[x]Register Now
Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local
-
Why is abortion legal in the sense that a woman should have a right to choose what she does with her body yet drugs are illegal?
Edited By: time4badbeat Jan 20th, 2012 at 02:39 AM
Also, shouldn't we treat abortion in the same way as our legal system treats someone accused of a crime.
Our legal system is set up so that we are more likely to let a criminal free than convict an innocent.
Shouldn't abortion be the same in that we don't know when life begins, so shouldn't we error on the side of caution and outlaw abortion so that we don't allow the killing of babies? -
This is going to go well
-
awwww shit
-
We know life begins at 40, so we should be allowed to kill anyone younger than that.
Edited By: SpankyHamm Jan 20th, 2012 at 02:49 AM
EDIT: If you want to reduce the number of abortions (because you aren't getting rid of it), make it so that the father must also agree to the abortion. This would require time (to do the DNA testing) as well as being cost prohibitive (because the woman would have to pay for that testing). -
make the father take care (meaning raise, like live with kid full time, like women do today) of all unwanted pregnancies by law
Edited By: jesterwords Jan 20th, 2012 at 02:52 AM
unwanted pregnancy rate would go way down -
I had a buddy back in the day that had to go to court to relinquish all rights to his unborn baby. The baby came out black, my friend is white.
Originally Posted by SpankyHamm
We know life begins at 40, so we should be allowed to kill anyone younger than that.
EDIT: If you want to reduce the number of abortions (because you aren't getting rid of it), make it so that the father must also agree to the abortion. This would require time (to do the DNA testing) as well as being cost prohibitive (because the woman would have to pay for that testing).
wow...good point. I think it's how far along the woman is in her pregancy though. -
I'm not to be taken seriously there.
-
This is a level attempt.
-
well my stance on the issue is i'm not trying to make the decision for everybody, therefore, i'm pro-choice.
however, i'm against abortion and think it's an abomination of society. people get liquored up and fuck recklessly, then decide it's inconvenient, and just hit "re-set" on the situation.
what kind of person see's such a polarizing issue and thinks they are qualified to unilaterally decide the question for everybody? -
let's not dredge up the dukakis campaign again. I only read thread title.
-
OP, what if the pregnancy is a result of a rape? Or the condom broke or whatever other method of birth control they were using fails?
What if they have ended the relationship the pregnancy was conceived in?
Just because you are physically able to reproduce, doesn't mean you should.So many points for and against depending on your religion, background, family and even income. -
lol, this thread is pretty sweet.
-
I'm here for the gangbang
-
If you are pro life you should be anti death penalty imo
-
Or you are simply anti the helpless being killed. If an evil person locked up forever, suffering and helpless...why kill them?
Originally Posted by time4badbeat
Not really, you are pro innocent baby not being killed and pro evil being killed
This position allows you to kill threats (like in war or personal protection) but not people who are not a threat. Killing anyone is wrong if they are helpless. Vengence is an ugly thing. -
Then you aren't really "pro-life". You are just anti-abortion. Ron Paul is an example of what it truly means to be pro life.














