learning how to grow a fetus outside of a woman? Then, they can get rid of abortion, and they will have 25% more babies to adopt? Seems like it would get more done to solve the problem, then , say, firebombing clinics?
2006-09-15 06:54:15 · 26 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
no, manbearpig, I know it is a difficult concept, but much goes into GROWING a baby. Much more than just fertilizing an egg..
2006-09-15 06:58:17 · update #1
sure spirit...oh wait, they are the ones pushing for condoms in school, fighting to keep birth control available, fighting to get young girls inoculted against a virus that causes cervical cancer, basically fighting for survival...
2006-09-15 07:00:47 · update #2
Richard, choice to let YOU USE SOMEONE FOR SEX?!?@!! Still, no personal accountability or responsibility on a man's part...
2006-09-15 07:01:48 · update #3
Oh, and Richard? Don't sleep with sluts and get them pregnant if you don't want to have a baby! And don't worry, I would NEVER call you for anything...
2006-09-15 07:05:57 · update #4
yes, rabbit, baby making has it's consequences...have it, keep it, give it up, or abort it. You can't just make the whole thing go away...abortion is one consequence..
2006-09-15 07:08:32 · update #5
So, no answers so far...the fear is amazing, it's like a pavlovian response to the word abortion...you people aren't even THINKING anymore!
2006-09-15 07:11:27 · update #6
*sigh* no, wmcritte, women do not get pregnant ALL BY THEMSELVES! AMAZING!!!
2006-09-15 07:12:54 · update #7
sway, men would have to use the condoms, and since they don't realize their responsibility...a better choice would be birth control pills...but the anti choicers are against birth control as well...read the bills regarding abortions. They contain birth control riders, and that is why they don't pass. But that wasn't my question. Please repost answering my question.
2006-09-15 07:19:02 · update #8
no, clk, we don't force them. We give them a choice. And sway, I had to give you a thumbs down, because you didn't answer the question. Sorry. Doesn't matter about abortion, if you don't like it, I just gave a solution to get rid of it.
2006-09-15 07:27:33 · update #9
See, there you go again. Being logical, and actually coming up with solutions that address the underlying issue itself. How can we keep not getting things done if people keep insist on being rational?
{EDIT to SpiritWalker} You miss the entire concept of the debate.
The debate is not about whether abortion is good or bad. It's about who gets to make the decisions. Face it -- someone is going to choose. It's either going to be the individual, or it's going to be the majority through enacted laws.
Heidi's solution solves the debate, because it eliminates the conflict between the two positions. If the woman can always choose whether to be involved in the pregnancy or not, then her rights of choice are preserved. And if the embryo/fetus is always able to grow whether the genetic mother is involved or not, then those who are pro-life don't also have to be anti-choice.
By solving the direct conflict between the rights of the mother to choose HER involvement, and the goal of preserving the unborn, both sides can get what they want. Anything else comes down to somebody making the decision, individual or govt. And that doesn't solve the underlying issue.
2006-09-15 06:56:46 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 9⤋
Actually it's because that would go against the grain (spare the rod and spoil the child) as much as being responsible when you have sex (the easy button and do overs) would be for the prochoice.
Personally I think the morning after pill is a great compromise between the two camps. If it never gets started it's not abortion and if you didn't mean it stop it before it gets started.
OBTW this comes from someone who's third child was concieved 9 months after my vasectomy. And yes she IS mine *LOL* So get you mind out of the gutter.
And I am pro choice. She has the choice who she wants to sleep with and whether or not to use preventive measures and now there's the morning after pill. If she still needs and abortion she probably needs to be sterilized at the same time. She's so dumb her genes need to be kicked out of the pool.
And so you know I'm not choosing sides. Guys you made your choices too. Now live with them and learn something. YOU can be held responsible!
2006-09-15 08:00:34 · answer #2 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm going to risk coming into this argument. People can be so self righteous when it doesn't involve them. You can judge all you want, but the fact remains that the world is over populated and there are millions of children around the world who have no food, no parents and no future. Why bring another unwanted child into the world? It would be a difficult decision for anyone, I am sure, but what future does a child have if the parents don't want it or cannot provide for it? Some say that people should stop having sex for pleasure. It ain't gonna happen. The reasonable and logical thing is to use contraception, but look at how HIV/AIDS is spreading, look at the Sexually Transmitted Diseases that continue to appear (heard of Chlamydia) and you will see people don't even take precautions to protect themselves, let alone prevent a child. Do you really want these irresponsible idiots raising children? The world is messed up enough. Allow choice and live your own life. That is, supposedly, what we are all fighting for right? Freedom to choose how we want to live our lives without too much inteference from the powers that be.
What really amazes me is that the very same people who jump up and down about abortion and pro-life etc, are the same people who are sending people to Iraq to kill and be killed for the sake of freedom and democracy and then they contradict themselves by trying to control their populations at home.
Face it, abortions will happen with, or without the government's approval. Do you really want some backstreet thug to perform an abortion on your daughter, sister, wife if that were her last option??
2006-09-15 07:33:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
When was the last time an abortion clinic was firebombed? That was an 80's fad that died out when real Christians consistently, and rightly, publicly denounced those actions.
It's not being anti-choice. People have the choice of when to have sex and weather or not to use contraceptive methods they know to be less than 100% effective.
The pro-abortion crowd fundamentally believes that sex is something people should be able to have without any consequences. Therefore, abortion should be a legal and ACCEPTABLE means of birth control. Therefore, a fetus must be considered a non-person. I have a problem with this line of thinking because it defines human life in very selfish terms. A fetus is what it is. Biologically speaking, human life begins when the first cell divides and it ends when the last cell divides. Where you draw the line, such that before the line the life is considered to be nothing and after the line it is considered 'one of us', says more about your nature than it does about the nature of the fetus.
The pro-life stance is simply about saying that a fetus is a person with a right to life.
2006-09-15 07:16:14 · answer #4 · answered by barb31416 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I belive this is inevitably going to happen. It will be interesting what happens in the abortion debate when viability outside the mother gets pushed back all the way to conception. Certainly it will raise interesting issues of paternal rights - does the father have the right to the fetus? Can he demand that the fetus be moved to an artificial womb rather then aborting? What obligation will mothers have to tell the father before aborting?
It will fundamentally change the debate, removing all 'mother should have control over her body' arguments, and focus things in on - to what point do parents have the right to terminate an unborn.
2006-09-15 07:20:33 · answer #5 · answered by kheserthorpe 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's called a test tube baby, they've done it already, but seems people frowned upon it.
ON A SIDE NOTE IN RESPONSE TO SOME ANSWERS ABOVE:
birth control is NOT 100%
You did NOT pay for my abortion, my company's health insurance did
If the government spent more money educating children in sexual education health classes by teaching BOTH abstinence and safe sex, the kids wouldn't come on here asking stupid sex questions.
If people would adopt children 3-17 instead of bitching how they can't have kids, this world would be better.
2006-09-15 07:17:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am against abortion, it is killing an unborn fetus, however it is not the governments place, or another persons right to judge what is a moral question. The government should never try to legislate morality, to each his own is a very good saying. What business is it of anybodies what I think is right for me.
2006-09-15 07:26:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm....then we need to ask "do we force newly pregnant women to undergo the procedure to surgically remove the contents of her uterus to a test tube" debate. Yeah, that would work.
follow up:
You said you'd give them a choice--women ALREADY have a choice--abort or keep the baby. How would learning how to grow a baby outside of the body change that? The mother could simply say--"no" and nothing has changed. Your question does not make any sense. I'm rating it thumbs down--you say you gave us a solution? NOT!
2006-09-15 07:19:33 · answer #8 · answered by Cherie 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Right on! After all, they firebombed, what 10 or 12 clinics just yesterday, didn't they? (they didn't)
It would be a whole lot easier if someone of a near-copulating couple paused to say, "Hey sport, we're not prepared to have a baby so either cool it or take some precautions". We seem to think that doing baby-making activity won't result in making a baby but when it does, "No problem, there's this clinic that will flush the little wart away."
Pro-Life people aren't "anti-choice" they just think that the act of sex is a choice, and considering the small numbers of rape statistics and comparatively large numbers of pregnancies, it is a choice. Choices have consequences. I can't walk onto an airplane and rant on about killing people only to defend it before the law authorities as "free speech"--my speech has consequences in that context. Baby-making behaviors have consequences. Your solution would be just a little more impractical than solving the marijuana problem by telling all the pot heads to take their greenhouses to the moon.
2006-09-15 07:04:44 · answer #9 · answered by Rabbit 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Why don't pro-murder people accept their responsibility? Except in the case of rape (less than 0.1% of pregnancies) it is the woman's own actions that cause the pregnancy. Why should someone else spend time and money to fix your problems? If you chop off your own arm, should someone else spend time and money making you a prostetic? You did it to yourself, use your own resources.
When will people stop blaming everyone else for their own actions and the consequences that follow?
Murdering your own flesh and blood child because off your mistakes is the most dispicable act any human can commit. How can any civilized society condone such an act?
...update...
Thank you for totally ignoring the morality and logic of my answer and focusing on my semantics. Oviously it takes 2 to get pregnant, however, a man can't have an abortion, only a woman can.
If you would like to resond to my arguments instead of launching a personal attack, I would be glad to listen.
2006-09-15 07:09:08 · answer #10 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I'm for better zippers.
Of course when I was 13 or 14 I would have had "sex with anything a tree" . (quote from mixed nuts)
We live in a overly sexual society. And we are not giving young women the tools necessary to protect themselves.
Go big Red Go
2006-09-15 07:24:09 · answer #11 · answered by 43 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋