Should a women be forced to have a child if she gets pregnant?

Posted by: Kreakin

  • Yes, she should be forced to have the child.

  • No, she should not be forced to have the child.

36% 29 votes
64% 52 votes
  • If a women get's pregnant it is usually by choice. If you don't want to have a baby then don't have sex.

  • Unless incest or rape, yes. Don't spread your legs if you don't want a baby.

  • Why kill a human being?

  • If she ''gets pregnant''? You make it sound like it just happens randomly or something. What country are you from where you are taught that pregnancy is some random occurrence and has no choice or intent behind it?

  • You shouldn't get rid of the future baby because of that personal decision. The future child deserves to live and have a life just like everyone else.

  • When she gets pregnant she either wants to or she was raped. In most cases she wanted to and now she has to have the baby. The baby shouldn't be killed for his/her father's or mother's irresponsibility. THat's just murder.

  • Extreme cases are the exception.

  • I'm saying yes only because I believe it should generally be yes. If she was raped or has a fairly high chance of dying from giving birth let her decide, and she doesn't need the father's permission. However, if she isn't likely to die and wasn't raped she should have to have it.

  • I agree with this the most, but this is framed in a negative view. Abortion is not an action that is most desirable, nor should it really be considered among a humane society. I'm not advocating for the woman to keep the child; adoption is a viable alternative. But one shouldn't actively seek an abortion

  • If she had sex willingly, she should have to accept the consequences of her actions. If she did not have sex willingly, and yet was impregnated, then she shouldn't, but it's encouraging people to be irresponsible.

  • The child is alive once the woman is pregnant. Murdering it would be wrong.

    Posted by: Bob13
  • I personally think that it's their responsibility or (if they are forced to bear the fruit like by rapist), I believe doing abortion won't give her a 'fresh start'. You can't change the past whatever you do. You cannot reset a mistake by killing innocent soul. You should have sex when you are ready for the consequences. (whether or not you use protection. I mean even you use it it's 99.9% safe, not 100%) You should realize when you got pregnant it's your responsibility. I also hope that people who vote that they shouldn't have an abortion or they need to be forced to have the child are more supportive to every women who choose this hard decision. Because one thing that's so scary for them and make a lot of people doing abortion is rejection from society or people around them.

  • If they didn't want to have a baby then they sho

  • Abortion is selfish.

  • Your choosing life or death over someone you have never met before. I get it, Progeny is a hard thing, Not only physically but you can receive help from family and friends while the baby inside the womb can't receive any help.

  • If she doesn't want to, then no. By the way I'm no liberal, but a radical liberal - yes. :P

  • A pregnancy is a huge commitment, mentally, physically, and monetarily. To force someone to go through if she doesn't want to would be pretty hard on her.

  • Its a freedom. Especially when women are raped, cases of incest, etc. Even if you banned abortion with exception to certain instances, when a woman does not want to have the baby, just because precautions were not taken; alot of people would just lie about it. It is better to have abortion for the child; because if the mother doesn't want it, there is so much hurt for that human being born when it's given up for adoption or kept and neglected. That is just more problems in this world. And we don't need those kind of problems.

  • If someone gets pregnant, they should have the choice on whether they want to keep it or not. They could have gotten pregnant because of loads of reasons and it is wrong to make someone do something that they don't want to. If they physically can't afford to give that baby a good life or if they are too young, they shouldn't be forced to have the child. If they have been raped and become pregnant through that and they don't want to keep the child, because of the way they became pregnant, then they should not be forced to have the baby. I am for abortion and feel as though everyone should have the choice of what they do with their lives. If you cannot afford to give that child a good life, if you are too young or you simply feel like you are not ready to be a mother, you should not have the baby.

  • If she does then the child will grow up being hated by its own parents in a fractured family.

    Posted by: md524
  • Persuasion is fine. Force is not.

  • What happened to pleasure? What happened to crime? A victim of rape should not be forced to have a child, just as a girl who makes a bad decision or a woman who just wants to be intimate with her partner should not be forced to have a child. Unimaginable pain is involved in giving birth, and, often, women and girls are stuck with their children ALONE. They often have to care for their children and pay for their children. These things will most likely stop them from reaching their goals.

  • CONSENT TO SEX IS NOT CONSENT TO PREGNANCY

  • NO.The choice should be given to the women to decide because she is the one who under goes a lot of labour pain.As research proved,the state of mother's health (mental and physical) is also most important factor relating to the heath of child .

  • If she doesn't want a child, she shouldn't have to have one. Now, if you got pregnant over and over again and kept having abortions, that would be a problem. But if a woman gives birth to a child and doesn't want this child, it is most likely that she will neglect it.

    Posted by: kt302
  • If the baby is aborted early enough, then she can decide whether or not to have it.

  • My pet hate is abortion but if she gets raped and gets pregnant, the best thing for her to do is to put the child up for adoption if she doesn't want it.

  • women should have the right to control their bodies

    Posted by: circe
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
dbushwacker says2015-04-10T14:02:15.0606382-05:00
You know, just warning you, people are gonna hop on and say you're biased Kreakin when they look at the pictures. Just so ya know. :)
PetersSmith says2015-04-10T14:03:22.0456041-05:00
BIASED POLL
PetersSmith says2015-04-10T14:03:34.2773178-05:00
Nac ^
dbushwacker says2015-04-10T14:04:09.5780359-05:00
Lol, see what I mean.
Kreakin says2015-04-10T14:04:20.9034181-05:00
Why? The do it pic?
Kreakin says2015-04-10T14:06:24.4322819-05:00
The anti lobby have killed people for their beliefs.
Kreakin says2015-04-10T14:07:55.9844300-05:00
Removing choice is forcing people and removing freedom, I see no bias.
PetersSmith says2015-04-10T14:09:49.1607327-05:00
No, I just said that to spite you.
dbushwacker says2015-04-10T14:10:25.6072675-05:00
So Couree, nice to see you by the way, why do you pick yes?
Vox_Veritas says2015-04-10T14:14:24.2530150-05:00
PetersSmith beat me to it.
RXR says2015-04-10T14:18:43.7072254-05:00
I don't see why not. The same question can be applied to forcing a woman to raise a one year old.
Tarik says2015-04-10T14:20:47.4310246-05:00
Abortion being illegal doesn't force a woman to have a child because she can still get an abortion, she'll just be faced the consequences of her actions which is prosecution.
TBR says2015-04-10T14:21:32.6303839-05:00
@RXR - Who is forcing people to raise a one year old?
heil33 says2015-04-10T14:27:00.6512686-05:00
If the baby is aryan then definitely not if its jewish, black, or gypsie, etc then it should be recommended.
Mister_Man says2015-04-10T14:27:54.4257761-05:00
Lol heil
dbushwacker says2015-04-10T14:28:36.3866275-05:00
LOL
komododragon8 says2015-04-10T14:30:47.3108102-05:00
Heel: I thought you wanted more black people for you work force.
Kreakin says2015-04-10T14:39:01.9969963-05:00
@Tarik - how so if it's illegal? Most people are law abiding.
Tarik says2015-04-10T14:44:44.7848041-05:00
There's no way you can possibly no that.
heil33 says2015-04-10T14:48:22.9934077-05:00
Except this woman doesn't want the child so it's not efficient to feed the black. When the woman wants to care for the child then it's good to mass breed
Kreakin says2015-04-10T14:51:56.3661043-05:00
@Tarik - Except for the fact the majority of people have never been prosecuted, unless you think everyone just got away with it.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:04:37.2726712-05:00
Heil. Genesis01, stop trolling you troll or a troll with troll hammers will troll you with troll logic until your troll mentality will be troll goop.
RXR says2015-04-10T15:04:48.1456621-05:00
-tbr The goverment ? If you don't want to raise a 1 year old, you get charged with child abuse.
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:04:50.8132108-05:00
It's a possibility.
TBR says2015-04-10T15:05:34.8359540-05:00
@RXR - You may lawfully abandon a child.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:11:10.9649750-05:00
Come on man, there are too many conservatives always going on and on about "freedom" until it's something they don't agree with, like abortion, birth control, gay marriage, but I guess freedom to discriminate is okay, right?
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:13:13.3263469-05:00
Discriminate against who?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:14:29.7340730-05:00
I believe in the freedom of a human to live. I believe that gays and lesbians don't need marriage if they are provide civil unions.
TBR says2015-04-10T15:16:24.6098683-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - Why quibble over the term?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:17:59.2236461-05:00
Innocent humans should have the freedom to live. Gays and lesbians should have the freedom to have civil unions. How does my beliefs go against freedom?
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:18:51.0843762-05:00
TBR, it is because of immaturity. Adults fighting over words, I mean really...
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:19:59.5771329-05:00
Matchgeekjoe, because civil unions are NOT marriages. Separate but equal is not "freedom"
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:21:27.5869901-05:00
They provide the same legal benefits as marriages.
TBR says2015-04-10T15:22:31.3060244-05:00
Well, I was going to go down the separate but equal route, but I will let briantheliberal take the spot.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:23:25.0076017-05:00
How is a civil union not freedom?
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:24:02.3830648-05:00
They do not, and they are not recognized outside the state either. I personally don't see how same sex couples getting married infringes upon your rights as a citizen that you have to care this much about what their union is called.
TBR says2015-04-10T15:25:09.0410699-05:00
Then all marriages have to revert to civil unions. As a note, Churches have been preforming same sex marriages for a very long time.
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:25:50.0127208-05:00
You guys are going off topic.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:26:23.1391579-05:00
"They do not, and they are not recognized outside the state either." Well maybe you should be doing something about that rather than try to get same-sex marriage.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:26:27.2106796-05:00
Exactly, if you want same-sex couples to only have civil unions, then everyone should only have that option. Abolish marriage all together.
TBR says2015-04-10T15:27:10.8151932-05:00
I would like RXR to come back.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:27:19.1420809-05:00
Mathgeekjoe, no, I'll stick to same-sex MARRIAGE okay?
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:28:18.0933472-05:00
I guess you're not going to stop so I'll chime in, marriage is between a man and a woman that's the reason why conservatives have a problem with it.
SwizzardWizard says2015-04-10T15:29:14.8294561-05:00
They should at least give the child up for adoption if they can't raise it.
TBR says2015-04-10T15:31:26.7093199-05:00
@SwizzardWizard - This poll is about FORCING a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:33:36.1868299-05:00
"I personally don't see how same sex couples getting married infringes upon your rights" I don't see how it being called a civil union infringes upon their rights?
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:33:39.4903618-05:00
"Abortion being illegal doesn't force a woman to have a child because she can still get an abortion, she'll just be faced the consequences of her actions which is prosecution."
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:34:32.6781260-05:00
"marriage is between a man and a woman" - Says who?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:35:27.5809341-05:00
""marriage is between a man and a woman" - Says who?" Says everyone against gay marriage, duh.
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:35:29.7493897-05:00
Says the laws years before.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:36:08.4111813-05:00
Mathgeekjoe, okay so who made them an authority on marriage?
heil33 says2015-04-10T15:36:15.1515542-05:00
Gay marriage isn't natural
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:36:55.1766031-05:00
Tarik, the "law" from years before also allowed polygamy in the U.S. as well as slavery, segregation among other things. So what is your point?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:37:09.0871375-05:00
Heil, stay away from my arguments you poison.
RXR says2015-04-10T15:38:01.5689263-05:00
''Gay marriage isn't natural'' BrianTheLiberal is going to lynch you for that statement
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:38:05.8120447-05:00
Mathgeekjoe, that goes to show you what kind of people believe what you do when heil supports it. Just saying but that's not important here.
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:38:30.7091659-05:00
My point is the laws years before says "marriage is between a man and a woman".
TBR says2015-04-10T15:38:44.6443903-05:00
I'm lucky (well, right really) Heil agrees with NOTHING I believe in.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:39:17.2210258-05:00
"Mathgeekjoe, that goes to show you what kind of people believe what you do when heil supports it. Just saying but that's not important here." Brian there are crazy radicals everywhere, there is an heil version of a liberal somewhere.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:39:31.9654040-05:00
RXR, I'm not going to bother with his ignorance. Marriage itself isn't "natural" so I don't even see what he point is supposed to be.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:40:45.0726811-05:00
Tarik, and my point was the law also allowed people to marry more than one person, among other questionable things. So...?
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:42:04.6746511-05:00
I don't know why you would bring up irrelevant stuff to make a point.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:43:08.2278289-05:00
Tarik, because that's exactly what you just did.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:43:11.2694312-05:00
Brain there are still a few states where the law says marriage is between a man and the women, difference between present and past.
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:43:57.1796875-05:00
No I didn't you asked the question and I gave the answer.
TBR says2015-04-10T15:44:10.8762241-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - Just wait... Its almost done.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:44:47.5043197-05:00
Okay, that brings me back to my original point, what legitimate reasons are there to prohibit same sex couples from marriage?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:46:15.2682319-05:00
"what legitimate reasons are there to prohibit same sex couples from marriage?" What legitimate reasons says it has to be marriage instead of civil unions?
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:46:40.8829393-05:00
The fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:46:51.6779317-05:00
Tarik, okay but your answer was still flawed. Saying "marriage is between a man and a woman" exclusively because the law said so in the past is irrelevant to the issue NOW in modern times, especially when that's not entirely true.
TBR says2015-04-10T15:47:22.7525341-05:00
Who know VI from the debates? Civil Unions =/= Marriage. Separate but equal =/= legal. Same sex unions =/= equal =/= legal.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:47:56.3230885-05:00
Mathgeekjoe, stop deflecting and answer the question. What legit reasons are there to prohibit same sex couples from marriage?
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:48:56.3039350-05:00
Why isn't that entirely true because liberals don't want it to be?
TBR says2015-04-10T15:50:12.4928698-05:00
@Tarik - What? Start making sense.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:50:54.4716625-05:00
My answer, some people believe marriage is between a man and a women. Your turn to answer. What legitimate reasons says it has to be marriage instead of civil unions?
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:51:36.5129923-05:00
No, it's not entirely true because history has reflected exactly that. Me being a liberal has nothing to do with it. It's you conservatives who blatantly lie and distort historical facts to peddle your flawed ideologies.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:52:48.6718430-05:00
"No, it's not entirely true because history has reflected exactly that. Me being a liberal has nothing to do with it. It's you conservatives who blatantly lie and distort historical facts to peddle your flawed ideologies." Who are you talking to?
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:52:58.1734867-05:00
@TBR-What? Start understanding.
TBR says2015-04-10T15:53:20.0472477-05:00
@Mathgeekjoe - How about the fact that the majority now say otherwise?
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:53:25.8823507-05:00
"some people believe marriage is between a man and a women." - Now tell me why this should have any authority over what other people can and cannot do? Just because some people are against it, that is somehow a legit reason to ban it? That makes no sense.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T15:54:30.5431072-05:00
Mathgeekjoe, that last comment was for Tarik, not you.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:55:50.0703778-05:00
You made sense of "Why isn't that entirely true because liberals don't want it to be?"?
Tarik says2015-04-10T15:56:29.4596203-05:00
They don't believe they know.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T15:57:23.3926891-05:00
Brian ", stop deflecting and answer the question." What legitimate reasons says it has to be marriage instead of civil unions?
TBR says2015-04-10T15:58:16.7364573-05:00
@Tarik - I'm sure you think you are making a point, but it is lost. Saying this nicely. Communicate the concept better. I may not like it, but its better than reading disjointed, unconnected posts.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T16:00:57.0724738-05:00
Mathgeekjoe, "What legitimate reasons says it has to be marriage instead of civil unions?" - Did we not already address this? It's a clear issue of "separate but equal" and that is unconstitutional. There is no need for civil unions, especially because they ARE NOT marriages. So again, answer my question above. Why should the fact some people are against same sex marriage have any authority over what same sex couples can and cannot do when it comes to their relationship?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T16:03:59.2145710-05:00
If separate but equal is unconstitutional, then I am guessing it is unconstitutional to have two genders?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T16:06:07.3685395-05:00
"Why should the fact some people are against same sex marriage have any authority over what same sex couples can and cannot do when it comes to their relationship?" We don't prevent them from doing a lot of things in their relationship, we don't care if they get a civil union, what is wrong with saying it isn't marriage.
Tarik says2015-04-10T16:06:18.7890324-05:00
"No, it's not entirely true because history has reflected exactly that." And that's because liberals can't handle the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T16:07:48.1727249-05:00
Mathgeekjoe, what in the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what separate but equal is and what it refers to? Because that statement was just ignorant and made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
TBR says2015-04-10T16:09:22.2375589-05:00
"And that's because liberals can't handle the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman." - Apparently it isn't. Additionally, its not just "liberals" who disagree with your definition.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T16:10:41.5267711-05:00
"And that's because liberals can't handle the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman." - You conservatives just love your logical fallacies.
Tarik says2015-04-10T16:10:54.4137016-05:00
History agrees with my definition.
TBR says2015-04-10T16:12:25.0972423-05:00
@Tarik - "History agrees with my definition." - And what of it? That does not change the issue one bit. Historic inequity does not make that inequity right.
Tarik says2015-04-10T16:13:11.9119420-05:00
As a matter of fact it's not my definition it's histories definition I just accept it, it's you liberals who make a problem with it because you just love to go against the grain.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T16:13:20.3513797-05:00
Separate but not equal, it deals with racial segregation laws that separated blacks from whites. The differences between is civil unions and marriage is a word, not a barrier.
TBR says2015-04-10T16:16:34.7080294-05:00
"it's you liberals who make a problem with it because you just love to go against the grain." Baseless. Enough. There are better voices for your side of the argument.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T16:17:19.0423894-05:00
"History agrees with my definition." - Where is the evidence of this? Because same-sex marriage and polygamy was practiced in many different civilizations throughout history and are still practiced today. You're lying, distorting facts and using circular logic at this point.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T16:18:54.1849597-05:00
"it deals with racial segregation laws that separated blacks from whites." Separate but equal is not exclusive to that issue. It deals with anything regarding laws passed in favor of one group over another.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T16:19:13.3019051-05:00
Quote-Mathgeekjoe, what in the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what separate but equal is and what it refers to? Because that statement was just ignorant and made absolutely no sense whatsoever.-end quote. Is it unconstitutional to have male and female restrooms that are the separate but equal?
Tarik says2015-04-10T16:19:50.0760483-05:00
Are you seriously going to argue that same sex marriage was practiced since the beginning of marriage?
Mister_Man says2015-04-10T16:21:57.9811288-05:00
Everything I try to say is being submitted for moderation so I guess I'm not allowed to have an input. I guess the first amendment doesn't apply to this site.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T16:23:50.8756540-05:00
There are a lot of things submitted for moderation. I think "believe heil" is moderated but if you are reading this I guess not.
TBR says2015-04-10T16:24:23.2450315-05:00
Do we really have to go back to civics class? How many times does the 1st A have to be explained?
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T16:25:37.2656080-05:00
"Is it unconstitutional to have male and female restrooms that are the separate but equal?" - Again, you are showing how ignorant you are on this issue by making off base statements like this.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T16:28:39.9536947-05:00
"Separate but equal is not exclusive to that issue." So why is it not included in whether female and male restrooms are unconstitutional. They are separate but equal. How is this argument ignorant?
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T16:31:56.1199222-05:00
"Are you seriously going to argue that same sex marriage was practiced since the beginning of marriage?" - Outside of religious institutions, yes, same-sex marriage was practiced in many different civilizations, and was not exclusive to any particular group of people. Many indigenous American tribes revered same-sex unions. Same-sex marriage was practiced and allowed in ancient Greece and Mesopotamia, some regions of China like the Fujian province, ancient Rome, Egypt, and even in some parts of Europe during the Middle Ages. Not all of their views on same-sex marriage remained constant throughout history, but they did occur.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T16:33:54.9896362-05:00
"Matchgeekjoe, because civil unions are NOT marriages. Separate but equal is not "freedom"" Did you call me matchgeekjoe?
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T16:34:48.8086012-05:00
C isn't that close with T and H.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T16:34:54.2372968-05:00
"They are separate but equal. How is this argument ignorant?" - Because this doesn't apply to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
TBR says2015-04-10T16:39:01.7577367-05:00
As to the strict problem of wording, the issues are (1) legal definition - Mostly resolved at this point (2) Socially defined - Mostly resolved. Look at the method to "change" words per Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm . And its current documented definition.
TBR says2015-04-10T16:40:09.2420389-05:00
That "some" don't recognize the updated definition either legally, or socially seems immaterial.
TBR says2015-04-10T16:41:41.2602816-05:00
I can say I'm sorry that this hurts you... Somehow, but I don't see how that changes the facts on the ground.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T16:43:01.3607360-05:00
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 14 amendment
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T16:44:04.0955224-05:00
How does civil unions vs Same-sex marriage deal with the 14 amendment?
TBR says2015-04-10T16:45:43.9180027-05:00
How does marriage break any constitutional right Mathgeekjoe ?
TBR says2015-04-10T16:46:45.1260764-05:00
Sorry. Jumped in there guys. Go at it!
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T16:52:50.2422040-05:00
You literally just answered your own damn question LOL "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - Heterosexual individuals shall have no privileges over non-heterosexuals. The state cannot legally take away or prohibit same-sex couples of their right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness afforded to them by the laws of our country. They are consenting adults and there is no legit reason to strip them of their right to have their relationship fully recognized by law under marriage and granted the benefits that come with it.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T16:56:16.7666323-05:00
Lets insert the word civil union instead of marriage. They are consenting adults and there is no legit reason to strip them of their right to have their relationship fully recognized by law civil union and granted the benefits that come with it. Again how is calling it civil union unconstitutional?
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T17:12:06.3459084-05:00
"Lets insert the word civil union instead of marriage." - Except you made the fatal mistake of assuming civil unions are in any way parallel to an actual marriage. That's the problem with people like you. We explain the difference, and why one thing does correspond with the other and you sit there, cover your ears are scream "lalalala they shouldn't get married!" like wtf. What part of CIVIL UNIONS ARE NOT MARRIAGES did you not understand before? And if your entire argument is solely based on the immature idea that the name should be different, then all I have to say is grow up. Read the Fourteenth Amendment and stop allowing yourself to be willfully ignorant of the actual issue, distorting facts and using circular logic to make a point that doesn't exist.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T17:17:43.2894910-05:00
Civil Unions and marriages are legally equal. "If your entire argument is solely based on the immature idea that the name should be the same, then all I have to say is grow up." I also read the 14 amendment and even posted it, if you think I haven't read it then you clearly haven't read my post.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T17:28:11.5344637-05:00
"Civil Unions and marriages are legally equal." - Wrong. A civil union is a state-sanctioned form of partnership SIMILAR, not equal, to marriage. It is in no way, shape or form comparable to an actual marriage. Why do you think same-sex civil unions have been superseded by the legalization of same-sex marriage, because marriage overrides civil partnerships. They are not the same, no matter how many times you decide to lie to yourself and others in hope of convincing us that they are. And I did read your post, that's why I responded to it. You clearly have little to no understand of the laws that govern this country. That is why you make ignorant statements like "Is it unconstitutional to have male and female restrooms that are the separate but equal?" - Like what the hell does this have to do with the 14th Amendment and treating all citizens equally under the law? Marriage is a legally recognized union, the only one with full rights and benefits. You are making faulty comparisons that absolutely nothing to do with the actual issue.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T17:36:17.0144728-05:00
"treating all citizens equally under the law" All citizens, male or female should be treated equal under the law, separate bathrooms are not equal.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T17:37:11.2546297-05:00
"Civil Unions and marriages are legally equal." - Wrong Can you point out all the legal differences.
Mister_Man says2015-04-10T17:48:41.7285511-05:00
Mathgee, bringing semantics into this doesn't help anyone. The reason bathrooms are separate is because people are usually uncomfortable being naked or doing private things around the opposite sex. I'm pretty sure there aren't a group of guys in office laughing menacingly at how unequal men and women are treated by separating the bathrooms.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T17:51:05.4943054-05:00
"I'm pretty sure there aren't a group of guys in office laughing menacingly at how unequal men and women are treated by separating the bathrooms." What type of people in a office laugh about unequal anything?
Mister_Man says2015-04-10T17:54:23.4243799-05:00
I can see that went right over your head. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you addressed my point instead of the sarcastic remark I made lol
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T17:56:52.6698109-05:00
@Mister_Man, I am trying to prove that separate but equal doesn't apply to everything, brian is trying to apply it to civil unions, I am saying it isn't.
Mister_Man says2015-04-10T18:02:17.4331410-05:00
You're the one who brought up civil unions by saying " I believe that gays and lesbians don't need marriage if they are provide civil unions." If civil unions and marriage were the same thing, then they wouldn't be called different things.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:05:19.8988209-05:00
Mathgeekjoe, "All citizens, male or female should be treated equal under the law, separate bathrooms are not equal." - Again, this is ignorance at it's finest. There are no inequalities engendered by gendered bathrooms, aside from the obvious transgender controversy. Many things are gender/sex specific for a reason and more times than not they aren't restricted by law. So this comparison is illogical. There is no reason to prohibit same-sex marriage based on any standards. Are all conservatives this oblivious to the world around them?
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:06:13.9600315-05:00
As for the legal differences... http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/marriage-compared-to-civil-unions.html
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T18:06:36.5911965-05:00
I did bring up civil unions because they are the legal equivalent of marriage. And they aren't the same thing, they are the same thing legally.
briantheliberal says2015-04-10T18:07:57.5556158-05:00
If civil unions were the same as marriages, why would people be fighting to legalize same-sex marriage?
komododragon8 says2015-04-10T18:09:13.7874196-05:00
Mathgeekjoe: if you put them in their own seperate catagory than individual states can change the laws to make them unequal however if same sex relationships are defined a marriages than it will be more difficult for the states to make them separate and unequal.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-10T22:10:01.6019943-05:00
Komododragon8, why not make civil unions federal?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-10T22:17:28.6964628-05:00
"If civil unions were the same as marriages, why would people be fighting to legalize same-sex marriage?'' Because they want to ruin what someone else has.
TBR says2015-04-10T23:35:16.2869460-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality - Will you just read what you just said and think about it?
briantheliberal says2015-04-11T01:08:51.1572309-05:00
FreedomBeforeEquality, you sound ridiculous. Not everything is about you and your fear mongering mentality.
briantheliberal says2015-04-11T01:09:54.6110584-05:00
TBR, he doesn't actually think. That is his problem.
Kreakin says2015-04-11T04:12:38.2785953-05:00
@FreedomBeforeEquality "If she ''gets pregnant''? You make it sound like it just happens randomly or something" 51% are unplanned and 31% are mistimed, people are impulsive sometimes. Ask your parents if you where planned perhaps it will surprise you.
Kreakin says2015-04-11T07:20:15.4277075-05:00
I'm pretty shocked that 50% of voters would actually "force" a woman to carry a baby against her will.
briantheliberal says2015-04-11T07:37:02.6067383-05:00
Is it really that surprising? These are the same people who think it's okay to discriminate against people.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-11T08:46:04.9237642-05:00
"@FreedomBeforeEquality - Will you just read what you just said and think about it?'' Someone else has something you physically cannot have because of some condition you've made for yourself. What's your response? Screw it up for the other guy right? Envy.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-11T08:49:01.8435048-05:00
"I'm pretty shocked that 50% of voters would actually "force" a woman to carry a baby against her will." I don't understand why 50% of voters would choose the option to kill a human.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-11T08:57:37.1721641-05:00
I'm not getting the 'force' thing either. If their will was to not get pregnant, they are afforded that option. No one has taken that option away from them (save for cases of rape of course). Everyone else out there has no excuse.
Kreakin says2015-04-11T09:10:21.9786560-05:00
You are just ignoring the 51% unplanned and 31% mistimed stats then?
Mister_Man says2015-04-11T11:11:24.5437886-05:00
I find it funny how the ONLY "reasoning" for the option to force a woman to carry through with a pregnancy and have a child is "because it's a human being" and "it deserves to live." So in a nutshell, nobody has provided a valid reason to force a woman to continue a pregnancy. Great going.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-13T15:19:51.9621610-05:00
"You are just ignoring the 51% unplanned and 31% mistimed stats then?" Yes, those are human error but are done in completely conscious and consenting states (ergo non-rape). Do you want to try and make a case that being drunk and conceiving a child puts you any less responsible? How about just plain love drunk? Cant these people control themselves? Their choice in the matter happened at consent to sex. Same as one consents to their actions after they take a drug. You need to be held responsible for what you do. Even if we say that level of responsibility is not quite murder (though perhaps it still should be) we should still be holding these people responsible for more than the fee for the procedure (which is often times covered by others via insurance or taxpayers w/o proper adjustments being made to those peoples premiums). "it deserves to live." Its not that it deserves to live. Its that you dont deserve to make the decision of life and death of another human on your own, ever. A decision like that needs to be made by a more complete body of members who have no emotional attachment in the matter ... Because a person who feels their job or their life is in danger by the life growing inside them is not likely to make a proper decision concerning another persons life. Theyre going to look out for number 1. That exact motive is what makes this more akin to murder. The motive. You couldn't even call it manslaughter (something lesser). There is a conscious decision to put yourself first here when people do this. Especially in a country as privileged as ours. You could make the case in a 3rd world country that the childs life might be better ... But here in the US ... Every child is afforded bare minimums that are substantially better than those places. They will be afforded, at the very least, the foundation for a happy and productive life.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-13T15:21:05.7093221-05:00
"You are just ignoring the 51% unplanned and 31% mistimed stats then?" Yes, those are human error but are done in completely conscious and consenting states (non-rape). Do you want to try and make a case that being drunk and conceiving a child puts you any less responsible? How about just plain love drunk? Cant these people control themselves? Their choice in the matter happened at consent to sex. Same as one consents to their actions after they take a drug. You need to be held responsible for what you do. Even if we say that level of responsibility is not quite murder (though perhaps it still should be) we should still be holding these people responsible for more than the fee for the procedure (which is often times covered by others via insurance or taxpayers w/o proper adjustments being made to those peoples premiums). "it deserves to live." Its not that it deserves to live. Its that you dont deserve to make the decision of life and death of another human on your own, ever. A decision like that needs to be made by a more complete body of members who have no emotional attachment in the matter ... Because a person who feels their job or their life is in danger by the life growing inside them is not likely to make a proper decision concerning another persons life. They're going to look out for number 1. That exact motive is what makes this more akin to murder. The motive. You couldn't even call it manslaughter (something lesser). There is a conscious decision to put yourself first here when people do this. Especially in a country as privileged as ours. You could make the case in a 3rd world country that the child's life might be better ... But here in the US ... Every child is afforded bare minimums that are substantially better than those places. They will be afforded, at the very least, the foundation for a happy and productive life.
Kreakin says2015-04-13T15:34:42.2247977-05:00
None of your reasons are good enough to force a woman to see a pregnancy through nine months against her will. I think you have lost sight of just how inhuman that would be. Can you imagine being forced to do that? And what of the human rights it breaches, just ignor thoese aswell...
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-14T08:55:57.3232141-05:00
Its inhumane now to put someone through 9 months of pregnancy vs. Killing someone? We put people through 25 years or more for killing people. How often do we let them off and say "oh his killing was an honest mistake ... We'll let it slide because jail time is inhumane". I think pregnancy fits the 'crime' as it were, in this situation, perfectly. Preganancy is what happens when you make the choice. Buying a get out of jail free card for the cost of the procedure shouldnt be allowed. And for you to be able to do it repeatedly with no recourse is just astounding to me. 2nd or 3rd time around should involve getting your tubes tied, or some other preventative measure to ensure it doesnt happen again. What form of rehabilitation are you offering these people who commit this? Your not even holding them accountable in the least.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-14T09:06:31.4042200-05:00
" force a woman to see a pregnancy through nine months against her will." Her will was already done. The deed already committed. The second another life is involved ... Shes lost her once complete control of the situation. Under no circumstance should her will involve killing another. Think of the instances we deem killing necessary in this country. Enemies of the state? Domestic enemies? Dangers to society? What motive could the mother have that we could possibly rally behind to warrant this? All of her reasons lean toward her own well being and never consider the other life, AND quite often don't consider the fathers will either. Theres all sorts of people being trampled on by her decision. Its not a case where its "her body, her decision" once pregnancy has come about through consensual sex.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-14T09:17:09.1514414-05:00
Its part of the consent to sex. Its a pact you enter with the partner. Its the direct result of your actions and your choices. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you're doing women a disservice and discrediting them by saying such a consent, such a pact, is so commonly entered into mistakenly that we would even need to reserve a means to reverse the decision for that person. It really only shows the limit of what we can trust them with. I don't feel bad at all that they are berated for not holding to a decision they made, for showing zero integrity. Someone needs to hold them accountable even if the government won't.
Kreakin says2015-04-15T10:31:56.1105816-05:00
What a load of distorted bias. No civilised thinker would agree with you,ever.
komododragon8 says2015-04-15T10:41:20.7852707-05:00
Freedom: People can invite many things but that doesnt stop us for helping them. One could "invite" injury upon themselves by engaging in risky behavior but we dong leave their wound to fester. One could "invite" diabetes by eating large amounts of sugar but we dont leave them without treatment. Many people "invite" HIV into them by having unprotected sex yet we still invest millions in finding ways to fight it. If you want to lower abortion rates than invest in sex ed as that has been showen to reduce teen pregnancies and STDs.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-15T11:19:25.3785382-05:00
We make people pay for injusries. We make accident prone people pay more for insurance. Thats how the system works. At no time do we fully absolve people of their responsibility to something completely 100% preventable in nature. It's fully in their power to fix this issue from where they stand. That is why they must be held responsible. In no way is this comparable to a sickness.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-15T11:19:44.2343531-05:00
Injuries*
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-15T11:20:50.8152613-05:00
@Kreakin Then i seriously doubt you even know what civilized is.
komododragon8 says2015-04-15T11:33:46.4273546-05:00
We make women who have irresponsible sex pay in a similer way, Just as accident prone people have to pay more money, most women who get abortions have to pay a large sum of money for the procedure. Most women pay around 450$ for surgical abortions and it can be even more in states with few abortion clinics once you factor in transportation costs.
Kreakin says2015-04-15T12:00:19.9386262-05:00
Just glad you loons are the minority and never likely to be listened too by right minded people (the majority).
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-15T12:20:55.3939750-05:00
Its lookin like a split decision right now (above). What a loon I must be.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-15T12:24:28.7822713-05:00
@komododragon And thats all well and good so long as we don't subsidize someone elses responsibility with the money from the unwilling and innocent taxpayer. They ought to be completely separate from the matter up until the point someone is being killed, then you can bring them in to have their say in lieu of the victim (the baby).
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-15T12:28:54.8538386-05:00
"Just glad you loons are the minority and never likely to be listened too by right minded people (the majority)" You like to stomp on minorities do ya? Good to know ...
Kreakin says2015-04-15T14:58:29.6304856-05:00
The right wing control freak feels stomped on...Lol
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-15T15:33:22.5625722-05:00
Control freak? People who want to see killers brought to justice are control freaks now? I suppose i've overstepped my bounds on wanting that one ...
Kreakin says2015-04-15T15:36:49.7412859-05:00
You want people that kill a few cells charged. What about people that waste semen is that an offence too?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-15T15:56:49.7748475-05:00
Those are entirely theirs. The baby belongs to two people at the very least. Then if you factor that it is incurring monetary costs on the part of not only the parents but also the rest of the people in this country, that is the point where its no longer in just your hands anymore. Youve lost that right when you decided to bring other people into the fold.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-15T15:58:17.9443519-05:00
You cannot expect to retain full control of anything if youre taking money from others to support it. We arent paying donations to you here. Its tax and subsidy. Not donation.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-04-29T20:06:46.5006655-05:00
"You want people that kill a few cells charged. What about people that waste semen is that an offence too?" An embryo or fetus are considered to be an human organism. Sperm and eggs cells aren't considered to be a human organism.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-04-30T09:26:45.7193303-05:00
Exactly. And there are other parties involved at that point. If wasting your semen down the drain required a doctors visit and taxpayer dollars ... You can believe we'd be prosecuting you for jacking it too much.
Kreakin says2015-05-12T12:04:23.0616819-05:00
"Sperm and eggs cells aren't considered to be a human organism" Why not? They have the same potential to create a life.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-12T12:08:35.7819636-05:00
Separately they do not though. Thats why I'd draw the line at conception.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-12T12:13:52.8210135-05:00
Thats like comparing potential energy (gametes) with kinetic energy (zygote). Zygotes begin with a will to live and divide coupled with the physical capability to do so.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-12T13:34:20.3633345-05:00
A sperm and egg can not multiply and grow. They don't even meet the 7 characteristics of life. They are merely half of what is needed to become a human organism. Also the definition of organism doesn't deal with potential kreakin.
Kreakin says2015-05-12T16:16:53.2586324-05:00
I thought the whole anti choice point was based on the potential of a child over abortion.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-13T13:03:14.5453145-05:00
Sure. But there is no potential if youre in it alone. Once you and another person come together on the matter then that potential is formed. We can't very well punish people who do not ever have such an interaction, as they alone cannot make the decision to make those cells come to their full form. Everything after that interaction, however, is concrete. They become 3 entities at that point. 4 if you want to count what interaction and responsibility government owes each of those 3 people.
Kreakin says2015-07-19T14:27:31.8259531-05:00
So a condom is akin to abortion in that potential scenario , should we ban them?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T11:56:04.2505972Z
No its not ... Because pre-conception those cells have no potential for growing into a human on their own. Post-conception, things have changed and there are a great many more factors present after that moment.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-04T11:57:58.1313272Z
So no ... Not condoms ... Not something you can do entirely to yourself and affect only single celled organisms with no inherent growth potential on their own. That would be a different scenario.
blackwhite says2015-08-06T13:00:30.2388995Z
The people who choose yes disgust me. "don't spread your legs"? That is such a terrible and humiliating thing to say to a women. My ex was the only person I was close to who was against abortion and he turned out to be a psychopath. If i would have somehow gotten pregnant from him he would have abused our children like he abuses everyone.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-08-19T13:32:45.5814580Z
If you had somehow gotten pregnant by him? It doesnt just happen. You recognized he was a psychopath, step 1. Step 2 is dont have sex with him. Abortion should play no part there.
Kreakin says2015-09-04T20:23:35.7496628Z
^ Great example of black and white thinking there. Nothing is that simple in reality. Mature people know that.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-08T13:09:07.7661878Z
It may not be that simple ... But its certainly blackwhite's fault for in not being simple. They made the choices ... Not me. It was their logic that over complicated the issue ... Not me. They should be the ones to have to deal with the consequences. I should not be having to "mature" to a level where I have to take their faulty decision making into account as being commonplace. It isnt something im ever going to have to deal with. Thats something for those types of people over there.
Bob13 says2015-10-24T11:48:52.4259331Z
@kreakin This whole time you have not presented a single argument. All you have done is insult other people. If you aren't going to say anything intelligent, don't say anything.
Kreakin says2015-10-25T14:16:58.5591106Z
Lol thanks dad
Kreakin says2015-10-25T14:19:37.8184897Z
"The child is alive once the woman is pregnant." Sooo wrong it hurts, be honest you said this because an old book told you what to think.
Kreakin says2015-10-25T14:22:44.9392902Z
Say your sister for example is pregnant but does not want to keep it, how would you force here to have it? Gun to the head? Locked in a cell and restrained for nine months? Pray tell....
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-26T19:03:34.7885013Z
Not gonna force ... But certainly wont assist her in homicide. She can perform that on her own. If she needs and entire establishment in place to be able to make the kill seem more humane and less painful to her ... That should be a red flag that theres something wrong with the act in the first place.
komododragon8 says2015-10-26T19:33:54.4721834Z
Freedom: We have huge establishments dedicated to helping people kill bacteria or fungi afflicting them,
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-26T19:48:58.2888753Z
You mean foreign organisms. Theres nothing foreign about a human fetus ... Save for maybe the males contribution ... Which happens to be there by consent.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-26T19:49:22.5005409Z
You mean foreign organisms. Theres nothing foreign about a human fetus ... Save for maybe the males contribution ... Which happens to be there by consent.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-26T19:52:08.9401416Z
If people were out injecting themselves with harmful bacteria and then turning around a few weeks to a month later and trying to be treated for it on my dime or on our shared insurance providers dime, I certainly wouldnt support that sort of medical fraud either.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-26T19:53:58.7818539Z
And I dont ... I dont support self induced lung problems from your smoking ... I dont support self induced infections based on your illegal drug use ... And I certainly dont support you self induced baby problems either.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-26T19:56:29.3559495Z
... Among a great many other things that should be on that list. Insurance should be for unknowns and emergencies. Its should not be for subsidizing your day to day bad decision making.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-26T19:56:54.0668247Z
... Among a great many other things that should be on that list. Insurance should be for unknowns and emergencies. Its should not be for subsidizing your day to day bad decision making.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-10-26T20:01:10.5669573Z
I think maybe thats the root of the issue here ... That people think having insurance means that they are now free to take aditional risks that they wouldnt have normally taken. That they can now skirt personal responsibilities because their part in their risk is shared and they dont have to own up to what they do. Thats not what its there for. Its not what I pay in for ... To watch others get to do with my money what they would normally not be able to do without it. Theyre living off of me in that regard, while im punished for having restraint and common sense.
komododragon8 says2015-10-27T01:10:11.8249797Z
Freedom: insurance is an argument for another time, right now we are talking about whether or not removing an early fetus is really any worse than wiping out a non-lethal bacterial infection or some athletes foot.
Mharman says2017-01-31T14:07:38.2336578Z
@cheyennec: Yes it is. Abstinence is the only 100% birth control. If you don't want a child, don't have sex.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.