2007-07-26 11:32:05 · 28 answers · asked by matt d 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Are we not over run with unwanted one parent children
prevention is better than cure
but do the parents use protective measures in the class rooms these days I THINK NOT
not that most of them can read the leaflets anyway
2007-07-26 11:43:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
No - ( it is hear in Ireland) , when using abortion as a form of contraception then yes ,but people know the risks of having unprotected sex and what can happen if ,there old enough to be having sex then that should be old enough to take responsibility .
I'm not for abortion and I'm not against it either everybody has the write to choose - what if a 12yr old child or younger was rapped by her father or another man and got pregnant from that ( it does happen ) what if it was your child , you couldn't let a child have a baby then give that baby up for adoption ,what would you do in 18/20 yrs time when that child who was conceived from being rapped knocked at your door HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN to them , would be very hard and how do you think that child would take it .
so no every woman has the right to an abortion its there decision not all these anti abortion groups - what would thay do if it was there child .
2007-07-26 18:52:59 · answer #2 · answered by fafandloo 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Those who have argued so far for abortion to be made illegal have cited the 'it's being used as a contraceptive'. Rubbish. The law says terminations can be sought under certain circumstances, if it is detrimental to the health of the woman or any other children in the household, or if there is a life threatening disability. It says nothing about contraception in the law.
If you want to increase the number of women dying in botched backstreet abortions, go ahead.
If you want to increase the number of abandoned newborns outside hospitals and other public buildings, go ahead.
Quite frankly, I'm not prepared to see that happen - that's why it must remain legal.
2007-07-27 04:46:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. It should be a woman's choice to have an abortion. Not many women would want to have a child that is the product of rape, incest or will be born with a deformity that can hamper the child's entire life or cause it extreme pain and ensure that it needs constant care of doctors. There are some cultures where if a woman has a child outside marriage she can be stoned to death, what do these women do if they have been raped by their brother in law?
Besides if you make it illegal women can just travel to places where it is legal (especially if they live in Europe or travel to a different state if they're in the USA) or, even cheaper, get a baseball bat. The truth is if a woman doesn't want to have a child or her child after it's born she can find a way, she can also (sadly enough) dump her kid on the doorsteps of a church and abandon it.
2007-07-26 18:44:52 · answer #4 · answered by Acyla 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
NO.... The government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with MY BODY!!!! Plain and simple... Even though I personally don't believe in abortion, I think it should be legal so that the industry can be monitored. I also think that if it were illegal, women would still find a way.
Take for example a rape victim. They are give emergency contraception. SO what's the difference between that and an abortion. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING......
2007-07-26 18:42:34 · answer #5 · answered by just me 5 · 8⤊ 0⤋
No, it should not be illegal.
Let's set aside the issue of whether you think abortion is a good idea or not, or how often (if ever) it should happen.
Abortion should not be illegal because the concept of reproductive choice NOT being a fundamental personal right is equally bad to pro-life and pro-choice folks.
The thing about the abortion debate is that the two sides are arguing entirely unrelated issues. Pro-life people say "abortion is bad". Pro-choice advocates say "The government not should be making personal decisions that like". It's NOT about abortion. It's about WHO gets to make the DECISION.
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). If the majority gets to choose, then they are effectively imposing their belief system -- which is almost always religiously-based -- on everyone. If the individual gets to choose, then it allows for those people who happen to believe that a 6-week old collection of cells is not yet a person, as well as those who believe it is.
But if the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, if women lose the individual right to choose, and the government makes all the decisions. Try to imagine what could happen, if all reproductive rights are now subject to state control.
New York or Florida could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected.
Or North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer protected.
South Dakota has already outlawed abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or permanent harm to the mother. Then, they decide that they have too little population, and require every female under the age of 28 who is not celibate to have at least one child. Or mandating that women serve as surrogates. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected.
Once the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.
That's why the issue is not about abortion. It's about who gets to make the choice.
2007-07-26 18:35:22 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 7⤊ 4⤋
Recent studies (March 3rd 2007 Womens departure group )on this concluded that illegal abortions means shoddy backstreet abortions. They concluded the woman should decide unless it is very late on in the pregnancy. So perhaps the answer is No but yes if late on in the pregnancy. So its yes sometimes and no sometimes.
2007-07-27 00:56:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
no way!!!
there are certain circumstances that support abortion and shows the need not to outlaw it
if you had to find out that your mrs was expecting a baby that would have no quality of life if born and it was advised for you to abort for the sake of the child then what would you do?
2007-07-26 18:48:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
It depends on personal situations, personally I couldn't do it. Only time I personally think it is acceptable is if someone was raped or if there is somthing really terribly wrong with mother or baby. I know someone who had an abortion and the baby was with her long term boyfriend, cos (timing wasn't right) but then a few months later started trying for a baby and had one! Think that was soooo wrong!!!
2007-07-26 18:43:33 · answer #9 · answered by Minnie M 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
no because everyone has the right to choose
If I am pregnant for example and my doctor tells me that my baby has a brain damage,Down syndrome etc etc I WILL CHOOSE to terminate the pregnancy
2007-07-26 22:12:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋