• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

My take on the abortion issue.

alex said:
I find it troubling that conservatives are always preaching about the evils of abortions and in the same breath they call for lower taxes. How is it possible to have both?
It was possible up until 1973 at which time Roe v. Wade eliminated responsibility for one's actions?
 
Fantasea said:
It was possible up until 1973 at which time Roe v. Wade eliminated responsibility for one's actions?

I wonder how many abortions have been perdormed since 1972 for reasons of birth control or convenience.........
 
You guys act as if there are no other contraceptives other than condoms!
 
I'm in high school and there are many kids that are having sex. But i have never heard or a girl getting pregnant or getting an abortion at my school in 3 years. many kids use rubbers and other kinds of birth control when they are readily available. I think the sex ed is working but theres no way any kids are going to go to abstinence. Taking away teaching safe sex and preaching none at all isn't going to work for teenagers at least because of their eagerness to impress their peers through doing "bad" and stupid stuff.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
I think showing an adolescent how to use a condom is not condoning it, though I do think that passing condoms out in school is too far.

Showing them how to be responsible with a choice and empowering them to make that choice in a certain direction is how I see the difference.

I'm pro-life when it comes to abortion, but I think the best way to prevent pregnancy isn't a condom it's proper education. Making them aware of responsiblities and how to be responsible.

Demonizing this problem down to abstinence has been proven to be ineffective. Tell them how to be resonsible so that you can expect them to be responsible.

Sorry but that doesn't work either. I am in Junior High and they teach us about resbonsibility every year just like Sex ed and they intergrate it into all the other subjects too, especially in sex ed. So it won't work either and remember I'm in Junior high in high school they pack it on.

Another point that was raised is if babies in the womb are alive or not. I believe they are. How could they not be? They are growing, maturing, eating, evolving and moving. The only thing we are unsure of is if they are thinking. But still a cell is alive, so is a plant or an animal they all don't have at least one thing we have. My real point is that they will be alive and as one person said "it will make us pay more taxes" "How can they promise us both lower taxes and more orphange babies" or something like that, but they will pay taxes in the future and the tax rate can decrease a circle that does not end.

Oh and go Navy Pride! your not the only Conservative on the site.
 
Liberals are the only ones that think that a baby that grows from 2 cells into a brain, hands, a cardiovascular system, hands, fingers, toes, etc, is not alive......
 
CanadianGuy said:
Sorry but that doesn't work either. I am in Junior High and they teach us about resbonsibility every year just like Sex ed and they intergrate it into all the other subjects too, especially in sex ed. So it won't work either and remember I'm in Junior high in high school they pack it on. .

How do you know sex-ed doesn't work? Is it from personal experience? Sorry, but absitinence programs don't work. I look at it kind of like a sky-diving instructor taking a bunch of first timers up. Now he knows that some won't jump, but it's probably a good idea to teach everyone how a parachute works anyway. Teenagers are going to have sex. There is nothing we can do to stop it. Might as well educate them.

CanadianGuy said:
Another point that was raised is if babies in the womb are alive or not. I believe they are. How could they not be? .

I don't think anybody's debating whether they are alive or not. All cells are alive, therefore zygotes, fetuses, whatever, since they are a cluster of cells, are alive. I mean they are certainly not dead.


CanadianGuy said:
They are growing, maturing, eating, evolving and moving. The only thing we are unsure of is if they are thinking..

Sounds like you could be describing a plant. Or a bug. So why does that mean they have a right to impede on the mother's body? And I'm not really sure they're evolving. I mean a little, I guess, but evolution takes, you know, thousands of years.

CanadianGuy said:
But still a cell is alive, so is a plant or an animal they all don't have at least one thing we have. My real point is that they will be alive and as one person said "it will make us pay more taxes" "How can they promise us both lower taxes and more orphange babies" or something like that, but they will pay taxes in the future and the tax rate can decrease a circle that does not end.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. If abortion was de-legalized, we would have hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. We just don't have that many people who want to adopt. So we would have to create shelters for them, which would cost money, which would raise our taxes.
 
Kelzie said:
Sounds like you could be describing a plant. Or a bug. So why does that mean they have a right to impede on the mother's body?

It really wasn't the fetus' choice to impede on the mother's body was it? It was the mother and father's choice.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. If abortion was de-legalized, we would have hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. We just don't have that many people who want to adopt. So we would have to create shelters for them, which would cost money, which would raise our taxes.

That's crap and you know it. There are thousands of parents looking to adopt in this country. Angelina Jolie alone could handle at least 20% of the children...
 
Navy Pride said:
I wonder how many abortions have been perdormed since 1972 for reasons of birth control or convenience.........
First, understand that the following statistics are furnished by the Alan Guttmacher Institute which is the statistical arm of Planned Parenthood.

The source: http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

Abortion Statistics - U.S.
Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Click here to see the approximate number of abortions in the U.S. per year from 1973-1996. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.
88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term "abortion").


Simple math multiplying 1.37 million abortions a year times the 32 years since Roe v. Wade in 1973 results in 44 million. This is the Planned Parenthood estimate which is likely to be lower, rather than higher, than the actual number.

I believe that, in the final category, they muddy the water by including involuntary miscarriages with deliberate abortions. However, this does not effect its estimate of 1.37 deliberate abortions per year.

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.


Again, a little simple math shows the following:

3.3% risk to fetal health.
2.8% risk to maternal health
93.9% (or more than 39 million) for all other reasons
 
Kelzie said:
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. If abortion was de-legalized, we would have hundreds of thousands of unwanted babies. We just don't have that many people who want to adopt. So we would have to create shelters for them, which would cost money, which would raise our taxes.
So, what you are saying is that it's a matter of simple economics.

1. What is the monetary value that you place upon a human child?

2. Does value differ, based upon certain factors?

3. If so, what are the factors?

4. How do they effect the value?
 
GrK said:
I'm in high school and there are many kids that are having sex. But i have never heard or a girl getting pregnant or getting an abortion at my school in 3 years. many kids use rubbers and other kinds of birth control when they are readily available. I think the sex ed is working but theres no way any kids are going to go to abstinence. Taking away teaching safe sex and preaching none at all isn't going to work for teenagers at least because of their eagerness to impress their peers through doing "bad" and stupid stuff.
You make the case for irresponsibility in young persons. Have you any suggestion for ways in which responsible behavior may be taught to them?
 
I am not against sex education but I do think if you are passing out condoms at the front door of our schools then you are telling kids its ok to have sex as long as you use protection...............At least I think that is the way a lot of young kids would take it........
 
Fantasea said:
You make the case for irresponsibility in young persons. Have you any suggestion for ways in which responsible behavior may be taught to them?
You make a case for being totally out of touch with reality. Teenagers are going to have sex, so it is vital that birth control always be available to them.

IMHO if you limit the availability of birth control you are contributing to the abortion rate in America. You want to reduce abortions then make damn sure that kids have birth control.

Abortion is here to stay, but it can be reduced if we simply take a stronger stance on distributing birth control. Screw (pun intended) the religious dogma, it has no bearing on what our government should be doing re birth control.

Birth Control = Lower Pregnancy Rates and Lower STDs. - Anyone care to dispute these two facts?

Abstinence should definitely be taught as one method of birth control, the best method, but it should not be the only alternative because it won't work.
 
Navy Pride said:
I am not against sex education but I do think if you are passing out condoms at the front door of our schools then you are telling kids its ok to have sex as long as you use protection...............At least I think that is the way a lot of young kids would take it........
Statistically, that is not true. Dispensing birth control does NOT increase the rate of teenagers having sex. It does decrease the rate of teenagers getting pregnant.
Release Date: Oct. 30, 2003

SCHOOL CLINICS BEST WAY
TO GET BIRTH CONTROL TO STUDENTS


By Becky Ham, Science Writer
Health Behavior News Service
Minneapolis high school students are more apt to take advantage of free contraception if they can get birth control directly from clinics at their schools, according to new research in the November issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Before 1998, students who visited school-based clinics received vouchers they could redeem for free birth control at community clinics. Only 41 percent of students received all of the contraceptives they requested, however, suggesting that many students were not using the vouchers.

To remedy this, Minneapolis school-based clinics began distributing birth control directly to students in May 1998.

By 2000, 99 percent of the students received all of the contraceptives they requested,
according to Abbey Sidebottom, M.P.H., of the Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support and colleagues.

“Although we were unable to examine whether students used the contraceptives they obtained, there is cause for optimism in light of evidence that improving access to contraception increases actual rates of use among those who are already sexually active,” Sidebottom and colleagues say.

Under the voucher system, only 21 percent of students received all the condoms and 11 percent received all the oral contraceptives they requested. All condom and oral contraceptive requests were fulfilled under the direct distribution system in 2000.

The percentage of students requesting contraceptives — 11 percent — remained steady between the two years.

“Previous research with adolescents has indicated that making contraceptives accessible does not increase sexual activity among adolescents who weren’t previously sexually active,” Sidebottom says. “The fact that we did not see an increase in demand for contraceptives among the student population at these schools seems to agree with these findings.”

A recent national survey of high school clinics found that 18 percent directly dispense birth control pills and 28 percent dispense condoms.

“Our findings suggest that school-based clinics could go a step further in reducing adolescents’ barriers to accessing contraceptives by adopting an on-site direct delivery system,” Sidebottom and colleagues say.

The study was supported by the Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support.
Source: http://www.hbns.org/news/teenbc10-30-03.cfm
 
Handing out Condoms like they're lifesavers will not lower the pregnancy rate. Handing out condoms does not encourage safe sex, it encourages sex in general. Educating kids how to have "perfect use" of birth control methods makes sense to me. Not just saying, "Well, you're going to be irresponsible anyway, so have a rubber." That's complacency towards their bad choices. Tell them how to be safe. Tell them the consequences of not being safe. Leave the rest up to them. If they want condoms, tell them to get a job.

This is a bad idea:

"Now children, how can tell me when the Declaration of Independece was signed? The first one to answer gets a condom."
 
Fantasea said:
It was possible up until 1973 at which time Roe v. Wade eliminated responsibility for one's actions?

It could be said that abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions. Knowing a woman is not ready to have a child and accepting abortion as the way to do it is being responsible. To say that a woman should have thought about that before she had sex does not work. Sex is a human necessity.
 
alex said:
It could be said that abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions. Knowing a woman is not ready to have a child and accepting abortion as the way to do it is being responsible. To say that a woman should have thought about that before she had sex does not work. Sex is a human necessity.

I'm not saying that the woman should not have had sex. I'm saying that BOTH OF THE PARENTS should have been more cautious.

Getting an abortion is fairly irresponsible and reckless with another human beings life. If you're not ready to have a child, take precautions before sex.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Handing out Condoms like they're lifesavers will not lower the pregnancy rate. Handing out condoms does not encourage safe sex, it encourages sex in general. Educating kids how to have "perfect use" of birth control methods makes sense to me. Not just saying, "Well, you're going to be irresponsible anyway, so have a rubber." That's complacency towards their bad choices. Tell them how to be safe. Tell them the consequences of not being safe. Leave the rest up to them. If they want condoms, tell them to get a job.
So if they have a job, they have to buy condoms themselves? That sounds like passive consent for them to have condoms.

I guess I'm of the simple opinion that should someone (not the taxpayers) want to foot the bill of handing out condoms, go for it. I didn't have sex til I was of the majority age, but I was definitely in the minority there and I'd rather the kids use protection than have unwanted pregnancies, STDs, etc. It's the lesser of two evils.

Should these be available at a public school? I'm going to have to say no. School isn't the place for kids to have sex and shouldn't be taking that position of liability.

Gandhi>Bush said:
This is a bad idea:

"Now children, how can tell me when the Declaration of Independece was signed? The first one to answer gets a condom."
Yes, so would be "Who agrees that war is bad gets a condom" or "A squared times B squared equals C squared is whose theory? Answer and get a condom". Neither of these have to do with sex ed so it'd be foolish to be given out condoms like Unicef is knocking on your door on Halloween. Keep it germane.
 
Someone before stated that taxes would go up, are you that greedy? You wouldnt pay a little mpore cash to save a potential baby? Living or dead in ur beliefs, it is still potentially a baby, and, if let alone, will become someone your age, and older... have kids, have a life, pay taxes, have vacastions,responsibilities, and debates like here. He/she will have ambitions.... stress.... friends, enemies.... wants... needs.... likes and dislikes... this person will have an education... and will get a job.... all of this could be compacted into one thing... thise person would have a life... and i dont mind paying a few dollars more for this person to have a life... we pay millions of dollars to save Africa from AIDS, so they can have a btter life... why not pay a few extra dollars to give someone the chance to have a life at all?
 
Provita said:
Someone before stated that taxes would go up, are you that greedy? You wouldnt pay a little mpore cash to save a potential baby? Living or dead in ur beliefs, it is still potentially a baby, and, if let alone, will become someone your age, and older... have kids, have a life, pay taxes, have vacastions,responsibilities, and debates like here. He/she will have ambitions.... stress.... friends, enemies.... wants... needs.... likes and dislikes... this person will have an education... and will get a job.... all of this could be compacted into one thing... thise person would have a life... and i dont mind paying a few dollars more for this person to have a life... we pay millions of dollars to save Africa from AIDS, so they can have a btter life... why not pay a few extra dollars to give someone the chance to have a life at all?
You're more than welcome to foot the bill yourself. Keep me and my wallet out of it.
 
Okay, but what about whats IN your wallet, dont worry, i wont sell the wallet :mrgreen:
 
Provita said:
Okay, but what about whats IN your wallet, dont worry, i wont sell the wallet :mrgreen:
Capital One, but I'd advise you against that. They're evil (horrible business practices like not reporting credit limits to the three major bureaus thus artificially lowering one's credit score.) Once my 0% apr 6 month trial is over, clipped it shall be.
 
darned capital one... good commercials tho :mrgreen:
 
Its called taking responsibility for your actions when you were irresponsible and used no protection when you engaged in sex............

It seems to me that the pro abortion people in this forum are all for the rights of the irresponsible.......My question is who speaks for the innocent unborn baby in the womb?
 
Provita said:
darned capital one... good commercials tho :mrgreen:
Yeah, they suckered me in. A curse on them.
 
Back
Top Bottom