Abortion: Your Views...

[Sasquatch]

You seem to have a pretty halcyon view of adoption. If there are all these parents lining up around the block to adopt kids, then why (in the UK, at least) is the care system rapidly approaching breaking point from having too many children in it?

First, any credible evidence? First it went from "most if not all western nations" having an overpopulated adoption system, now it's just the UK -- any evidence for any of it?

And second, as I said, in America, the adoption process is filled with red tape and obstacle courses. I can buy a house, set up a gun range, start a business, or build a quarry more easily than I can adopt a child. If it were less difficult to adopt, more children would be adopted -- that's pretty easy to figure out.

Have you ever read The Cider House Rules? It explains this better than I ever could.

Yes, just like Uncle Tom's Cabin explains slavery perfectly, right?

And I would be 'forsaking' my life, because I am 19.

If taking three months off (max) would ruin your life, your life is extremely fragile.

I don't want to give over the rest of my life to another person just yet.

You wouldn't want to dedicate your life to your own child, but you'd be willing to end your child's life for yourself? Why not give them to a set of parents who DO want to dedicate their lives for a child?

I like the way you say I'd be murdering it 'for the sake of convenience'.

When you'd kill an innocent human being because you don't want to give birth to it, that's convenience.

I ask again, what kind of mother would I make? And what kind of life would it have in a care system which is broken?

Are you saying that it's alright to kill somebody because we think death might possibly be better than the life they might possibly have, sometime in the future?

Yes, 50 million is a lot. Now imagine your schools and housing system coping with that. Not to mention the prospects of them getting jobs.

If there were more people, there would be more demand for goods and services, and thus more demand for jobs. The American housing system is down because of government regulation of subprime loans right now anyway, so if we had another fifty million people buying houses, it'd be good.

Women have abortions because they feel they can't give their baby the life they want it to have.

Bullshit. Women get abortions because they don't want to give birth to a child -- women give their child up for adoption because they feel that they can't give it the life they want it to have.

If I can't afford to own a car, I sell the car. I don't drive it into a lake.

Making them illegal kills both women and babies.

Just like making drugs illegal kills druggies, making resisting arrest and evasion illegal kills those who resist arrest, making explosives illegal kills morons, etc. etc.

If I try to do something illegal and get hurt by it, it's my fault. Not yours for making it illegal.

What you have to consider - given that the world is not, as you seem to think, overflowing with benevolent would-be adopters - is the life the child will have after it is born. Then there is the food crisis, and the housing crisis.

Saying that a human being might possibly, in your opinion, have a sub-par life is no reason to kill it. Hell, if that's the case, let's execute everybody who lives below the poverty line -- no more drains on society or the economy, they don't have to live their oh-so-bad lives, and it'll free up food, jobs, and land for the rest of us to use.

But it's not my place to tell a women or a couple what they can and cannot do - isn't that always your line about the government?

Life is a fundamental right. It's not anybody's place to tell you that you have the choice to take a life for the sake of convenience or not.

Well, I'm not going to have the government tell me that I MUST have a child aged 19 (which would cost me a time out of university and my job even if I did put it up for adoption, time I don't have) ...

Translation: (which would inconvenience me)

... because my 99.9% effective birth control was defeated by the 0.01% chance of failure it has.

First, that'd be a 0.1% chance. Second, blaming your birth control for not being effective enough is like blaming your brakes for not stopping you in time to make the corner after doing 120mph down the road.

It could result in the murder of hundreds of otherwise healthy human beings. The child could get adopted to a serial killer. That would cause repressed trauma at a young age, and the child would then grow up to be a serial killer. So by promoting the illegilization of abortion, you're supporting serial killings. You have fantastic moral values, man.

I don't know if you're serious with this nonsense or not -- frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if you were being intentionally ridiculous or unintentionally ridiculous -- there's no point in ending the life of a healthy human being because you don't like what he or she may or may not do in the future.

It's not actually a child. It's an embryo, which is a stage far before childhood. It's the stage between the zygote and the fetus, so technically, that's too early in development to be considered a child.

To be considered by you. Some of us value human life more than that.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand any of this, considering that you're a man (and a pretty sexist one at that.)

This is lovely -- not only is another male telling me that I can't understand because I'm a male (while he himself offers his opinions on the subject), I'm told that I'm "pretty sexist". That's right, kid -- when you have nothing left to stand on, accuse your opponent of prejudice. Good call.

Pregnancy changes a woman's body. It stretches the skin and makes the next nine months incredibly uncomfortable.

Oh, shucks. Let's murder a child, because it might leave stretch marks.

On that note, let's kill everybody who works for a fast-food restaraunt, because fast food makes people fat and unhealthy, and being fat can leave stretch marks.

You really need to stop arguing about things that you have no right arguing about.

Why are you here?

It's not the man's right to say what the woman can and cannot do. It's the individual's right to do what she or he thinks is necessary. If an abortion is that option, then what's the big ****ing deal?

The big ****ing deal is the life of a human being.

Other animals don't pollute the world to change the environment.

Some species change the acidity of the water they live in to make it more fitting for them, and less fitting for other species. Trees grow tall and wide, blocking out the sun from the ground beneath them. Weeds invade otherwise fertile land and suck valable nutrients out of the soil.

Humans burn fossil fuels using all their bullshit machinery to build, because they're too lazy to get off their fat asses and do the work themselves.

... he types, into a computer made of petroleum products, while sitting on a chair made of petroleum products, in a building made with machinery run by petroleum products ...

Just like how humans are too lazy to walk nowadays. Everybody has a car, which makes for greater pollution to infect my lungs. When are those damn car manufactures going out of business?

Oh, poor you. It's too bad you don't realize the irony of the fact that you would have absolutely nothing it it wasn't for the vehicles and machinery that the rest of the world uses daily. When you start shunning technology and industry, walk on up to Wisconsin and raise your point, and we'll sit down and chat. Until then, quit calling the kettle black.

Making something illegal when it's already been tried before is entirely illegal.

No, that's called Judicial Review.

That's called double jeopardy, and it infringes against the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That wouldn't be double jeopardy.

Abortion was first ruled after Roe v. Wade in 1973, which made abortion legal. That particular subject can't be tried again. It's a done deal.

Just like the Nineteenth Amendment and the Plessy v. Ferguson cases, right?

Let me give you an example. When OJ Simpson was found innocent for the charges of murder via premeditated malice, after the verdict was read, he could have stood up, right in the court room, in front of the judge and the jury, and admitted to killing his wife, and they wouldn't be able to do shit about it, because they had already declared him an innocent man.

And if murder was somehow legal when he did it, and illegalized later, he could not be tried for it -- that's "ex post facto". The Grandfather Clause would then apply.

There are no exceptions to double jeopardy.

So you're saying that if I kill somebody, and I am found innocent in one court, there is absolutely no way that I could be tried again in the United States?

There is an overpopulation of little girls in Chinese adoption centers, and the majority of them never even get adopted.

Any credible evidence for this? While there are many girls adopted from China, multitudes more are murdered before or shortly after birth, as their one-child rule leads many parents to only keep a male child.

If nobody had abortions, all adoption agencies would be as bad as the ones in China.

My, that's quite the accusation you have there. Anything to back it up?

Also, if nobody got an abortion, that would mean that the majority of people in a relationship would have a child ...

Unless there are enough abortions every year to add to births to form a majority ... no.

... seemingly eliminating the need for adoption ...

... except in cases where the child isn't wanted. Just like now.

... so the orphans left in adoption homes would stay there until they're old enough to be on their own.

Or until they're adopted by couples who can't have children. Duh.

And where do you think people are going to go that don't have a proper upbringing? The males get addicted to drugs, and the women go to the red light district.

Wow, now everybody without a "proper upbringing" becomes a drug addict or a prostitute? You're on a roll, kid.