No. That cocaine is yours and you framed me to get caught with it. A baby gets its genes from both the mother and the father. The child is literally part yours. I get really aggrivated when I see a father neglect his child but in the same sense, I get mad if the mother does this too. And when the mother neglects her child or doesn't want to take responsibility, what does she do? Abort it. Cocaine is a substance that could potentially kill you. A child is a human being and its life is not something that its mother should be able to take.

I strongly agree. But my aunt did tell me that my cousin was a mistake (almost sued the condom company) and yet she ended up loving her...

but if the baby came from an unwanted force...then hell no

But the question still remains: if one forces another to possess something against her will, does it belong to her if she does not willingly accept it?

YES it belongs to them. YES they helped make it...even if they didn't want to. It's not an easy fact to accept but that child is theirs, whether they like it or not. My question to you is, if you think that a women should be able to deny her child on the basis that she she doesn't want to accept it, should guys be allowed to do this too? If a man doesn't want to take responsiblity and be a parent to his child, she he be allowed to neglect it?

That's entirely different. If a man willingly participates in the actions that lead up to making a baby, he has a responsibility to it. If a women is raped, she was not an active or willing participant. The cases are quite different.

What if a woman lied to a man, telling him she was on birth control, and used to him just to get pregnant? Or if SHE raped HIM? It's a lot more common for women to get raped than men, but it does happen.

But back to the real topic. My point was that women need to take responsiblity just like men do. It's totally understandable that a woman wouldn't want to raise a child that was a product of rape but it's a totally different story to abort the child. Adoption is the best choice here.

Again...

QUOTE(myself)

I still have not been given a reason as to why someone should have to have a child when they don't want to, especially since the current laws even right now prevent it from happening when the fetus is actually living...

And so what you're saying is we should just have all the children we can, even if they were accidents, only to put them into orphanages and a foster parent cycle that could result (and often results) in them getting abused and actually getting killed later in life, after they have already lived a life?

We already have overpopulation of adoption centers and orphanages. Many kids grow up to never have parents at all, and if not that, get sent from home to home through the foster child system, still ending up with no parents. You would rather just have more and more depressed, miserable people living some pretty sad lives because they have no one around to love them? Or would you like to prevent a child from having to go through a life they don't want, that no one should ever want, for themselves or anyone else? Why would you want your child to live like that? Why not prevent them even being alive before it happens and prevent them from having to go through all that?

I think going through a life like that is much more traumatic to a living child than it getting aborted as a group of cells, less cells than I kill by falling on the ground and scraping my arm.

If a woman lied, the man is still a willing participate in the actions leading to the pregnancy; in the second case, no, the man would have no responsibility for the child.

^ yeah same here

think about this:
what if u were the one who was being aborted...?

that's a silly argument on many levels. once a fetus is aborted, they don't have a life and they can't think. so i was being aborted or was aborted, i wouldn't have an opinion. these what if situations are bad arguments because they fail to make a point and fail to add to the debate.

most of us agreed that we can't have a free-for-all abortion system but the option has to stay open. if you put a ban on abortion, then you force a lot of women in a desperate corner and they would do anything to get rid of something they don't want.

our body is our own; no one else should have a say to what we can or cannot do to it. in the nazi concentration camps, the jews were tattoed and had their bodies detroyed by an outside authority. a lot of holocaust survivors said that this lose of control over their body made them feel as if they weren't living in more, as if nothing was theirs any more.

I strongly agree. If the woman in pregnancy wants to have an abortion because she believes her child will most likely have a pathetic life. Then let abortion be used.

and for those who think it's taking a life. Once a baby is concieved, it is nothing more but a brainless organism. It doesn't have a mind, a heart, nor a soul (yet). It cannot even think for itself. It's just a sperm slowly developing in an egg

These children that you are talking about are usually not in orphanages or foster care right from birth. The children that grow up in these situations are, unfortunatley, given up for adoption when they are a few years old because the parents can't or don't want to deal with them anymore or because both of their parents died. I hate to say this, but a majority of adopted children were adopted right from birth. Most couples who are looking to adopt, want to adopt a newborn baby. In the case of giving up babies for adoption, rather than aborting them, they would have a much better chance of being adopted. On another note, I don't think you're giving foster care and orphanges as much credit as they deserve. There are standards and laws that places like this have to abide by. Not every orphange is like the ones that you see in movies. No, it's not the preffered way of life but at least it's life.


I just can't seem to understand how people think it's okay to kill something just because it isn't fully developed yet. Just because the fetus hasn't developed a brain yet, shouldn't give anybody the right to kill it. It's like saying that it's okay just because it doesn't understand. Does that give us the right to kill mentally disabled kids because they wouldn't understand what was happening and wouldn't have an opinion? Of course not. Newborn babies can't comprehend and have opinions because their brain is still developing but it is considered murder to kill them. I don't think that abortion should be justified based on a fetus's inability to think at the time.

You can't kill something that isn't alive. You must have life before death. Fetuses that are aborted are not alive.

I've posted statistics on adoption earlier in this thread, about what races/nationalities get adopted, and the growing trend in adopting non-US babies. I've shown the flaws in the adoption system, more than once. Why do I need to again?

It doesn't work out, and at least a quarter of babies in the US put up for adoption don't get adopted until later in life or not at all, especially if they have a birth defect or something. Babies with birth defects or anything "wrong" with them usually never get adopted. No one wants a baby like that. Why wouldn't you prevent it from living in the first place, instead of going through such a horrible life, not only with the "wrong" things, but never having a family as well?

I'm more concerned with the quality of life rather than the quantity.

^you make up the greatest points. and besides, that fetus hasn't lived a life (like the others said) so why make such a big deal? Do you want to populate this world with children who probably don't like their lives as it is? It's better to prevent a mistake then let it happen. (love your sig btw)

there is no baby killing involved in abortions.

People are boycotting american girl dolls, because they donated money to an abortion center. They stand up for womens rights, so what? That means your kids can't have stupid little dolls?

what abortion rights comes down is this:

one side supports abortion as a right and wishes to give women a choice.

one side views abortion as immoral wishes to force thier own beliefs about abortion on everyone else and take a choice away from women.

Sadly, babies will continue to be murdered whether the parents have the choice or not. Giving them the choice just leads them to believe that it's okay.

I will restate....

You cannot murder something that is not alive. Abortions are not, and will not, be legal past the point of life, unless there is an extenuating circumstance.

An abortion aborts a fetus. A fetus is growing. How can you say that a growing thing isn't alive? Even if it isn't "alive" by your definition, what makes you think that you can stop it from soon being alive? Murder is taking away somebody's life. In my view, keeping something from being able to be alive is the same thing.

Just because something has the potential to live does not mean it is living.

A rock has the potential to be broken in half. Does that mean it is and that we should do nothing to stop it from being broken, just because it eventually will be?

well all have the potential to be dead, but that doens't mean we should run around killing people.

you keep asserting that abortion is murder. care to prove it?

I don't understand the concept of not being able to love or handle carrying the baby of a rapist. It's your child too, and there is adoption. Besides which, the baby is NOT the rapist. You are not your parents, so why should your child grow up to be its father? Raise it, teach it to live a good life, but don't sink to the level where you keep it from living. It's selfish and ridiculous. And if you really can't handle it, put if up for adoption. But honestly, have some pride and carry it. Rather than run away from your problems, confront them. You may feel "dirty" as you're pregnant, but that would be no less true if you aborted. Many women get depressed after having abortions, and spend their entire lives regretting the decision. It doesn't matter if it isn't developed- the fetus is still alive. The fact that it was fertilized and able to begin growing means that it has life in it, so taking it away is still murder. Have some responsibility for your actions, voluntary or otherwise. There are plenty of ways to have a miscarriage if you object so much - but having the legal choice is just allowing women to be irresponsible and pretend that it never happened. Well, it did. And killing the baby will not make that go away. Erasing the physical proof does not make the memories go away. That's stupid. Many women, even if they didn't want to get pregnant, feel empty after losing a baby, be it by natural miscarriage or abortion. It's for a reason. There's still that maternal instinct. I don't think it's a religious matter, either. Being atheist is not an excuse for someone to go around murdering people, so how is this better? Yes, it's your baby, but it would be the baby's life.

what actions of theirs should they be responsible for? being raped? violated?

rape victims have to go through years of therapy after a trauma like that. i could see victims committing suicide if they were forced to carry a child that they had no part in making.

a woman that is raped and gets pregnant had no input in it. its not like she was on the pill and it didnt work, and she wants an abortion. she didnt do anything at all. she didnt even have sex.

^ well, not willingly, at least.

but abortions should not be banned. where else are we to get adult stem cells that the religious right is touting as the alternative to embryonic stem cells. (that's right. "adult" stem cells come from aborted feotuses)

Nicki, the fetus doesn't actually begin growing as a living thing until a certain point.

And, what if the raped girl was in high school? She has to go through that misery of being pregnant, with a rapist's baby, in freaking high school? It's bad enough in the real world.

Like I said before, I'm much more concerned with the quality of life rather than the quantity. I hate seeing people sad. So, if there's a way we can have some happy lives rather than a bunch of sad ones, I'd go that way.

And some people also commit suicide for having an abortion. It's a lose-lose situation, but it's better to lose one life than two. An yes, handle the rape responsibly. It's a lot more respectable to deal with your problems tthan to run away from them, which is basically what abortion does.

Sammi, by that "quality over quanity" arguement, you could basically argue that it's ok to bomb third world countries, or let poverty stricken people die than to even bother to help them if they're just living sad lives anyway. What's another few thousand, anyway? Lovely in theory, but quality over quanitiy just doesn't make sense, because not everyone can live a happy, good life. Many people who had hard childhoods grow up to be much stronger because of it.

killing one soon to be life is much better than ruining two, sometimes three.

People should always help someone rather than kill them, if they are able to. If there's no way to help the child, and they would probably just die of starvation because you don't have enough money to support them...why wouldn't you want to prevent that?

I know not everyone can live a happy life. But why bring more miserable people into the world? It would even out that ratio of happy:miserable if you prevented them from living in the first place.

Abortion is a preventative measure, not killing.

Alright, I am pro-choice. Please consider this.

If you are raped, why would you want the memory of that terrible and awful experience in the kid, that you're going to be taking care of the rest of your life? Every time you look at that child, you're going to remember what happened to you. What happens when they want to know where their dad is? What are you going to tell them? Oh, your dad raped me. He's in jail now for it. I got pregnant unintentionally. I didn't want you. That can be as traumatizing for the child as the initial rape was to you. Think about the shame and humiliation the kid will go through.

And about adoption. Anybody know how hard it is to get one? How expensive it is? Well, there are a whole lot of good people who want kids, but they are very very strict on who can have them. Then you have kids growing up in orphanages all their lives, feeling lonely and unwanted. The world is overpopulated as it is.

If you lined up the population of China in a single file line, how far around the world would it go?
The answer is: The line would never end because of the rate of reproduction.

In one country alone.

I think a woman's choice to have an abortion should not be decided by any man. Ever.

How many men will ever have to have an abortion?

Yes, you can place your opinion and that's fine, but you really aren't the sole decider in the situation, because the woman is the person carrying the unborn child.

I think that even if you don't believe it is right, you should let people have the choice. I mean, isn't this country about choices, and freedom? Why should we limit people's choices, just because we aren't very open-minded about the topic? It's against the Catholic Church to have an abortion. The majority of the U.S. is Catholic, so you can see where the vote will go on this. But think about it, what if there was a religion that said you HAD to have an abortion? You might find that wrong, but should you deprive them of their right to their own faith? I know there is most likely no religion like this, but it's just for the basic concept of understanding.

You shouldn't limit people's choices. That's what this country is about.

It's not our right to get in the way of what the mother wants. We can play the blame game forever but the point is that in the end it's the mother's choice. I am Pro Choice

To anyone who doesn't believe that a fetus or a lump of cells is a life:

How is life a neverending cycle?

You are born. You live. You die. That's the end. You don't continue.

No, silly. Dead people become one with the Force, and thus go on as a binding part of all living things.

i'm against abortion.
i mean taking a life that's in you? its just soo sad..
there may be just a few cells, but there's something LIVING inside of that peson...you cant just go ahead and kill it..

No, there's not.

ppl who say fetuses (however the plural of fetus is spelled) are alive, wut do u constitute as alive? merriam-webster dictionary defines "life" (the noun) as:

1c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

^therefore, we aren't alive until we hit puberty jk

seriously tho, im pro-choice. if the potential parent(s) cant provide a decent home for it, and the mother doesn't think she has the means to take care of it, then why bring another life into the world? and uhm, dont we all end up dead sooner or later anyways? and if u really think that its wrong, its taking a life, then isnt every time a woman has her period equvalent to an abortion? techinically, its the same as a fetus at conception except its just missing one sperm cell. is that really enough to make the difference between life and non-life? even if u can dispute that, i really think that human life begins when the baby first begins to function as a human independently, as in having the umbilical (sp?) cord cut. up until then, it doesn't even breathe on its own or anything, its just a part of the mother. y arent ppl opposed to taking tumors out of ppl? u could argue that tumors r alive if u say a fetus is alive at conception. actually any virus/bacteria inside anyone's body is alive for that matter. why do we use medicine to kill those lives? bc they can kill ya. so can childbirth. and if the mother is in an economic situation where she can't support the baby or herself, and wants to get an abortion but can't, then its really stupid to not let her get one.

too many people think if you are pro-choice that means you are pro-abortion. it doesnt. personally, i would consider adoption before even thinking about abortion, i just wouldnt want it, and i think it should be rare. but that doesnt give me the right to take what i believe and legislate it onto other people. thats not how "the land of the free" is supposed to be right? saying a woman should NOT have the right to not go along with her pregnancy if she doesnt want to kind of erks me. I mean, do you think this wasnt a hard choice for the mother? you think it doesnt make her sad? but her decision was based upon what she thought was the best decison to make. and i will respect that.

most women are pregnate because they wanna be, if they dont, why should they HAVE to go through if they dont want to? at leats give them a choice. its not like every women does it. let the women that wanna get an abortion get one. and the ones that dont want to just wont, by their own decision. not because they had to anyway. at leats they know they were given a choice.

What if someone doesn't think that murder should be a crime? Why should we legislate something against their belief?



They had a choice, unless it wasn't consensual sex.

someone that doesnt consider murder as a crime can be considered as insane.
and i dont think mothers that choose to have an abortion are going through insanity.

And if one believes abortion is murder?

then that is their opinion. an opinion that is greatly argued back and forth. murder itself, is not argued. any sane person knows doing so for absolutely no reason is wrong and if anyone does think for some reason it is "right", they are considered insane and probably in jail for murder themselves. but even murderers feel they had intent for each person or the one person they kill.

abortion is much more complicated. you cant just call it murder. that can be your opinion, but many will disagree. considering technically the fetus growing in YOUR body isnt even living yet till a certain time. hence the reason why some states allow abortion up to a certain age of the fetus.
but if you said "i think murder for no reason is wrong" not many people will disagree with you. Murder is not Legal in some states and you wont see a debate on cb saying "Murder, should it be legalized?". So its obviously not considered the same exact thing. The fact that we still can't decide and theres alot of debate about it, is percisely the reason why their should be a choice.

So whatever the majority agrees with is always right?

Look, it's very simple, a fetus is not living. Unless the Being is living independant from the mother than it can not be considered murder...

Pro choice all the way!! Anyways, a child can sense when they are not wanted and has a bigger chance of being screwed up later in life. On top of that, if the mother does not have the ressources to raise the child and is scared shitless of giving birth, what is she supposed to do??

Fetus is a latin term, when translated into english, guess what it means... baby.

A baby cannot live independantly of it's parents or some sort of care giver. It cannot take care of it's basic living functions itself.

For the evolutionists out there, who believe that all life came about through a single living organism. How would you feel if someone came a long and aborted all life on earth? Yeah exactly!

Seriously though, from conception the baby is alive. As soon as the sperm enters the egg, it is life. Those are the dice you roll. If you don't want to have a baby, you need to abort the sperm or the eggs, or the canals by which the sperm travel. Something or anything before it gets there.

Abortion is murder. Murder is the theft of life. Shedding innocent blood. Sacrificing children on the altar of convenience.

What about rape victims? What about when the mother's life is in danger? Those abortions account for less than 2-5% of all abortions. How many babies die needlessly? Because a woman doesn't want to feel the pain of child birth, or because they don't have the money, or because her mate told her to. All no reason to kill a baby. How can you justify 95-98% of the estimated 1,293,000 babies killed via abortion in 2002?

Give the baby to an orphanage, or an adoption agency, or a church. There's a church on nearly every street corner. Simple as that. It's what has always been done.

Did you know Norma McCorvey had her child after abortion was legalized?

Just because it's two to five percent doesn't mean it's not there. Two percent of that statistic that you yourself gave is 25,860. That's just two percent. You think 25,860 already living women should die just so that their not-yet-living potential child can live its life without its mother? Oh, and five percent is 64,650.

If life is the issue here, it seems much more logical to not kill someone that's already living and instead prevent something from living.

Apparently, according to you, it's killing either way, so why would you outlaw something that you think kills people to kill people by outlawing it?

So would you support the ban on abortion except in the cases for those 5%?

I've been saying that forever. I support case-sensitive laws, just don't think it's possible to happen, since anyone can lie and say they've been raped or something. It would be too difficult to make it case-sensitive since each person would have a different plea to get one. I don't think these huge sluts should go out, get drunk, have unprotected sex with some guy and be able to get abortion, but the law is going to come down to none or all, and if banning abortions means that these women who have suffered so much will have to go through it all again or if the kids they bear will suffer, then I would much rather want all available, no matter how small a percentile they take up.

It shouldn't even be a case-by-case law. As I've stated a hundred times in this thread, it should be a "one and you're done" law. After one abortion, that's it. That should be enough to quell the ignorance of a few idiotic teenage girls, while still accommodating those that have legitimate excuses to receive the procedure.

Exceptions may vary, as with any law -- but it remains to be the most logical solution I've seen thus far. Go figure that it's mine.

God damn, I should be a Congressman.

I agree with that too, with the exceptions. I don't know why people keep arguing me when I agree with them. Just because I'm not conservative doesn't mean I think people should run around getting a bunch of abortions for no reason...I've stated what I think a hundred times too, then people try to refute what I say by saying what I've said. I don't get it.

And hi Justin.