Is outlawing safe abortion merely treating the symptom as opposed to the disease?
2007-06-26 11:34:40 · 13 answers · asked by El Duderino 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't think abortion should be a political issue, but a personal one.
Such a hypothetical scenario that would outlaw safe abortion WOULD BE treating the symptom and not the disease! It needs to be examined WHY women are having abortions in the first place! Is it from lack of resources, like affordable child-care, health-care, neo-natal, ect...?
Without getting into the specifics, certain birth-control methods COULD BE considered "aborting" a potential human baby... There's some added food for thought. Sorry.
2007-06-26 11:46:38 · answer #1 · answered by Sangria 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Although most of the people here will tell you that they are not opposed to birth control, that is primarily because the religious right lost that argument years ago. Prior to Rowe vs. Wade, there were court cases regarding laws that outlawed birth control. (culminated in Griswold v. Connecticut which you can read online with a simple search). The Christian right was behind these laws and fought hard to keep them in place. You can be certain if they win the abortion battle, the birth control battle will be next once again because they think birth control is immoral.
2007-06-26 12:28:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am FOR birth control.
If people would use it in the first place, there would not be such a need for abortion. Abortion should not be used as birth control, that should be an issue on the debate too. Too many people use it as a birth control, instead of taking precautions in the first place. Also, the clinics are not giving proper information to younger patients about what they are actually doing, causing regret later in life.
2007-06-26 11:43:46 · answer #3 · answered by AveGirl 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The use of birth control to prevent pregnancy is far better than the use of abortion to terminate pregnancy. So, I do not oppose the use of birth control.
2007-06-26 11:41:40 · answer #4 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If birth control where used in the first place, then there will be no need for murdering children...
Yes for birth control...No for abortion
2007-06-26 11:49:59 · answer #5 · answered by the orphan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually the foundation of being anti-abortion is to keep your legs closed, or use birth control. If you don't do either, then you need to accept the consequences for your actions.
2007-06-26 11:44:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, yeah I agree with birth control. We have only a tiny world which is in much need of population control. Its better to use controls then to do it Bush's way.
2007-06-26 11:49:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
they are against start administration too. The Republicans in no way outlawed abortion in the process the 8 years that they had u . s . a . of america by way of the balls in the process the Bush administration. the only element they did became decrease investment for stem cellular learn, which became in simple terms throwing them a bone. What makes you think of they care approximately conservative ethical subject concerns? they are the only percenters and that they seem down on cons like scum. they are in simple terms conning "cons" out of their votes.
2016-10-19 00:18:53 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who in their right mind would be against birth control?
No glove, No love!
2007-06-26 11:39:53 · answer #9 · answered by Harry 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Anti-Abortion=anti-birth control. Yep! You betcha! I'm anti both thingys. What's up, Doc?
2007-06-26 11:39:05 · answer #10 · answered by Star Gazer 88 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋