abortion

Your responses have become more like chaotic rants, then straight forward replies to the actual context of the contentions in the beginning. You tend to generalize where specifics are needed and you have repeatedly stated the way you feel without substantiating your position with reasonable arguments based on acquirable information about our world. I am under the impression you are not even researching anything on the subject, as your response are not well balanced to the data on reality. Groups Sustainability 1.) Rare situations? Here are the top three reasons for abortion [1] --negative impact on the mother's life --financial instability --relationship problems /unwillingness to be a single mother The majority of women who choose abortions have already given birth. Mothers who have had one or more children comprise over 60% of all abortions, and women who do not have protected/birth control accounts for only 8% of abortions [1] I really didn’t expect you to reason people should only have sex for procreation. The reasoning you are conveying is skewed, and it is misleading you to believe you are not responsible for the outcomes of tomorrow, because you did not act today. Please review my arguments on this subject. Again, my contention are based on the logic, that if (a), and if (b), then (c) is true. I explain my reasons; here I am arguing that suffering is a good thing to reduce, which I stated at the beginning of my elaboration on the conclusion. I did not ignore the ”choice” of adoption; I supported it, I also briefly explained and gave you sources to review the consequences of the amount of children already put up for adoption in America and worldwide). I really don’t think you understand the compounding impact of your position of “abortion only”. 3.) Yes, I think suffering matters; it is one possible way we may find tangible criteria to take into account to help make more reasonable decisions. It is very rare for women in the US to die as a result of pregnancy or childbirth (that is a good thing), and of those few, many did not receive medical care during pregnancy. Although, 1 in 6 pregnant women experience some form of pregnancy complication. [2] No, the women can choose to have sex without also choosing to “possibly” become pregnant and rear a child. This is where you don’t understand your argument denies women their basic human rights. Your argument is further complicated by how our sexual behaviors have evolved. Most humans now don’t live under conditions that give strong incentives for high births rates, usually to counter the high death rates. We are adapted to a high level of sexual appetite, high male sperm count (more than we ever need), and why it has been hard to conclude, some studies have shown females unconsciously respond to chemical difference in males perspiration, i.e. sexually aroused male Vs. male with no sexual intentions. [3] Abortion can be sad, and no, not always an easy way out. And, I must say, I think your prognoses are ignorant of a vast amount of information on the subject; this to me makes some of your positions seem very rude in considering all the aspects of these topics and how people deal with the agenda of abortion. Modern human rights are not usually predicated by our ability to care for ourselves; at least this can be true for the last several decades as the Humanitarian Revolution unfolded. The issue is usually to what degree of suffering can be determined, though it certainly is an open subject, but abortion is not entirely depended on it such a proposition. Under the definition of human rights I have given, a person on life support is guaranteed their human rights, although this too can be subject to change given the certain circumstances. If you really are arguing that people who cannot care for a child should still have a child, this is your choice; though it seems horribly ill-conceived to me. Remember adoption can be a good option, but not always, and sometimes not even an option. Don’t confuse adoption with solution; you may be attempting to pass on a problem, not actually solve it (the child is not a problem in-of-itself, but the circumstance brought about by the emergence of the child into the problematic situation is the problem). Human rights 1.) I believe you are correct in asserting that you should not be obligated to support abortion with your tax dollars. 2.) No, females do not always have a choice in getting pregnant, and based on your arguments against abortion you attempt to take chooses away from women, by dismantling their basic right to choose to become a mother. The women can choose to have sex without also choosing to “possibly” become pregnant and rear a child as I stated above. 3.) “You are allowed kill your kid” was not said by any of the sources I cited, nor did I say it. You are possibly (I assume unconsciously) trying to arouse certain emotions with terminology that signals to the reader’s brain the association of a toddle or a born baby. It may be hard to understand, but there is a difference. I don’t assume you are against the use of contraceptives? There are a vast amount of sperm lost to eternity, “possible lives”, be it half of a possible life in some sense; or the egg in the women, does that egg fall under your “kid” category, this may sound weird, but there are difference stages in the productions of life that should help us differentiate things so we may make more reasonable responses to problems. Article 1. All human beings are “born free and equal in dignity and rights”. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. [4] It is international agreed that humans are granted their human rights upon birth. Even so, I am not arguing that abortion at any point of the pregnancy is equal, nor am I arguing that those who may choose abortion should not consider all other options first and foremost. I believe in fighting for any and all rights the possible child can have which will not impede the mothers fully granted human rights. I certainly am not treating children “like animals” (assuming that means how animals more likely to be treated cruelly), quite the opposite; I am asking you and others to consider that it is fundamental we consider actions to prevent greater harm and suffering, and always striving to reduce the need for any extremities to accomplish such goals. We are animals in the biological sense and are you insinuating we should treat non-humans as though they are beneath us? Societal and Individual Health 1.) Ok. 2.) I will leave the part for readers to decipher. You are confusing the idea of possibilities with correct answer and as I said, the analogy is preposterous; they are not cross-comparative, though I made a rough abstract analogy of the improvement of oversight. Yes, the dad’s knowledge of the kids doing the drugs makes him capable to assess the situation, which would be safer if he didn’t know. You are only making an argument for what safe access is, not that safe access is bad (that is an oxymoron). Safe access can be subjected to change and appropriation in-order make access safer than it otherwise would be, and why it might not be as safe as we want, I argue it does make it safer and cited a study. [5] Reduction in Criminal Behavior If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal. Making abortion illegal does not significantly reduce abortion. [1] Sources [1] http://www.guttmacher.org... [2] http://www.womenshealth.gov... [3] http://www.livescience.com... [4] http://www.un.org... [5] http://www.pbs.org... [6] http://www.guttmacher.org... [7] http://www.livescience.com...