YES 15 years sounds fine for me, and all those present and knew about it should be punished. Why do you continue to ignore my answer?



Where is your source on that? Logic tells me if the penalty is high the risk would not be worth it. Please come up with better arguments rather than copy and pasting from pro-abort websites.


[quote]
It's a nice try, but it won't work here. Comparing people who drive while impaired and women who get abortions make no sense. In one case someone is choosing to get a medical procedure. In the other, someone is choosing to put others at risk for, honestly, no rational reason.
[\quote]
I'm thinking of the one person you seem to leave out of this, the unborn child. most feminists would disagree with you.

__________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."- Ronald Reagan

"If the first amendment doesn't work, the second amendment will." - Michael Badnarik

my point exactly if your not ready for children then your not ready for sex



to abort should not be a option your pregnant you have a life inside if you




so what are you saying that the other 450,000 should have been killed


bullshit


.

its a life at the beginning stages a HUMAN LIFE to kill it is MURDER

[quote=Bronze Medal;152621]That's not true, sex does not always result in conception.

NO your quite right it does mean however there is a chance of conception. The most sure way of not geting pregnant is not having sex, it just stands to reason.

That doesn't mean anything. If you have a tumor you have a life inside you.
The tumor even has human DNA and grows.

A tumor is not a potential human life. I believe at conception there is human life, but lets say I didn't to destroy a fetus would still be wrong as there is the potential of human life.


I'm not saying they should be killed I'm responding to your statement "There are plenty of moms and dads willing to adopt", it's not true.

I am sure it's true there are plenty of people wanting to adopt.






A sperm is a living thing at the begining stage of a HUMAN LIFE as well.

A sperm that has not yet made contact with an egg is not a potential human life.

HOWEVER WITH THE ODDS of getting pregnant why take the chance



so the fucking tumor grows into a human being?




there are plenty, theres just not enough








I agree so if you spend your time jerking off then they will never find the egg. So we are to treat our own sperm with care doesent this shed light on our penis and balls? We are to take sex very seriously and really see the conection for making life if not then all you are is a walking penis

So what? Abortion as a result of sexual irresponsibility and the irresponsible individuals' deciding that they don't "want" the life they stupidly and irresponsibly created is absolutely appalling. It's a pretty easy choice to make, wouldn't you say?

someone doesn't want kids, what are the most logical and humane options?

• Don't have sex... that's an easy one
• Don't be sexually irresponsible in the event that you do choose to have sex
• If a pregnancy occurs, take some freaking responsibility, do the humane thing and give the life that you created the fighting chance it deserves... Adoption versus snuffing it out.

That's ridiculous argument number one in these abortion debates...

A tumor has human DNA and grows, so by life's logic it could be considered human...

No... A tumor doesn't have a life support system within it and human organs, including a brain, a spinal cord, a beating heart, a circulatory system, etc. By the time a woman is even aware of the pregnancy, the fetus has all of these very human systems so there's no way in hell to argue that abortion occurs beforehand. A human life has the supportive systems required for life and like Nash said will grow in to a human being... There's no way the "tumor argument" holds any water in this debate.
Like Nash said there are plenty of good people who are willing to adopt, but there are obviously not enough to keep up with all the idiots who can't take responsibility for the lives they create that they would so hideously define as their "mistakes." Sexual irresponsibility is at the heart of this problem and until people start getting their acts together and controlling their stupid selves while making good choices, the adoption centers will be overcrowded.
So what? During conception, literally thousands of sperm cells are killed as a result of the reproductive process anyway... Only one of those sperm cells will actually fertilize the egg, the rest were created by the human body just to die... That argument doesn't work. The one sperm cell that is intended to do its job does its job. The rest won't make it and aren't even supposed to, so arguing as if by the pro-life standards, they would all equal individual lives goes against the logic and idea of the reproductive process itself.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

I was not ignoring your answer, you never clearly stated your answer. Now you have. Thank you.

Funny thing about educating yourself on a subject is you don't have to "copy and paste".
Since so often people apparently require others to hold their hand when presented with information that they disagree with... here is an article to start you on your way towards researching the REAL consequences (not projected) of making abortion illegal. GHANA

It's an unborn potential child, firstly. There are no guarantees of it's life. However, I can pretty much say that it's a 100% fact that the human being carrying that unborn potential child is alive, breathing, capable of making decisions (in the majority of situations), and MUCH more important than the unborn.

You bug me for statistics on my statements but have nothing for this one. I would say that prostitution is one of those issues that most feminists would AGREE with me on, actually, since prostitution (by women) is about the autonomy of women and their bodies. Of course, not the way that it exists illegally in the United States. But the legality of prostitution and whether or not other feminists agree with me on it is not the issue here.

__________________

Do you know how many women died as a result of a screwed up abortion a year before Roe v Wade? 39....Thats it. 47 people died last year lightning strikes. Lets outlaw going outside in a thunderstorm!
There is no guarantee of its life? You don't give it a chance!What do you consider alive? A heartbeat? Brain waves? What? And i said in another post that i would not be against abortions to save the "Life" of the mother. Not the financial, or convenience of the mother.
I concede that point.

__________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."- Ronald Reagan

"If the first amendment doesn't work, the second amendment will." - Michael Badnarik

Oh ok, 20-35 years is more reasonable. However, I'm pretty sure that if studies were performed comparing sexually active couples ages 13-17, 18-23, 24-29 and so on, the age group 13-17 would have the most abortions. I think it's important to keep the "sexually active" phrase in play, because roughly half of teenagers have never even had sex, and so it's very unlikely that they'll be sexually active, compared to older age groups.

And the problem with the comparisons between abstinence and contraceptive education is that they compare "abstinence only" to comprehensive programs. The most effective sex ed programs teach both abstinence and contraceptive use, but place the emphasis on abstinence. I don't have the study handy, but that's what I've found and it makes sense to me.

At the same time, you have to bear in mind how disproportionate those numbers are. We're talking about almost 1/5 (more like 1/6) women having abortions being teenagers. Teenagers are 13-18, when you consider how few of them are sexually active, we're talking about about very disproportionate numbers.


In reference to the bold, the best way for the fighter to stay safe is to not get into the ring, he doesn't need to. Besides that, you're taking the respective post far beyond what I said. I didn't say that kids are told to beleive condoms are 100% effective, but the effects are much the same.

If you look on the site below it has rates of effectiveness for preventing unwanted pregnancy. As you'll see, 98% of women who use males condoms perfectly will not get pregnant in a year. However, typical use of male condoms only has an 85% effectiveness. It's not a failure of sex ed, it's simple humanity. People using equipment in the lab will always be more precise than people using equipment in the heat of the moment.

To reiterate the original point, you

Condom Effectiveness


What I'm trying to say is that, while it may come as a shock to a woman who thinks she's having safe sex, the truth is that 15/100 typical users of male condoms become pregnant in a given year, and the rates are much worse for those using female condoms (21/100). That's giving them protection, but the biological purpose of sex is procreation, and even when using condoms that's what sex ultimately leads to. This leads to my comparison with the fighter. The natural purpose of fighting is to inflict pain and wounds, and thus you risk it every time you fight. Even if you use padding for protection, you're still fighting and you're still taking the risk, and while a proffessional boxer might be shocked when he breaks bones or suffers other injuries, it should not come as that much of a shock.

That is a very interesting one. The feminist movement in America use to be radically opposed to prostitution because it degrades women and it feeds into the view that women are objects to be had, but the more modern feminist movement has taken the complete opposite position for rights to their bodies. It's just all very interesting to me.

Good point. It's interesting how these things change... I wonder why? No doubt that same old individualistic "me" mentality that's doing so many great things for this nation...



And in general response to the prostitution argument:
Legalizing prostitution isn't about feminism, it's about individualism versus collectivism. The individualist either wants it (as an individualistic right) or thinks the individual should be able to do it, because it's "the individual's life," but the collectivist (collectivism being the mentality and foundation upon which America and other societies like it are based) sees no rhyme or reason to it because like Troianii said it's degrading to women and it's also unhealthy, unsanitary and goes against every grain of moral teaching for the future--the children of America. The individual does not prevail in American society, the collective comes before the individual. Sure, you have individual rights, but things like prostitution--unimportant pleasures that have far more cons than "pros" (which are individualistic pros anyway--no benefit to the collective)--are not included in those for good reason.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke