CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What is Wrong with using Abortion as a means for Birth Control?
According to this article about a woman 'Addicted to Abortions' , one out of every two women who get an abortion will repeat.
Many people on this website and others have proclaimed their support for abortions with the caveot that they don't like seeing abortion used for birth control.
My question is "Why not?"
If it's NOT a child and has no rights... what's wrong with killing it and ridding yourself of it for any reason you 'choose?'
Simple answer: It degrades our definition of humanity and rots our sense of morality
On the day that abortion was legalized, experts assumed that it will decrease crime rate. Because they thought that less unwanted babies, less child abuse, less criminals.
After 18 years, the statistics showed that indeed, crime rates decreased. But upon closer inspection, it was discovered that it actually gone worse. Because we now define human life as mere toys, the amount of murder cases, rape, and denial of rights increased. At the same time, the age of criminals becomes younger for every generation.
And that does not include how it affected the sexual relationships of the teenagers. Whom more and more are engaging to premarital relationships
Using abortion as birth control means that abortion is being used as a back-up method to ineffective or improperly used contraception, or no contraception is being used at all.
I agree that it is wrong, totally and hideously wrong to have an abortion just because you can't be bothered to use contraception. I think there should be a limit on the amount of abortions you can have, or you should be sterilised (circumstances like rape don't apply), and if you have an abortion you should be heavily encouraged to get an implant http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/contraception-guide/Pages/contraceptive-implant.aspx to prevent further pregnancy for about 3 years.
But once, as a genuine mistake and especially if the woman was quite young, an abortion would be somewhat justified. I think 50-100 years in the future we'll have evolved as a society past using abortion unless in very rare occasions.
My personal reason would be what multiple abortions can do to a women's body, but then again it's her body. If she wants to mess it up, then by all means. I'm keeping my body as safe as possible and not using abortion often.
How does killing a child with an abortion not hurt the child that is killed? If you are the father who wants to love and protect the child.... how does it not hurt the father? The grandparents? Other siblings?
That's obviously not true, or there wouldn't be conflict over it like there is.
You seem to think that there could be no controversy or disagreement if we have clear definitions when in reality, that's exactly what we have.
We have laws and other definitions that say it's a child in the womb and also make it a crime of murder to kill one illegally... and we also exceptions that say the woman can kill it anyway with an abortion if she wants to.
So you see, it's the double standards (not the definitions) that drive the controversy.
(d) In this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
On a strictly logical point of view, it is wildly inefficient.
With so many other forms of birth control to choose from, condoms, diaphragms, the pill, the rhythm method (that is tracking a woman's menstrual cycle and avoiding sex on days most fertile), or good old fashion pulling out; it is downright foolish to use abortion as a means of birth control.
It is more dangerous for the woman, it is more damaging/stressful to her body, and it is more expensive.
You may need to define "using abortion as a means of birth control" for me.
I take it to mean: an ongoing system of preventing giving birth. Like with condoms, you use them each time you have sex to prevent/cut down the likelihood of pregnancy.
If someone consistently had unprotected sex and just got an abortion anytime they became pregnant, then yes there is something wrong with using abortion as a means of birth control.
WRONG: a : an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm without due provocation or just cause.
Abortion as birth control would be an injurious action that inflicted harm without just cause. Since there are many other methods of birth control that don't stress or endanger a woman available, there is no just cause for using abortion as a means of birth control; therefore it is wrong.
I would rather not discuss that. I am on this site to strengthen my debating skills I will try to logically debate most any topic, regardless of my personal views, but i don't think I am yet skilled enough to find a logical debate with regard to U.S. laws.
But you shouldn't do it for your own health - abortion should be something you do when you have considered every other option. Because not only does abortion kill a fetus, it can harm your own body both physically and mentally.
So for healthy reasons you should not use abortion as a birth control, that is not what it is for. We have condoms, pills and many other stuff that are much much safer to use as birth control. When those things accidentally .. don't work, that's when you can use abortion.
Okay, so one vote that says there's nothing wrong with it.
Got it.
Elvira said that abortions are to protect a person's physical and mental health.... and you just said that abortions present exactly those two problems....
With all do respect Elvira, it has been proved that abortion can cause both physical and mental health. I would like to know where the hell, sorry for my use of words, you've got the information that it can stimulate your health physically and mentally.
She didn't say that it could stimulate those things. She only said that they (abortions) are to prevent those things (physical and mental health problems).
Well.. a fetus in it's 5th week has no signs of being a human being.
You mean besides the fact that is ias a human being?
The YOUNG of the parents who created them?
It has no conscience, no brain or human organs.
Yes they do too have organs (organeles) at 5 weeks and neither brain waves nor conciousness are required neither for personhood nor for it to be a child.... so.
I would say a 5 year old child, with a conscience, brain and heart is way more of a child than a 5 week old fetus with none of those features.
A more developed child is not more of a child.
They are both equally the same where the status or title of child is concerned. How else could a person be charged with murder (for example) for killing a child in the womb?
Indeed, our laws regarding that - define a child in the womb as a child.
So, unless you can overturn those laws and other medical and scientific references which say it's a child in the womb? You have nothing but your denials to support your claims.
You mean besides the fact that is ias a human being?
It's not, it is a human fetus.
The YOUNG of the parents who created them?
The chicken egg are youngs of the chicken who created them - does that make them chicken? No they're chicken eggs.
Yes they do too have organs
No, before the fifth week the fetus shows no form of organs.
at 5 weeks and neither brain waves nor conciousness are required neither for personhood nor for it to be a child.... so.
Okay??? Well, let me introduce you to my son, the teddy bear. It has no conscience nor brain waves - but it doesn't need that for personhood nor for to be a child, right?
How else could a person be charged with murder (for example) for killing a child in the womb?
You mean if a person, who is not the pregnant woman kills the fetus? That's assault, that's why.
Indeed, our laws regarding that - define a child in the womb as a child.
I don't know what your laws say - but doctors call fetuses younger than 20weeks for possible lives. Because so many miscarriages happen before that.
So, unless you can overturn those laws and other medical and scientific references which say it's a child in the womb? You have nothing but your denials to support your claims.
1. It's a human being in the fetal stage of their life.
2. If the eggs are fertilized, the new chicks lives have began. They are indeed the young of their parents.
3. Before organs are developed, a young in the early stages of life utilizes 'organelles' to sustain their own life.
4. Your teddy bear son is not human. Check it's DNA and lineage.
5. The definition of murder is one person killing another. We have people in prison for killing a child in the womb - serving time for murder even though in many cases the mother was not killed and only the child was. That supports our claim that the child is a person.
6. Their logic is flawed. A child is a child (person) regardless of their chances for survival. They are what they are.
7. Fine. Just keep in mind that we in this country are under no obligation to share your denials and when I create a debate it's of no use for you to try to inject your denials into it unless you intend to change our laws.
It's a human being in the fetal stage of their life.
If a 4 week old fetus is in the fetal stage og their human being life, then so is a human nail.
Your teddy bear son is not human. Check it's DNA and lineage.
Okay, then let me introduce you to my daughter nail. She fell of me today, her name is Carla, and you can't deny she is a real human being - as you said a child does not necessarily need human organs or a conscience to be considered a child, and on top of all that she even has human DNA.
serving time for murder even though in many cases the mother was not killed and only the child was.
That is because you harassed the mother, the man isn't in prison for killing a fetus, he is in prison for attacking and assaulting a pregnant woman.
Their logic is flawed. A child is a child (person) regardless of their chances for survival. They are what they are.
Which is a fetus.
Fine. Just keep in mind that we in this country are under no obligation to share your denials and when I create a debate it's of no use for you to try to inject your denials into it unless you intend to change our laws.
You are the one in denial. You are denying women the rights they should have, and you are denying that a for a child to be called a child you need a brain, nerves, organs, a body and most of all a conscience. Without those you are nothing more than a plant.
1. Human sexual reproductive cells (cells who's purpose is to create a new human being) must unite to form guess what? a new human being. Finger nails are not human beings. They are dead cells that are only part of the human that generated them.
2. See number one also note that your nails are made up of dead cells, have no life of their own (unlike a child in the womb) and they are for that reason not recognized in science as offspring - while children in the womb are.
3. The charge is MURDER for unjustly killing a child in the womb and it's of no relevance whether the woman wwas harmed or not. The definition of MURDER is one person illegally killing another. That makes the victim a legal person too.
4. Child in the fetal stage of their life can be called a fetus. Correct. (it's still a child)
5. No-one has the right to violate another. Children have rights too you know.
the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
Human sexual reproductive cells (cells who's purpose is to create a new human being) must unite to form guess what? a new human being.
And that is something you can't prove is going to happen to a currently 5 week old fetus. You can't prove to me that the woman carrying a five week old fetus today, is actually going to give birth to a human being. As far as we know the thing in her stomach are only cells. It shows no signs of being a human being, and DNA is not enough to prove that it is a human being, since you find human DNA in skin, hair and even sweat.
See number one also note that your nails are made up of dead cells, have no life of their own (unlike a child in the womb) and they are for that reason not recognized in science as offspring - while children in the womb are.
I can go on with this.. you can do what you want.
Let me now introduce you to my eldest son, Skin. He is made of living organisms called cells, he has human DNA, no conscience or organs - all the required things to be categorized as a human child.
The charge is MURDER for unjustly killing a child in the womb and it's of no relevance whether the woman wwas harmed or not. The definition of MURDER is one person illegally killing another. That makes the victim a legal person too.
Apparently we do not have the same laws. That goes under assault in my country, like it should be. Like pulling nails out of somebody, that's not murder. Scratching skin? That's not murder, that's torture or assault of some kind.
1. The science of Invitro Fertilization proves for my claims and against yours better than any other sciences do (in this area) but others do as well. A woman carrying a child in the fetal stage of the child's life has already given birth to the child in the sense that the child exists, is already living and has came into being. You are confusing those aspects of birth with parturition which is nothing more than a child that has already been alive and growing for several weeks - emerging from the womb.
2. See above, your skin is one of your organs (check the dna). Your child (even in the fetal stage of their life) has their own. Check their dna. You said that organs and consciousness are required things to be categorized as a human child. Yet you have offered nothing to support that claim. While I have shown you (unborn victims of violence act) that those things are not required.
3. It is not only a legal fact, it's a scientific fact - that a child in the fetal stage of their life is the young of their parents.
1. Prove to me that the mother who is currently bearing a 4week old fetus, prove to me that it is a human being, or prove to me that it is going to be a human being.
2. No, a child before the 5th week have yet to develop organs.
1. You aren't the type of person who can be swayed by 'proof' because the proof (no matter what it is) will always be rejected. You are prejudiced against the idea of a child in the fetal stage being recognized as a child and for you, that's the end of it.
I can't make you accept something that you don't want to accept. I used to have the same denials that you have and for many of the same reasons... but I (apparently) had a much more open and logical mind.
These are some of the thoughts that brought me to change my views and end my denials.
1. The purpose of sperm and egg cells are to create new members of a species (they are reproductive cells) and their job is over at conception.
2. Science has determined that our aging - likewise - begins at conception. Logic would follow that we would begin to age when our lives begin.
3. We (humans) are placental mammals and as such, we (women) carry and nourish our young in the womb as they develop towards birth (parturition).
1. That's because you invent your own proof. Just because you tell me a story doesn't make it proof.
2. And that has never failed? You can't prove their going to do that, you can only say that's what they've been doing. Who knows if they suddenly decided to make a gorilla?
3. No shit?? Didn't know that :oooo))) What's your point with this unnecessary information?
You keep blabbing on with biological facts .. without any reasons why.
Just because I'm a mammal isn't an argument supporting abortion.
Yeah, I invented the legal and medical dictionary definitions, the language of the Unborn Victims of violence act and the sciences about aging and when it begins, the definitions and languages in the sciences of IVF and species determinations for things like "placental mammals".... I created it all just to impose my beliefs on you.
Not really. Look at my main post. Abortion does affect a person mentally. Saves both people and also it is expensive. Condoms, Birth Control pills, and especially abstinence are method to prevent pregnancy.
2) Condoms also help as a cool safety net althought they are not perfect.
You use condoms because you don't want children, so when they do break that's when you have your safety net :)
A safety net is not something you use all the time, a safety net is something you use only when the stuff you usually do fails. Like condoms - condoms are only protective. Abortion is the real birth control safety net.
3) Abstinence is an excellent 100% sure way of preventing pregnancy.
lol
4) Abortion does involve getting pregnant so some mental affects may occur.
Mental affects can also occur when becoming a parent. Postpartum depression is a depression some women experience after giving birth.
5) Some people say it is the seed of life. Also some say it is just a cluster of cells.
Sure isnt. So abstain for sex then if you dont want to pay for either.
You use condoms because you don't want children, so when they do break that's when you have your safety net :)A safety net is not something you use all the time, a safety net is something you use only when the stuff you usually do fails. Like condoms - condoms are only protective. Abortion is the real birth control safety net.
A condom is your safety net. Yes a condom can break. So abstain for sex and dont take the risk.
lol
It's not funny.
Mental affects can also occur when becoming a parent. Postpartum depression is a depression some women experience after giving birth.
Yep. So abstain from sex and dont worry about it. Funny how abstinence is 100% perfect for birth control and a good way to save money. Its free after all.
Sure isnt. So abstain for sex then if you dont want to pay for either.
Congradulations, you just killed more potential lives than you saved.
You know people who get pregnant often choose to keep the baby, even though it wasn't planned - so by telling people to only have sex when they want children, you are actually deleting more potential lives than you are saving.
It's not funny.
It kinda is
Funny how abstinence is 100% perfect for birth control and a good way to save money. Its free after all.
It's also funny how abstinence is gonna remove all potential lives.
Congradulations, you just killed more potential lives than you saved.You know people who get pregnant often choose to keep the baby, even though it wasn't planned - so by telling people to only have sex when they want children, you are actually deleting more potential lives than you are saving.
False. No eggs were harmed. No lives were harmed. The amount of eggs the female was born with are still there. No harm done. Cant delete anything. So that argument is gone.
It kinda is
I see no humor in this.
It's also funny how abstinence is gonna remove all potential lives.
Not really. Have sex when you are ready. Thats it. Settles all population problems and save money for the government. It is called being responsible. The egg is still there. It was never removed.
False. No eggs were harmed. No lives were harmed. The amount of eggs the female was born with are still there. No harm done. Cant delete anything. So that argument is gone.
Okay, we have Lisa and John. They want to have sex, but they don't want children.
So they decide to not have sex because Lizzie told them that you only have sex when you want children.
Now, if Lizzie didn't tell them this, Lisa and John might have had sex anyway even if they didn't want children. When Lisa and John have sex, the possibility that Lisa will get pregnant IS there, and the possibility that Lisa will keep the unplanned baby is there, since the majority of unwanted children are born anyways.
But you see, because Lizzie told them to not have sex, they won't have sex, thus is the possible life not possible anymore.
I see no humor in this.
Well .. it kinda is. You seem to think that the solution is as simple as not having sex.
Settles all population problems and save money for the government.
Not having sex settles money for the government how? Who's gonna pay taxes when all the people who didn't have sex are dead?
And if they do have sex and keep the baby, what about hospital insurance. Baby's cots waaaaaaay more money than an abortion. Also you could have a system where abortion is legal, not free. That's what I think is best.
Okay, we have Lisa and John. They want to have sex, but they don't want children.So they decide to not have sex because Lizzie told them that you only have sex when you want children.Now, if Lizzie didn't tell them this, Lisa and John might have had sex anyway even if they didn't want children. When Lisa and John have sex, the possibility that Lisa will get pregnant IS there, and the possibility that Lisa will keep the unplanned baby is there, since the majority of unwanted children are born anyways.But you see, because Lizzie told them to not have sex, they won't have sex, thus is the possible life not possible anymore.
Nice story. Yet it didnt answer what I said nor did it do anything to it. Actually it just said that they will wait until they are ready for children. Meaning they can bond without sex and lust and get to know the entire mental capacity of their spouse and learn everything about them. Other than that they help save money for the state and they help stop over population with out knowing it.
Well .. it kinda is. You seem to think that the solution is as simple as not having sex.
As a method of birth control? It has a 100% success rate. What possibly out does 100%?
Not having sex settles money for the government how? Who's gonna pay taxes when all the people who didn't have sex are dead?And if they do have sex and keep the baby, what about hospital insurance. Baby's cots waaaaaaay more money than an abortion. Also you could have a system where abortion is legal, not free. That's what I think is best.
I am not arguing legality. I am arguing the act of the abortion. Who pays taxes? To supply who? Less people? The people that are alive. Less people less things you pay for like medicare and medicaid. Not as much oil needs to be purchased. Less crime. So we dont have to place as many tax dollars there. There are many positives to this. It also makes adoption a little less crowded. Also an Abortion is dangerous. It causes so many negative effects to the female. Tell me how a woman can evade this with abstaining from sex and without protection ---> http://afterabortion.org/2011/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-psychological-complications-related-to-abortion/
Nice story. Yet it didnt answer what I said nor did it do anything to it. Actually it just said that they will wait until they are ready for children. Meaning they can bond without sex and lust and get to know the entire mental capacity of their spouse and learn everything about them. Other than that they help save money for the state and they help stop over population with out knowing it.
No, I said you just deleted a potential life by telling them to not have sex.
You have around 24 hours to fertilize an egg, two weeks after those 24 hours, you will bleed the egg out, AKA menstruation.
So if you don't have sex during those 24, the egg will go to waste, and the potential life that egg could have turned into is not potential anymore, it's deleted or dead.
So by telling two people not to have sex, you are giving a potential life no chance what so ever to actually become a life.
In that case Abortion is just a double negative necause it still rids that potential.
So by telling two people not to have sex, you are giving a potential life no chance what so ever to actually become a life.
Again. By your logic abortion is a double negative. It still rids that potential life. Now you are saying that they should have the child because of its potential. Thats a "pro-life" argument. You logic doesnt agree with your beliefs.
A couple who have sex and don't plan on a baby, do often have the baby anyways.
A majority of teenage pregnancies do not end up in abortion, meaning that an unplanned child is likely to be born anyways. But .. without sex, like you said, there is not chance of it ever being born.
A couple who have sex and don't plan on a baby, do often have the baby anyways.
Yeah. That why abstinence would have helped here. You are still qualifying my argument. It still is safer than an abortion and its free. Abortions are dangerous.
A majority of teenage pregnancies do not end up in abortion, meaning that an unplanned child is likely to be born anyways. But .. without sex, like you said, there is not chance of it ever being born.
Was the teenager being responsible and thought about her consequences? Was she ready? Abstinence would have immediately answered her questions. Matter of fact she wouldn't have to ask these questions. She would wait until she is in a steady relationship.
You just don't want the child to ever come to existence? How ironic for a pro-life.
1) I am not pro-life.
2) My argument is that they must wait until they are ready and finincially prepared for a child. Thats my argument.
So is cigarettes, let's illegalize them.
Cigarettes? Well they do nothing but harm and bring temporary satisfaction so sure. Whatever you want. Both are dangerous.
So you are not exactly against abortion, you are just against parents being parents even though their not ready?
Mostly. I am not against abortion but the way it can be used. Rape is perfectly legitimate for an abortion. She had no choice and is most likely not ready or prepares for a child. But for it to be used as a safety net casual sex no. Abstinence can take care of that. Just evading sex until the female is ready.
2) My argument is that they must wait until they are ready and finincially prepared for a child. Thats my argument.
So you think sex is only for reproduction?
Cigarettes? Well they do nothing but harm and bring temporary satisfaction so sure. Whatever you want. Both are dangerous.
So you believe in illegalizing everything that is dangerous? Then illegalize diet coke, illegalize canned food, illegalize sweets, illegalize being alive.
But for it to be used as a safety net casual sex no.
To achieve a temporary feeling of satifaction. One can expierience this by eating chocolate. Sex is biochemically no different than eating large quatities of chocolate. It has a primary reason to exist which is to make a child. A child built with stronger genes than the parents to increase the chance of survival.
So you believe in illegalizing everything that is dangerous? Then illegalize diet coke, illegalize canned food, illegalize sweets, illegalize being alive.
Show me where I said "illegalize everything". I never said that. In fact all I try to do is advise ways to be safe in life. Like eating more veggies or washing your hands or wearing your seatbelt. I personally dont like cigarettes because of what they do and because its negatives out weigh its negatives.
Why is condom a better safety net than abortion?
1) Abortion is very dangerous and expensive.
2) Condoms are like what 12 dollars for a box of trojans or something?
Also my main argument is that the person should abstain from sex until they are ready and prepared for a child.
Can't. But you did however say that one might aswell illegalize cigarettes because they are dangerous. With that analogy you might as well illegalize everything.
1) Abortion is very dangerous and expensive.
Why is expensive an argument against abortion? iPhones are expensive, should we not get those either for that reason?
And I think we have made it clear that a lot of things are dangerous, that shouldn't mean they should be illegal.
Also my main argument is that the person should abstain from sex until they are ready and prepared for a child.
My argument is that sex is not only an act to reproduce. Do it when you want, do it when you are ready to have sex.
Can't. But you did however say that one might aswell illegalize cigarettes because they are dangerous. With that analogy you might as well illegalize everything.
If you want to sure. Thats up to you but I would not mind cigarettes being illegal. They are dangerous. This is my opinion though and many people may disagree with it.
Why is expensive an argument against abortion? iPhones are expensive, should we not get those either for that reason?
Why is the cost of an abortion relevant? Well they arent free they do cost you money. Thats money out of your pocket for not being responsible. Also the debate title sort of demands reasons why it is wrong. Also iPhones just help deplenish our rare mineral resources so sure. Also I have an Android so I dont really like iPhones. But iPhones are not dangerous to the point where your life is on the line if you buy one.
And I think we have made it clear that a lot of things are dangerous, that shouldn't mean they should be illegal.
So did I because that isnt my argument and I said I oppose that statement. Mostly because I never said it. I just said abortions were dangerous.
My argument is that sex is not only an act to reproduce. Do it when you want, do it when you are ready to have sex.
With this logic a person can be irresponsible with sex. Ready for sex is not being ready for a child. A girl can have sex and what almost any age past 6 or something? Her body is ready. It is highly disliked to do so but she is technically ready to initiate sex. It is not logical to do something just because you can do it. You need responsibility. Can you pay for the child if you are a teenager? Will having a child affect my ability to remain productive at my work place? You need to balance out the consequences.
If you want to sure. Thats up to you but I would not mind cigarettes being illegal. They are dangerous. This is my opinion though and many people may disagree with it.
Do you think bypasses are dangerous? I mean .. come on, they are dangerous. Many people have died during a bypass operation.
Thats money out of your pocket for not being responsible.
Well you do that in a lot of cases. There are several times you need to take money from your own pocket because you were being irresponsible.
Park illegally.. you get a ticket for being irresponsible.
But iPhones are not dangerous to the point where your life is on the line if you buy one.
Can you pay for the child if you are a teenager? Will having a child affect my ability to remain productive at my work place? You need to balance out the consequences.
And that is what abortion is for :) When you get pregnant and don't really have place for a child in your life.
Condoms break, not having sex is not an option whether you like it or not.
Sex is natural, even for 16 year old girls sex is natural - it is society that says it is irresponsible for a teenage girl to have sex, nature says it is natural.
Do you think bypasses are dangerous? I mean .. come on, they are dangerous. Many people have died during a bypass operation.
I dont know what bypass surgery is really for so I cant determine what its potential is.
Well you do that in a lot of cases. There are several times you need to take money from your own pocket because you were being irresponsible.Park illegally.. you get a ticket for being irresponsible
Yes. You are making my argument for responsibility stronger. Responsibiloty with sex should be appicable with this as well.
And that is what abortion is for :) When you get pregnant and don't really have place for a child in your life.
Abortions affect the womam mentally and can harm her and critically hinder her work performance like in the links I provided above.
Condoms break
Yes. I agree.
not having sex is not an option whether you like it or not.
That is false. This prevents abortion, pregnancy, any of the side effects of both pregnancy and abortion, and it also is free and help build a mutual bond in ones relationship causing a passionate initiation of sex when they are ready for a child. Abstinence is always an option and saying it isnt in not valid because it can always be done.
Sex is natural, even for 16 year old girls sex is natural - it is society that says it is irresponsible for a teenage girl to have sex, nature says it is natural.
Lots of things are natural. Killing is natural. Invasion is natural. Survival of the fittest is natural. Does that make murder right? No. Does that mean invading another country is always right? No. Is killing or enslaving humans because you are strong ever right? No. Sea Otter rape other animals so rape is a natural thing. Does that make rape right? No. Not at all. As humans we are a more complex species and we can evade the "natural" and do what we want. The thing is we must be responsible. Sex must be used responsibly. Abortion should not be used as a safety net. That just makes abortion seem a little odd. Abortion is not something you use just to stop a baby you dont want because you wanted to have unresponsible sex. Have sex when you are prepared for a child.
I dont know what bypass surgery is really for so I cant determine what its potential is.
A bypass is a surgery in the heart. It is a very risky surgery, some have died on the table, but for those who made it through successfully, get a better life.
A bypass is usually done to people who have eaten unhealthy, thus gotten a bad heart from the unhealthy diet.
Then there is the bypass surgery - sure there are possible mistakes that could be made and it could turn ugly. But not doing also has it's consequences.
But hey ... Let's just get Lizzie to tell everybody to stop eating unhealthy, that fixes everything, right?
Oh okay I see. Well you have to weigh the positive and negative balance of it.
But hey ... Let's just get Lizzie to tell everybody to stop eating unhealthy, that fixes everything, right?
No. Also I dont think I said I could make a difference. People consciously know that eating unhealty is bad. They do it anyway. I cant change that. I eat Oreos too often. I need to stop. Yet I weigh my positives and negatives and figure that it wont do me much harm. It takes a crowd to start change. It truly start with an individual which I do at my school because I hamd out "positivity" flyers to people. I am also unpopular in school so it is risky. I just want to help.
Aside from the turmoil on the family, isn't abortion expensive compared to, oh you know, the 50 cents for a condom? Using abortion as a birth control measure seems as ridiculous as destroying the planet to eradicate crime.
On a side note, humans were expendable far before abortion. Slaves, sacrifices, work-horses, unics, the list goes on (and many of those acts perpetrated by fundamentalism).
There is nothing wrong with it if you are pro-abortion, if you do not value life and want women to have the power to kill. In this case kill a living human being. If you want abortion legal...on demand so that women can choose, because it is her body...then how can you tell her the conditions with which she can kill? If there is something wrong with abortion...why support it, if there isn't anything wrong with it...then you must take all restrictions off and allow women free choice. It would be hypocritical for a pro-abort to say....yes a woman should be able to get an abortion...but only a certain number of abortions.
