|
Post by 101mitch on Nov 8, 2012 21:01:09 GMT -5
Would you kill the person who invented the cure for cancer? why would you do that? That is what you could be doing when you abort babies.
|
|
|
Post by awesomeace on Nov 8, 2012 21:04:49 GMT -5
That is what you could be doing when you abort babies. Sounds like Schrödinger's cat
|
|
|
Post by awesomeace on Nov 8, 2012 21:11:22 GMT -5
I've always wondered... for people that are against abortion, are you all vegans too?
|
|
|
Post by sean2457 on Nov 8, 2012 21:13:26 GMT -5
I'm very divided on the abortion issue myself. On one hand, it's a female's medical issue that depending on other circumstances, can be detrimental to the woman's health if she doesn't get the abortion. I can also sympathize with those women who don't want to give birth to a rapist's baby. I do have a strong disagreement about the concept of consequence-less abortions though. We should not have to front the majority of the bill for a woman who is promiscuous and has already had 5 abortions or some nonsense like that. I read the following post elsewhere and find myself strongly agreeing with it as odd as it may sound.
1) Women should be allowed to abort in extreme cases with no cost, and no restrictions. Incest/rape, among others.
2) Women should be allowed to abort whenever they want. With consequences/stipulations/etc. I'm not sure the best way to phrase that. Basically, if you are a slut and you get pregnant and you say "I don't want this", you can get an abortion. You pay for it. It's not free. And your tubes are tied. There is no choice in the matter. You abort a kid, you're not allowed to have any further children.
3) To be able to have further children, not only do you have to pay for the operation to have your tubes untied(Or whichever operation that does this that is reversible), but you have to have a psychological evaluation done, and the psychiatrist(Which you have to pay for) has to state that you are healthy enough mentally to have/support/raise a child. You also have to show you are financially stable, and physically healthy. ALL of these things must be paid for out of your own pocket for you to be able to have a child, if you previously chose to have one aborted.
4) Low-income/poor families that can show proof that they cannot support children for one reason or another(Say, they can't afford it, they don't have a home, etc), can have a free abortion. They also have their tubes tied(Or whatever operation) to prevent the same exact situation from springing up again. If they choose not to abort, they can elect to give the child up for adoption at birth. This is -elective- and abortion and/or adoption cannot be forced upon a mother for any reason other than reasons that they can already be enforced. Such as endangerment and other child welfare issues already covered in existing policies and laws.
|
|
|
Post by 101mitch on Nov 8, 2012 21:18:03 GMT -5
I've always wondered... for people that are against abortion, are you all vegans too? I'm not.
|
|
|
Post by awesomeace on Nov 8, 2012 21:22:09 GMT -5
I heard in class today that the 10 most educated states voted for Obama and the 10 least educated states voted for Romney... is that really true? and wondered what my teacher meant by educated
|
|
|
Post by awesomeace on Nov 8, 2012 21:27:25 GMT -5
I've always wondered... for people that are against abortion, are you all vegans too? I'm not. How is killing an animal not on the same level of killing an undeveloped human? Might not be classified as "murder" but you are still killing another organism. If you are pro-life then shouldn't that apply to everything
|
|
|
Post by sean2457 on Nov 8, 2012 21:28:31 GMT -5
I heard in class today that the 10 most educated states voted for Obama and the 10 least educated states voted for Romney... is that really true? and wondered what my teacher meant by educated Well, don't forget how the U.S. Electoral System works. Alabama could be divided 52% Romney and 48% Obama in the voting polls but since Romney wins, he gets ALL the electoral votes so then the state is considered Romney's. I'd say it has less to do with education and more to deal with social and religious issues.
|
|
|
Post by sean2457 on Nov 8, 2012 21:56:33 GMT -5
Well, don't forget how the U.S. Electoral System works. Alabama could be divided 52% Romney and 48% Obama in the voting polls but since Romney wins, he gets ALL the electoral votes so then the state is considered Romney's. I'd say it has less to do with education and more to deal with social and religious issues. You are right that social and religious issues are more influential, but to be fair, social issues are often divided along a wealth level which is pretty directly tied to education. To a certain degree I'd agree with what you are saying. I do disagree with what Ace's teacher seemed to be implying and that is better educated states means a more likely chance to vote for the democratic candidate. State testing scores should always be taken with a grain of salt because even though heavy urban populations tend to lean liberal, the scores there are relatively low and generally picked up by the suburban kids who have more wealth and better opportunities to stay out of trouble. Some states will lean in one direction almost no matter what. California will always be a blue state because of the relaxed social atmosphere that leads to open thinking while Texas will be a red state because of it's initial history and being openly opposed to anything that screams big government. I'd question Ace's teacher as well since he/she is Canadian and due to the fact countries like Canada and most of Europe see the United States as radically conservative, they might have a bias in presenting their viewpoint OR simply could lack the perspective necessary to comment on the United States political system.
|
|
|
Post by lostabroad2 on Nov 8, 2012 21:58:47 GMT -5
There's an issue with abortion? You're trying to recreate the Irish problem? Best of luck {NOT} with that!
|
|