you don't mind I'd like to expand on your post. Not just to the cow, but what about Veal? Veal is baby calf. Its wonderously delicious when cooked right, but to pro-life, why does the calf have less of a right to live then than a fetus, when the calf is killed after being alive for only a few days?

Me, I like sex. Yes I do! And yes I am careful (birth control and condoms), but if I were to get pregnant I would abort. My life has no place for a baby right now, when I am just learning how to take care of myself.

I have no problem with people who are pro-life. You want your baby, you keep your baby. Me, I can't even stand to baby-sit anyone under 5 years old, so how would I stand with a crying baby that I couldn't give back?

Choice. Thats what I'm about. Everyone deserves choice. I read some posts about 'if your don't want to get pregnant don't have sex' (I'm not properly quoting because I'm not getting into back-and-forth arguements about it), well I'd like to say, try and stop me. Sex feels good. It can strengthen a relationship, and a married couple aren't going to be absinant just because they don't want a baby yet. Theres some easy thinking here.

Look, I know I usually end up getting chewed up in the debate forum for lack of sources, or this-and-that. But really. Why can't we all just be pro-choice. You choose to keep it, I'll choose to abort and we'll stay out of eachothers way.