Oppinions on abortion?

[Keronians]

13 is fine. 18 is high. Please remember I'm from the US.

13 is a child. 16 is fine.

I'm from the USA.

Telling people that they cannot act upon their sexual urges is not very good either, and will just lead to people ignoring the law and having sex before 16 anyway.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Reducing the age from 18 is what makes sense, and that was my point.

The age only needs to be reduced in some states. Many states have 16 as age of consent.

39 of the 50 US States have an Age of Consent lower than 18. 30 of those are at 16, 9 are at 17.

[UCUMAY]

The age only needs to be reduced in some states. Many states have 16 as age of consent.

39 of the 50 US States have an Age of Consent lower than 18. 30 of those are at 16, 9 are at 17.

Let's stop the thread jack. I made a new thread.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

13 is a child. 16 is fine.

I'm from the USA.

Telling people that they cannot act upon their sexual urges is not very good either, and will just lead to people ignoring the law and having sex before 16 anyway.

Age of Consent laws do not apply to sexual acts performed when both parties are under said age. The law only applies to older individuals and it is to help prevent younger people from being taken advantage of. I support it, though I would go with an amendment to US law allowing sexual contact between partners separated by age of consent as long as their ages are <5 years apart.

[Wiztopia]

Let's work to change the age of consent laws.

Speak for yourself. I'm quite happy with the one in my country.

Unless you don't think 13 is alright, that is.

You're from Japan?

[Nulono]

Um, I'm 17 years old. Why do I have to adopt anyone to say it's wrong to kill people? Are you willing to adopt 10 unwanted babies?

<snip>

We could reduce the number of children in the adoption system by killing them after birth as well, but that doesn't mean anyone opposed to infanticide has to adopt 10 children.

WAAAAAAAAAAY to goddam long to quote. PLease start breaking up your responses or something.

1. I'm failing to see your point. Wanting the baby dead is not a valid reason in it of itself, just as wanting a full grown adult dead is not a valid reason in it of itself to commit murder. I'm sure you're gonna say that somehow translates into abortion being wrong, and news flash, you're probably right. But as it has no apparent negative side effect to society (indeed, we could do with a lower birth rate), that doesn't translate into it being illegalized. Wrong=/=illegal. Infanticide however has to be illegal basically because the line DOES need to be drawn at some point. I'm sure I COULD sit here and give a dozen reasons why infanticide could be legal, but I wont because it invites too many questions. How old is too old? What do we do with the bodies? What kind of forms and paperwork needs to filled out? Do both parents need to agree, and how could pre-nups affect this agreement? On and on. I think personhood is a perfectly valid place to draw the "Not ok to kill" line at.
2. A logical reason is 1) Has an apparent or provable negative consequence to society at large and 2) Is not based on falsifiable or debatable facts. Anti-abortion arguments are based on the fact that a fetus=a child, or the even more ridiculous assertion embryo=child. Both are categorically untrue. A fetus only equals a fetus; an embryo an embryo. If you want we can also sit here and argue about whether or not human rights even exist at all. That's the fundamental problem with all pro-life arguments. It assumes an ethical maxim (where life begins) that, bottom line, is not a given fact and is only subjectively true. Whereas pro-choice arguments assume that either doesn't exist (like Great Nepal, I think) or it's irrelevant to the law (myself).
4. I guess that might be a valid point, although to be fair it would still only apply to people who are in the custody of the US government or it's states, as opposed to all persons universally. People arrested in the DPRK, for example, still do not have this right, despite the fact the Constitution says they should because they're people. I think it's probably better to not look at it so much as a given right as a restriction on the government's rights to prosecute people, be they citizens or foreign nationals. But that's not really the point; it still falls on you to prove that a fetus actually constitutes a person. Also, as another point, the right to life is not explicit, even to citizens, as evidenced by the death penalty.
7. Again, prove it. PROVE that a fetus=a child. Then PROVE that that should mean something in the eyes of the law. And by prove, I want empirical, objective evidence, not opinion. If you can't provide any, I have no use for anything you say.

1. Why does personhood begin at birth?
2. How is it more valid to assume a maxim that life begins at birth than it is to assume life begins at conception, when the latter is scientific fact?
4. The Constitution of course only applies within the jurisdiction of the United States (duh), but that doesn't mean the rights only apply to citizens.
7. I've done so before, though perhaps not in this thread.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... uman+child
child
Etymology: AS, cild
1 a person of either sex between the time of birth and adolescence.
2 an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant.
3 an offspring or descendant; a son or daughter or a member of a particular tribe or clan.
4 one who is like a child or immature.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

Um, I'm 17 years old.

So it's okay for you to refuse to accept a child, even with no medical risk to yourself, just because you're young and unprepared.

The amount of cognitive dissonance on the 'pro-life' side of the debate is deafening.

Did I say I'd kill anyone? No? Then shut up.

(Image)

What's all the fuss?

Isn't this spam?

[Norstal]

13 is fine. 18 is high. Please remember I'm from the US.

13 is a child. 16 is fine.

I'm from the USA.

Increasing the age of consent might make it more problematic for these people to get an abortion.

[Keronians]

Telling people that they cannot act upon their sexual urges is not very good either, and will just lead to people ignoring the law and having sex before 16 anyway.

Age of Consent laws do not apply to sexual acts performed when both parties are under said age. The law only applies to older individuals and it is to help prevent younger people from being taken advantage of. I support it, though I would go with an amendment to US law allowing sexual contact between partners separated by age of consent as long as their ages are <5 years apart.

Yes, I knew that (and thought it was obvious?). As you said, putting a 17 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend on the sex offenders' list is just damn stupid.

[Keronians]

Speak for yourself. I'm quite happy with the one in my country.

Unless you don't think 13 is alright, that is.

You're from Japan?

Well, technically I'm from India, but I live in Spain.

[Coupeville]

I'm a man. With condoms, pills, shots and all of the methods of BC. nowadays there is no reason for anyone to have an "accidental pregnancy". I think it comes down to a moral choice wether or not it's "good" or "bad". Either way the government should stay out of it. You can't legislate morality it just doesn't work. People were getting abortions along time before Row v. Wade. It should be the woman's choice. Everyone assumes that these women are so stupid that they don't care, but I imagine it is a issue that takes a lot of thought and isn't taken lightly. It's better they are given clean and safe conditions to have this done.

[Wiztopia]

I'm a man. With condoms, pills, shots and all of the methods of BC. nowadays there is no reason for anyone to have an "accidental pregnancy". I think it comes down to a moral choice wether or not it's "good" or "bad". Either way the government should stay out of it. You can't legislate morality it just doesn't work. People were getting abortions along time before Row v. Wade. It should be the woman's choice. Everyone assumes that these women are so stupid that they don't care, but I imagine it is a issue that takes a lot of thought and isn't taken lightly. It's better they are given clean and safe conditions to have this done.

It was banned before Roe vs Wade and they were getting them from dangerous sources.

[Valdanis]

I am all for banning abortion given it's balanced by men requiring the snip should they ever get someone pregnant by accident.

The combined oral contraceptive pill is 99.6%¹ effective when used properly, and higher when combined with other forms of birth control. This is the last I'll say on the subject, as I know from experience how aggressively people react to unpopular comments such as these.

¹Hatcher, Robert A., et al.. Contraceptive Technology (19th rev. ed.)

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

I'm a man. With condoms, pills, shots and all of the methods of BC. nowadays there is no reason for anyone to have an "accidental pregnancy". I think it comes down to a moral choice wether or not it's "good" or "bad". Either way the government should stay out of it. You can't legislate morality it just doesn't work. People were getting abortions along time before Row v. Wade. It should be the woman's choice. Everyone assumes that these women are so stupid that they don't care, but I imagine it is a issue that takes a lot of thought and isn't taken lightly. It's better they are given clean and safe conditions to have this done.

It was banned before Roe vs Wade and they were getting them from dangerous sources.

This. If a woman does not want to have a child, she will not have a child. It's that fucking simple. The amount of women in the 50s and 60s who died from botched abortions by weirdos in trench coats is just astounding. I put the life of a human being above that of a blastocyst, sorry.

[Nulono]

I'm a man. With condoms, pills, shots and all of the methods of BC. nowadays there is no reason for anyone to have an "accidental pregnancy". I think it comes down to a moral choice wether or not it's "good" or "bad". Either way the government should stay out of it. You can't legislate morality it just doesn't work. People were getting abortions along time before Row v. Wade. It should be the woman's choice. Everyone assumes that these women are so stupid that they don't care, but I imagine it is a issue that takes a lot of thought and isn't taken lightly. It's better they are given clean and safe conditions to have this done.

Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. You can’t legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion. Well, there’s half-truth involved here. Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also. So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government.
- Martin Luther King Jr.

I'm a man. With condoms, pills, shots and all of the methods of BC. nowadays there is no reason for anyone to have an "accidental pregnancy". I think it comes down to a moral choice wether or not it's "good" or "bad". Either way the government should stay out of it. You can't legislate morality it just doesn't work. People were getting abortions along time before Row v. Wade. It should be the woman's choice. Everyone assumes that these women are so stupid that they don't care, but I imagine it is a issue that takes a lot of thought and isn't taken lightly. It's better they are given clean and safe conditions to have this done.

It was banned before Roe vs Wade and they were getting them from dangerous sources.

Everything becomes more dangerous when it's banned. That's kind of the point.

[Nulono]

I'm a man. With condoms, pills, shots and all of the methods of BC. nowadays there is no reason for anyone to have an "accidental pregnancy". I think it comes down to a moral choice wether or not it's "good" or "bad". Either way the government should stay out of it. You can't legislate morality it just doesn't work. People were getting abortions along time before Row v. Wade. It should be the woman's choice. Everyone assumes that these women are so stupid that they don't care, but I imagine it is a issue that takes a lot of thought and isn't taken lightly. It's better they are given clean and safe conditions to have this done.

Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. You can’t legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion. Well, there’s half-truth involved here. Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also. So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government.
- Martin Luther King Jr.

I'm a man. With condoms, pills, shots and all of the methods of BC. nowadays there is no reason for anyone to have an "accidental pregnancy". I think it comes down to a moral choice wether or not it's "good" or "bad". Either way the government should stay out of it. You can't legislate morality it just doesn't work. People were getting abortions along time before Row v. Wade. It should be the woman's choice. Everyone assumes that these women are so stupid that they don't care, but I imagine it is a issue that takes a lot of thought and isn't taken lightly. It's better they are given clean and safe conditions to have this done.

It was banned before Roe vs Wade and they were getting them from dangerous sources.

Everything becomes more dangerous when it's banned. That's kind of the point.

[Grave_n_idle]

Did I say I'd kill anyone? No? Then shut up.

That's a disproportionately aggressive response.

Hypocrisy engenders that kind of emotion.

[Wiztopia]

Everything becomes more dangerous when it's banned. That's kind of the point.

So you want women to get unsafe abortions so they can die?

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Everything becomes more dangerous when it's banned. That's kind of the point.

So you want woman to get unsafe abortions so they can die?

Those damn whore slut bitches shouldn't have opened their slut whore legs if they didn't want a baby. The sluts.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

1. I'm failing to see your point. Wanting the baby dead is not a valid reason in it of itself, just as wanting a full grown adult dead is not a valid reason in it of itself to commit murder. I'm sure you're gonna say that somehow translates into abortion being wrong, and news flash, you're probably right. But as it has no apparent negative side effect to society (indeed, we could do with a lower birth rate), that doesn't translate into it being illegalized. Wrong=/=illegal. Infanticide however has to be illegal basically because the line DOES need to be drawn at some point. I'm sure I COULD sit here and give a dozen reasons why infanticide could be legal, but I wont because it invites too many questions. How old is too old? What do we do with the bodies? What kind of forms and paperwork needs to filled out? Do both parents need to agree, and how could pre-nups affect this agreement? On and on. I think personhood is a perfectly valid place to draw the "Not ok to kill" line at.
2. A logical reason is 1) Has an apparent or provable negative consequence to society at large and 2) Is not based on falsifiable or debatable facts. Anti-abortion arguments are based on the fact that a fetus=a child, or the even more ridiculous assertion embryo=child. Both are categorically untrue. A fetus only equals a fetus; an embryo an embryo. If you want we can also sit here and argue about whether or not human rights even exist at all. That's the fundamental problem with all pro-life arguments. It assumes an ethical maxim (where life begins) that, bottom line, is not a given fact and is only subjectively true. Whereas pro-choice arguments assume that either doesn't exist (like Great Nepal, I think) or it's irrelevant to the law (myself).
4. I guess that might be a valid point, although to be fair it would still only apply to people who are in the custody of the US government or it's states, as opposed to all persons universally. People arrested in the DPRK, for example, still do not have this right, despite the fact the Constitution says they should because they're people. I think it's probably better to not look at it so much as a given right as a restriction on the government's rights to prosecute people, be they citizens or foreign nationals. But that's not really the point; it still falls on you to prove that a fetus actually constitutes a person. Also, as another point, the right to life is not explicit, even to citizens, as evidenced by the death penalty.
7. Again, prove it. PROVE that a fetus=a child. Then PROVE that that should mean something in the eyes of the law. And by prove, I want empirical, objective evidence, not opinion. If you can't provide any, I have no use for anything you say.

1. Why does personhood begin at birth?
2. How is it more valid to assume a maxim that life begins at birth than it is to assume life begins at conception, when the latter is scientific fact?
4. The Constitution of course only applies within the jurisdiction of the United States (duh), but that doesn't mean the rights only apply to citizens.
7. I've done so before, though perhaps not in this thread.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... uman+child
child
Etymology: AS, cild
1 a person of either sex between the time of birth and adolescence.
2 an unborn or recently born human being; fetus; neonate; infant.
3 an offspring or descendant; a son or daughter or a member of a particular tribe or clan.
4 one who is like a child or immature.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

1. Why not?
2. Life OBVIOUSLY begins at conception. To say otherwise is a ridiculous assertion and showing a complete ignorance of what it means to be biologically living. I'm arguing personhood, the conditon of being a full human, does not begin at birth, particularly in legal spheres. It certainly does NOT begin at conception, as there is not enough brain activity to constitute anything more than an ambiguous lump of cells. It IS poissible to argue a developed fetus with a fully (or nearly) developed brain and other organs is a human, and that is why I'm not completely against term limits on abortion as a compromise. And that is the closest thing to a concession you will probably get from me in this debate.
4. Ok, but as unborn children are not legally people or citizens, it's really the same difference. If were arguing about, say, Gauntanamo Bay prisoner rights, then you would have bested me. But we're not, are we?
7. That defines a usage of the word. While it may be correct in certain situations (for example, a delivery room), it doesn't necessarily stand to follow that for purposes of abortion they are children. So yes, I suppose you can say that fetuses could be considered children under some definition of the word. But then I'll just ask what's wrong with killing children who have not been born? And again I'll say probably a lot, but that it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that killing millions of unborn children should be illegal, and so on and so on, ad infinitum. Maybe you see now the scope of how little I care about whether or not they actually ARE children? Bottom line is legally they are not people, nor should they be. Ultimately the woman's body is hers, and not society's or the state's. ANd please, none of that "It's should be legal cause it's legal?" crap.

[Marcheria]

So you want woman to get unsafe abortions so they can die?

Those damn whore slut bitches shouldn't have opened their slut whore legs if they didn't want a baby. The sluts.

Whoa, whoa, what the hell?! I hope this is a joke!

[Peoples New Norway]

Porn gives women an easy way to make money (and its saved a lot of them) but there is still risk of getting pregnant no matter how many precautions are taken. Abortions are needed to eliminate this. Besides (as others have said) if things aren't legal they will be done on the black market, where the procedures usually aren't as safe.
Again I still have no moral objections to abortion.

[Wiztopia]

Why must anti-choice shows like Secret life of the American Teenager exist?

[Aethrys]

I still can't find the "Make abortions mandatory" option.

[Marisena]

Another abortion thread ugh. In my opinion abortion is fine.

[Bitchkitten]

Move to the East Coast?

Oklahoma is a closer option for me.

Have you lost your mind? Oklahoma is the armpit of the universe.