If the other 97% were banned, wouldn't those women start saying that they were raped, it was a case of incest, or that their health would not tolerate it?
And then women would use metal hangers again, quite unhealthy.
I do agree that cutting down on abortions in the US would be good. Birth control should be administered to anyone having sex.
2006-11-25 03:11:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by J G 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
You're never going to get anyone to agree on exactly when life begins. Is it at conception, the very instant that a sperm cell unites with an egg? Is it later in the pregnancy, when the fetus is starting to form and beginning to have brain activity? Is it when the fetus could theoretically survive outside the womb (which is a very 'moving target' due to increasing advances in neonatal intensive care)?
Then there's the issue of having a government enforce laws that take away some of your rights over what you can and can't do to your own body. Abortion rights advocates argue that there is an absolute right to privacy, and use slogans such as "keep your laws off my body" etc. It's interesting however, that there are OTHER laws governing what you can and can't do with your body too, such as laws against suicide, laws against selling your organs for financial gain, laws against ingesting illegal drugs, etc.
So, since we're never (as a society) going to achieve consensus on these issues... what to do?
My OWN philosophy is that a fetus should achieve protected status the moment it develops brain activity, and there should be no abortions permitted after that time, except for cases of rape, incest, or the life and health of the mother. I'm sure this answer will be displeasing to some folks, and they'll give me a thumbs down. Oh well...
It seems that we can not only NOT achieve consensus on these issues, but we also can't even discuss it in a civil manner without flaming each other.
2006-11-25 11:18:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by Stretchy McSlapNuts 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
I have debated and debated this so many times and i feel the same way. But i feel the only way abortion should be legal, is if there is a rape case, or the mother is endagered. Not even insestful abortion, because its not the childs fault that you decided to sleep with your brother. You should have the child and put it up for adoption if you dunnot want it. and If you don't feel like going through that pain Tough, don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Preganacy is nine months in time, a life is so much longer and priceless. The only problem is that there would be so much controversy, and people would find other ways to kill there babies. all the people trying to adopt, and that cannot concieve, it's really quite disturbing. JUST HAVE THE CHILD AND PUT IT UP FOR ADOPTION, THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO.
2006-11-25 11:17:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Im that girl! 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
I believe each person will have to answer for their own actions in the end. I was always taught that sin is sin and one is not more grievous than another to a judging God. I shudder to think about all the times I have come up short of what was expected, and that gives me plenty to worry about, without having the need to look around at what others might be doing that is sinful. I would never have an abortion, but I have lied, been envious, been less than charitble...all sins...all worthy of judgement.
I will only take issue with your statement about having sex with family members. There are a lot of defenseless, sexually abused young girls out there, who have been victimized since childhood, and for whom escape may seem impossible because they have been so intimidated for such a long time. For them, "No" is not an option. Granted they are in the minority, thank heaven, but they do exist and deserve some consideration and compassion. A child of incest is also highly likely to have unfotunate health consequences that may not appear until the next generation.
I think we need to let compassion be our utmost concern, and leave the judgement to God.
2006-11-25 11:24:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't agree with abortion under any circumstances except perhaps if there is a danger that the mother could die giving birth. The choice then should be left to the mother. There are many people in the world who are unable to have children. Perhaps they could adopt the unwanted babies instead of aborting them.
After all what crime has the innocent child committed that it should be killed?
2006-12-03 10:56:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Birdman 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I still can't understand what business it is of anyone elses but mine, if I get pregnant or my 14 year old daughter does you can rest assure a babie will not be forced upon u, it will be our choice to keep or not.. It's people like you(WHOM BY THE WAY CAN'T SPELL) who has there nose in everybody elses business, I think maybe every baby you THINK is saved by your protests you should be financially responsible for said baby til they are 18 and then put them through college. How does that sound to you, and gee, do you think incest is totally uncalled for,DAHHH. Clean out your own closet before taking over somebody elses.
2006-11-25 11:31:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by MKM 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
To reply to the comment of "You're never going to get anyone to agree on exactly when life begins." I think you can. As Americans, we have defined when a person is offically dead, which is when the heart and brain stop fuctioning. Why don't we use this as a model of when life begins and say that life begins with a heart beat and brain activity. This is about 2-3 months into the pragnacy. Doctors can measure this, and this is about as middle ground as you can get (comprimising the pro-life and pro-chioce). We are not going to be able to get these two sides to agree one way or the other. So what's wrong with my theory?
2006-11-25 11:41:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ergg 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You wouldn't believe how many people I've known that claim to be vehemently PRO-LIFE, but will easily make an exception for themselves if they had a 12 year old daughter turn up pregnant. Matter of fact, I know of one person that actually ran out and did just that, in spite of their opposing political priniciples!!
Look at it this way...sometimes the best set of morals might not be your own...whether you like it or not....its pretty relative.
We hear a lot about the world being overpopulated these days...not enough resources for everyone living on the planet today. Could you imagine how bad that could be WITHOUT legal abortion?????
If we outlaw it here in the USA, then people swill just run to other countries for it.
2006-11-25 11:13:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
the 3% I agree with, but why kill all those other 97% when so many people want babies and can't have them. Madonna and Angelina could have adopted babies for free right here in the US.
Adoption laws need to be relaxed so that more people can adopt.
I think that is the real problem. what's wrong with this picture when everyday people can't adopt...women pay thousands of dollars to get an egg and invitro fertilization and we have thousands of embryo's sitting in lab warehouses unused.
teenage girls having babies in toilets and throwing them in the trash...........adoption is the key
2006-11-25 11:29:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by Enigma 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
My question to you is this-if someone has an abortion for whatever reason or decides to keep the child, how does this affect you? and your life? It doesn't-so who are you to tell someone what to do with their body? Having or aborting this child will affect that women and her family life-so it should be their personal decision. That's what America is about right? Freedom of choice-so you can't take away a women's choice of having a child or an abortion. Religious reason cannot affect legal issues-which is why we have a separation of church and state!!! Abortion is a personally choice despite the reason behind it which is why no one can enforce their will on a women as to what she can and cannot do w/ her body.
2006-11-25 11:25:38
·
answer #10
·
answered by Annie 5
·
2⤊
1⤋