If YOU help create a child, it has the legal right to be supported by you and you have the legal responsibility to do so. Trust me, your piddlie $100 per week is not gonna do it entirely and it (*)(*)(*)(*) sure isn't gonna make the Mother live in the lap of luxury. If you don't want to make a baby, just make sure you don't. It's not that difficult.
I say the same to women, you don't want a baby, you make sure you don't. Killing the beby after you made it is unaccaptable.
I do think there are far to many abortions. All they do is make the doctors wealthy. I also think the focus of the anti abortion groups is all wrong. If these people are really in favor of eliminating abortion they would do better to start teaching birth control and self control to their children. I do believe that all males outside of a so called permanent relationship should use condoms. I think women should practice birth control as well. It makes sense. Trying to teach or instill a person with the idea of abstinence does not work Talking down birth control at the same time as being anti abortion is foolish as well. I am in favor of a woman's choice when it comes to her own body, heath and well being. I don't think it is anyone's business what she does about abortion. Many circumstance can arise that make abortion and option and a needed option. It should be available. If people used their heads about sexual matters abortion would not even be debated.
You still do not understand the killing part. I guess there are people just incapable of learning anything. According to your posts you seem to be one of them.
OK then....A human zygote is a developing human life. If you terminate the zygote you are effectively terminating a developing human life. Ever think bout the definition of ABORT? "To bring forth stillborn, nonviable, or premature offspring." "To terminate a procedure prematurely" "To stop in early stages" Abortion refers to the STOPPING of a process, not the removal of some kind of non-viable cell mass.
It is interesting the you would put birth-control ahead of self control but it typical of what is being taught to kids in school. To me that is like handing the keys to the car to your 10-year old but telling him he can't drive it. The very best 'birth control' is to not have procreational sex until one has received and made a commitment which can only come with maturity. A pregnancy affect many folks, the would-be father, the would-be grandparents etc. One does not live as an island. The woman made the CHOICE to have procreational sex in the first place. What is going on here? Are women not AWARE that they could get pregnant doing this? That must be because they are now teaching their little girls & boys that they are victims when it comes to sex. Exactly...and why do you think people do not use their heads? Is everyone just a victim of their own hormones? OR are humans actually capable of taking control over their sexual urges? A pregnancy is not a MISTAKE it is the result of a sex-act that has as its goal the creation of a new human life. Why is this so hard to understand?
No it doesn't and you continue posting like an ass. When you finally get some knowledge and know anything about anything maybe we can attempt this again. Until then I would rather straighten my sock drawer then waste more time typing to you.
Your response makes sense but it would be better to use the phrase " zygote that will develop into a human" as many will confuse the adjective "human" used in your phrase (developing human life) with the noun "a human" The phrase "developing human life" makes it sound as if a human actually exists at the zygote stage and it does not. I agree (the question of viability aside) Abortion is the stopping of the process of the creation of a human. This is why I do not have a problem with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy because the process of creating a human has not advanced very far. One thing that can not be denied is that process of creation of a human has started at the zygote stage, and even earlier for that matter. There the potential for a human to be created.. the blueprint has been made and the process of building the human pictured in that bluprint is underway. The question then is how to value the blueprint, the process, and the possibility or the potential for a new human to be created ?
You delude yourself if you think young people will not have sexual contact. The percentage is small that won't. That sort of thinking is what fills the abortion offices. I find nothing interesting about the way I listed them. Teaching birth control overall will stop more unwanted pregnancies than teaching abstinence will. Not because birth control works better but because all of those that are going to have sex might receive benefit from usage. As far as preventing pregnancy yes. The problem with the method is people for the most part will have sex anyway and the result than is pregnancy. The fetus that is aborted is the product of those not practicing your method. So you can see that it is not working. If you teach birth control that would work as sex happens. But people get real edgy about teaching birth control in schools so you see the result. You sound as if you think that married woman and those in committed relationships are flooding the clinics. I would venture to say that most abortions affect no one but the woman and perhaps her family. More than likely the lions share of males know and don't care or don't know at all. I would say most of the would be fathers are relieved with the woman's choice. Uh married couples have rampant sex and not just to have children. It is a natural drive. Sex is not just for procreation. Yes a pregnancy can be a mistake. That is why there is a need for both birth control and abortion.
Yes kids are going to fool around, experiment etc. I referred to procreational sex. (penis in vagina). Kids need to be taught that is NOT appropriate until they are mature and make and have a commitment which should be the over-arching theme in any sex education class...not contraceptives. Emphasizing abstinence in a sex-education setting that includes information about contraceptives has shown some success. Teenagers are flooding the clinics, a married woman would have already made a commitment. Teaching that pregnancy is a 'mistake' is misleading.
Telling a young person to remain abstinent is a very nice pat yourself on the back feeling and a nice thing to do. Seeing that system pay off is altogether different. How many young people have been told to not do it. Probably 80 to 90%. That being said they still had sex. Even Sarah Palin's daughter was told abstinence only and she had a baby. I have to believe that if Sarah told her anything it was to stay out of the sack. How's that workin' for her. If you do nothing beyond instruct abstinence you will be the poster boy for keeping the abortion clinics working overtime. If you start teaching birth control and safe sex you will cut into the number of abortions.
It is tough to envision a moral framework that would apply to something that only has the Potential to be a person. We could expand, as is often done, our moral framework to all living things but this leads to problems. For example: if we claim that all living things are entitled to rights, including the right to life then humans can not survive. Unfortunately humans need to kill life in order to survive.
While I agree that folks shouls be mature prior to having sex I do not think that "commitment" is a necessary requirement for all. The idea that commitment is required is more of a moral judgement. There is nothing wrong with people choosing to have sex for the pure pleasure aspect. "Friends with benefits" so to speak. It is important to teach these folks to partake in the "benefits" responsibly. I think it is up to the parents to teach abstinence. It is up to the school to educate. To do this most effectively the teacher should be non parental/not partisan/not express an moral opinion/ and non judgemental. Only then will teh kids take the teacher seriously on what is a very serious and possibly life changing topic. The teacher is there to "educate", not tout religious beliefs about when it is appropriate or not for mature adults to have sex. They can stress however the consequences of sex. I would really focus on what a horrible experience having children really is.. that should be enough to scare most of them into acting responsibly. Yes .. because they are obviously not properly educated in contraceptive methods. Pregnancy in youth is a "HUGE" mistake IMO. Teaching that having a baby is some kind of happy fantasy is what is misleading. 1) You lose your life and independence .. Your life is lived for the child and not for you 2) Its expensive. 3) When young kids have babies their careers are often limited 4) Less chance of higher education 5) Changing diapers for 3 years 6) animosity between the parents 7) 2 years of hell .. 2 more years of work.. and then it starts to get cool There is little good about kids having kids
Does that cost money? Yeah we wouldn't want those children to be taught morals and values... So what IS 'appropriate' in your estimable opinion. They all know already...ever heard of the INTERNET? Pregnancy is NOT a 'mistake' it required a willful act resulting in the pregnancy in the first place.
Sometimes sex isn't so much a willful act as it is a lack of will to refuse it. No amount of teaching can instill that will.
Because something is a willfull act does not mean it is not a mistake. Getting pregnant is often the result of a mistake. Sex assuming the risk of pregnancy are low, or sex by the rythm method thinking one can avoid pregnancy through this method. Let me clarify however. What I meant to say was that it is a huge mistake IMO for kids to have children. If kids get pregnant by accident it is a mistake to not have an abortion or, if ones religious belief prevents it ( a mistake due to a lack of understanding of the Bible in the case of Christianity) it is a mistake not to give the kid up for adoption.
My point is..that 'something' is developing human life that will develop into a human being if not terminated. That, IMO, is more than just 'potential' which goes to the heart of the disagreement between 'right to lifers' and 'pro-aborters.' I agree with neither extreme of the two but, will I think it is moral to preserve a developing human life if possible. As a man I really have no real say anyway but that is my opinion. A human zygote is not just a 'living thing' it is a living HUMAN zygote. There is no precedent or reason to 'expand' similar moral framework to say..a pig. Again, why would we extend human rights to cattle? Morality is what is considered to be the right thing and in accord with standards of right or good conduct. It is perfectly congruent to eat animals and not eat other humans for instance. The latter would be immoral or even amoral.
Using ambiguous language "developing human life" only serves to confuse the issue. Development "Human Development" is also a science that describes the development adolescents. Developing - in the case of a zygote referes merely to the fact that it is changing. Developing (something that is changing) Human (something that is human - like a cell, DNA, a human heart and so on) Life - something that is alive. There is nothing precious about "human life" when used to describe a human cell. Human life is also a term that is used to describe "Humans" Which meaning(s) are you giving to these terms ? Let me use terms that are "technically" correct and where the meaning is understood. A human zygote is a single human cell. It does not develop, (as in adolescent development - changes throughout its life) it reproduces to create two daughter cells which are clones of the parent. After reproduction the parent zygote no longer exists in the same way every other cell no longer exists after division. What is passed on is DNA which contains the instructions for creation of a human. The parent zygote can develop no further as its existence as an entity is at an end. Each of these daughter cells can create a separate human if implanted into an embryo as they both contain the same active instruction set. They both have separate existences. None of these initial cells will ever be number in the cells of the eventual "born human". They will go on to form the blastocyst (a hollow sphere of cells inside of which the embryoblast will form) The embryoblast consists of cells that will form the human, the blastocyst goes on to form the placenta. What is happening here is an act of creation. The various parts of the human are being created from the instruction set which is replicated with each cell division. The initial cells (after the blastocyst not before) are the workers that create the various parts of the human. The question here is what does "a human" consist of ? Can we really something is a living human without a brain ? Not according to a coroner. How much of the various parts of the human need to be completed before we say "That is a Human" Can you really say with a straight fact that a single cell is enough ? Yes .. and a skin cell is a living human cell. The only significant difference between the human skin cell and the human zygote cell is that the DNA in the zygote cell is programmed to create a human. Are there any other significant differences ? A cow has more similarity to "a human/homo sapien by definition" than a zygote. A cow has a brain .. a zygote does not A cow has eyes.. a zygote does not A cow is a mammal .. a zygote is not A cow feels pain .. a zygote does not A cow has thoughts .. a zygote does not A cow reproduces sexually .. a zygote does not A cow cares for its young .. a zygote does not A cow comes when you call it .. a zygote does not A cow is far more like a human than a zygote .. if we give rights to a zygote why should we not give them to cows ? This has nothing to do with cannibalism. The zygote is not a human.
On the contrary 'developing human life' in relation to our discussion is, I believe, quite UNambiguous. But we were not discussing adolescents. Changing into what exactly?.....(hint: starts with H) Yes alive and developing into....(guess) We were not discussing a human cell. Not really 'humanity' is actually most appropriate. See above It may be one-cell for a few milliseconds but it has already been fertilized the the developmental process has begun which will take only a couple of weeks before it becomes an embryo. So, no it is not just the one-cell egg anymore after it is fertilized. That's why it is called a different name....zygote. You are splitting hairs. See my explanation above. The 'act of creation' is not separate from a zygote. That is NOT the issue here, I clearly said developing human life. An abortion terminates that. Apparently that means not so much to some. So be it. I have no say, women can terminate a developing human life if they want. Correction, a zygote is in the process of creating a human. In our society it is MORAL to eat a cow...it is IMMORAL or even AMORAL to eat a developing human life. Can you see that societal morals and values are important?
