Bradley HankinsThe topic of abortion has been floating around silently over the pass few days. From the Entrecard Forum Debates with Lee Doyle and Seeking Shanti, to my friends. Abortion has always been a hot topic ever since it became popular. With a presidential election coming up, usually the abortion topic is always discussed, but this year due to the economy and Iraq, it seems that abortion has been barely mentioned. The usual stance is this: Liberals are pro choice, conservatives are pro life. I, personally, and pro choice and pro life. To get everyone on the right track, let me expand upon this.Abortions are usually done for a few reasons. The most is that a female was raped, or didn’t want to get pregnant. Not being ready to be a mother is one of the main reasons. I can see how people come to this conclusion. They are not ready for a baby, or the just plain don’t want one; the quickest way is to terminate.
The debate usually starts out like this: when does life start? A deep topic that no one can really answer; you just have to have your own belief and faith. There are different stages in birth, and each one brings about a significant change in the forming baby. Some say life begins with the forming of the heart and brain, while others say once the baby in conceived, it is alive. I say this: I believe once the sperm enters the egg, that there is liveness. Debate all you want to, but a living creature doesn’t need a heart or a brain to be alive. Just because it isn’t “human” quite yet, doesn’t mean it will be soon.
So now that we have stated when life starts, when is it alright to terminate such life, or is it at all? This is the big question, only to be answered with deep thought, and debated throughout the ages.
I believe there are certain restrictions for abortion. To have an abortion, you will be of a unique few. The main reason I support abortion is if the mother has health problems, or it is known that the mother will die if she gives birth. There is no point in having the parent die to have a child, that is just terrible for everyone. The other reason would be if the female was raped, and happen to be under-aged, or very young, and is believed no capable of having birth… better worded as this: it would be better to terminate that to give birth. This would be a very tough decision by the female, parents, and mate.
There would also have to be a restriction on when the abortion could take place. It would have to be in the early stages, were the baby is still very undeveloped. Once there is a heart, brain, limbs, etc., the baby should not be terminated unless health reasons for the mother.
Also, except in the case of rape, the father of the child needs to know about the baby, and have a decision in the abortion process. Just because he isn’t the one giving birth, doesn’t mean a part of him is in the baby.
I guess overall, I say in is all the choice of the female. BUT, if one keeps having abortion, there should be an automatic tube tie, as obviously the woman cannot control herself. People need to learn responsibility. If you have sex, don’t be surprised in a baby pops out. It is just your fault the begin with.
My feelings do of course go out to all of those who got raped, and in turn got pregnant. I’m very sorry for what happen, but if you decided to go through with pregnancy, you don’t have to keep the baby, as foster care is a nice alternative.
Not only that, think of all the gay couples in this country, and throughout the world. They themselves cannot have a baby. Many of wish to have one though, thus, as previously said, adoption is a good choice. There are plenty of people out there perfectly capable of raising a child, but not have the ability to have a baby their-self.
So, my final conclusion. Abortion is only right on certain occasions. It should be rare, and only available to those raped, or have a serious health problem that would eventually lead to the death of the baby, the mother, or both. I’m more pro right than pro choice, but it is the woman’s right to make the decision, and hopefully she will choose life over death.
| 2.5 |
(4 out of 5)
on Apr 29th, 2008 at 8:43 am
I am really getting tired of people starting to talk about abortion all over again. I’m not mad at you for starting it though.
If it was me, I would rather die before birth then die slowly after being born. If a person is not ready to have a family, then they shouldn’t give birth to a kid unless they have a family who is willing to take care of them.
Dammit, this made more sense when I thought of it in my mind. GAh, I’ll get back to you when I remember it.
on Apr 30th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Hmm, tying a woman’s tubes because she “can’t control herself?” That’s pretty extreme. What about the man? It takes two to tango. If he keeps getting her pregnant, should he be castrated? Why should he be able to have kids in the future and she should be permanently punished? (Just playing devil’s advocate for you.)
on Apr 30th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Sazzad ~ Anytime your thoughts come together please let us know what you wanted to say lol
Erica ~ I think it is because I see it this way. A woman has two options: Have normal sex (she wants it), or be raped (she doesn’t want it).
If the case is that the woman was raped all the times she got pregnant, well the guys who did it should be punished, and sure castration could be a way to punish, why not? But if the woman keeps getting rapped, then why not tie her tubes too. Obviously she cannot defend herself, or keep her self out of such situations.
Now, if the woman wants it, then there is not much a man to do, except do it. There comes the responsibility of both parties to practice safe sex, which in the end isn’t 100% baby proof. So if both want it, then no stopping.
Unless, as stated above, the woman is rapped and becomes pregnant due to such rape - if the woman wants it, and keeps getting pregnant (especially by multiple guys), then tie her up. Now if it is the same guy, and they keep having babies, make it so they cannot reproduce anymore. Pretty simple… kind of.
Now I say women being raped because of this. Men (even though they can technically), cannot get rapped by a woman (if done right they always want it in the end), unless from the back. And if that is done, no baby comes out anyways.
I basically made that point cause I always see really poor families, who look like they are having a rough time, go around with 6 children, and 3 of the children have babies. So yea.
on May 4th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Paraphrasing Shakespeare, to abort or not to abort is the question I’m seeing here. Now, both sides, of course, can be defended for the reasons that go with them.
I have several contentions, though.
1. “I think it is because I see it this way. A woman has two options: Have normal sex (she wants it), or be raped (she doesn’t want it).”
And what exactly do you mean by “normal sex”? What counts as “normal sex” and, looking at the other way around, what would count as “abnormal sex” assuming there is such a thing? I don’t see any reason why women can only have two options when choosing ‘not to choose’ still remains a reasonable option, which makes for the third option.
2. “But if the woman keeps getting rapped (rapped? or do you mean ‘raped’?), then why not tie her tubes too.”
Then what after her tubes are tied? What if she would want to have a baby of her own someday? I don’t see tying the tubes of a woman who “keeps getting raped” (for some stupefying reason, perhaps) can stand as a deterrent or as a solution to abortion. To solve abortion, or to at least deter it, requires more than tying the tubes of women from a massive scale.
3. “Now, if the woman wants it, then there is not much a man to do, except do it.”
“It” as in “sex”? Or “it” as in “abortion”? Replacing the “it” with either of the two terms I mentioned would give us:
Now, if the woman wants “sex”, then there is not much a man to do, except to do it (have sex with the woman). This would be hilarious, as if there’s really no left for the man but to submit to the ‘calling’ and to simply grind his pogo stick between the woman’s legs.
Or, “it” as in “abortion”:
Now, if the woman wants “abortion”, then there is not much a man to do, except to do it (have the abortion). Really? Just because the woman wants abortion there’s nothing left the man can do? Not even talk to the woman and convince her not to? Ah, what a useless man he must be.
4. “Now if it is the same guy, and they keep having babies, make it so they cannot reproduce anymore.”
But I thought you gave the qualifier “if the woman wants “it”? What you’re saying here is that even though the woman wants to get pregnant, she should have her tubes tied because she’s always getting pregnant with the ‘help’ of “multiple guys” (whatever that means) or the “same guy”.
5. “I basically made that point cause I always see really poor families, who look like they are having a rough time, go around with 6 children, and 3 of the children have babies. So yea.”
What you’re saying is that there are poor families with so many kids, so let’s start tying their tubes for the lack of a better solution.
on May 4th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
1. When I said “normal sex” meaning anything but rape, as rape is sex. All that freaky stuff falls under what I was meaning as normal. Rape on the other hand, as said, is sex, just that it is unwanted. So, I think here that there is really only one option, as she cannot want rape. “Not to choose” could also mean rape if I wish to take your stuff out of context, but I presume that you are meaning just to walk away from it, so yea, she could just walk away. Since rape really isn’t an choice for the woman, she can choose to either have sex or not have sex, so still two options. If she continues to choose sex, and keeps getting pregnant, then there should be a stop to it. Make it where she can have all the sex she wants, without th reproduction.
2. Yes, I did mean rapeed, thanks for catching that error for me. When I mean if she keeps getting raped, I meant getting raped and having children, or even having an abortion. If it keeps happing, make it so she can be raped (hopefully that won’t happen though) and not reproduce. If a woman keeps reproducing, then she must be stop. There is no reason to have many kids, unless of course you can support them, but some people can barely support therselves, so they should be limited so their children can have a good childhood. Even if you can support many children, you should be limited, but if you can support it, then I guess you could have that many, even though I’m against having too many children.
3. Come on, what man would say no to sex? If the woman wants it the man will most likely want to do it. Of course the man could refuse too, but when it starts he will most likely just go with it. Then again the man should have control, and be able to stop the situation, but I can see some weak men being out there. In that case yea sure we can call it rape. And yes I was talking about sex.
I was talking about sex, but let’s put abortion in there. If the woman wants an abortion, I believe the father should have a say in the matter, as it is his baby too.
4. If the guy keeps producing babies with a woman, or many women,he should be stopped. He is just ruining (not all the time I guess…) the lives of the women. Of course, if they want it then let it be, but there should, once again, be restrictions on the number of babies one can have, and maybe we should have it for the men too. Multiple guys means having the child of more than one guy. I hope that cleared it up a bit.
5. Basically yes. Poor families who can barely support theirselves should not have many kids. The people who are living off of my tax money in government housing, who have EBT to buy food, and WIC to pay for all their babies needs shouldn’t keep having more kids. I see these people all the time, as I work in a grocery store. I see familes come up with one kid in the basket, and three kids running around the store. That family is being followed by a daughter or two, holding their baby in one hand, and talking to, I presume, their “baby’s dady” on their phone. Maybe the other daughter has a man following her, but it’s not the father, just someone else who wishes to inpregnate this girl. All at the same time this whole big family is using my well earned money to use government programs that I cannot even touch, because my family makes “too much money”, doesn’t have “too many kids”, etc. So yes, poor families should be restricted, as if they have to have the government help them support their kids, they do not need anymore.
Any more?
on May 6th, 2008 at 1:18 am
“Come on, what man would say no to sex?”
Yeah, like you want to have sex with an HIV positive lady even after you knew it and starts grinding your pogo stick between the part of her body where the sun never shines.
Hasty generalization my friend. Not good.
on May 6th, 2008 at 5:17 am
You should always know if your partner has HIV and such. If you still want to have sex with them, you can.
But that goes without saying that if you got HIV your banned from sex, until cured.