Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree
"According to an ANSIRH presentation of preliminary findings to the American Public Health Association this year, both groups of women had similar economic circumstances prior to seeking abortions. One year later, however, 76 percent of women who had been denied abortion were on public assistance, compared to 44 percent in the group who had undergone abortions. In addition, 67 percent who had not had abortions were under the poverty line, compared to 56 percent in the abortion-receiving group. Only 48 percent of those who had not terminated their pregnancies were working full-time, compared to 58 percent in the cohort who received abortions. The vast majority of women who did not abort kept their babies."
Carlin often seems to make sense, but once you look make, half his arguments are just prejudiced and ungainly. He puts forth more cogent points than most, but laced with expletives, they come out all wonky, demurred and stunted.
of course it has to come off that way, or else it would just be a guy stating a thesis. as a comedian, he has to make it interesting or else nobody would listen. stunted or not, he has a lot of logic inside of his arguments (even though it could be more if he was taking it seriously). besides, its those exact points in the clip that I want shown for the sake of the argument.
I believe that if the woman is okay with it than sure go ahead. But me being a really kind person could not live with that in my head that I just flushed my baby down the toilet. Pun intended
(extremely coarse language) relax everyone, let george carlin's overwhelming logic put you pro-life people in your place.
sombody who was just to stupid to take the pill, or put on a condom
Even with this; there is still a chance a woman can get pregnant. And, there is no way to "rove" that, so, they should still be punished because their pills/condoms didn't work?
Besides; if the child is unwanted, is it really fair on the mother or the child?
In my country abortion is only legal when forcing birth would endanger the life of child or mother, the embryo is horribly damage or the pregnancy is the result of ****. And I'd say that's ok. We're not taking away a would-be childs chance for life because of its parents carelessness or just nature/deities forcing its course. On the other hand can we kill something that's already dead or just as good as? The latter case could be disputed, but I don't favor forcing in cruel parodies of life.
On the other hand can we kill something that's already dead or just as good as? The latter case could be disputed, but I don't favor forcing in cruel parodies of life.
A mother died recently because she was refused abortion under the pretext that her child had still a heartbeat. But the child was gonna die, the doctors knew it wouldn't survive. So yes, they should have aborted it, it would have saved a life.
In my country abortion is only legal when forcing birth would endanger the life of child or mother, the embryo is horribly damage or the pregnancy is the result of ****. And I'd say that's ok. We're not taking away a would-be childs chance for life because of its parents carelessness or just nature/deities forcing its course. On the other hand can we kill something that's already dead or just as good as? The latter case could be disputed, but I don't favor forcing in cruel parodies of life.
then you will get people why destroy their own body to get a abortion anyway. using drugs for example in the hope it kills the kid. but instead gets born whit allot of disfunctions. so in they end destroying 2 lifes instead of non.
There are some cases in which I believe it is impossible to argue that abortion should not be availible. VERY FEW CASES. For example, a relative of mine who is a nurse and works with mothers, and newborns told me of something that happened in her hospital. There was a couple, and both of them were albinos. We all know albinos are very pale and have red eyes, but there is also a multitude of health problems like vision problems and high susceptibility to skin cancer. And if two albino people have a baby, the child would have almost zero chance of survival. They would be even worse off than their parents, and would live a horrible life (if they survived very long.) So before the couple... you know... they consulted with a doctor at the hospital to ask about potential risks to the child. When they learned this, they would have used protection if not for the fact that their doctor informed them that two albino people usually cannot have a baby, they just usually aren't fertile, and the chances the couple getting pregnant were extremely low. Of course they were that unlucky one in a million. She got pregnant. They didn't make the decision lightly, and it caused them A LOT of grief, but they decided to abort the fetus. That is one of the only very extreme cases in which I believe abortion should be legal.
No, but seeing as how right and wrong are subjective and the Supreme court is an arbiter of sorts, I'd say it has some sway.
I can't tell from just what you're saying here, so I'll just cover both things.
1) The fact of whether something is a law or not is not a reason for it to be okay/not okay. Laws are constantly changed due to circumstances and new areas. Not all that long ago, slavery was legal. Did that make it right? No. In the end, whether something is legal or not has no bearing on if we should consider that action "right" or "wrong" or simply just an action.
2) The reason we put stock in what the Supreme Court rules is because the judges on it are supposed to be the most knowledgeable about the law and are tasked at making these decisions. What needs to be examined always is the reasoning behind their ruling, not the fact that they made a ruling. So yes, while we trust the Supreme Court to make good decisions, that doesn't mean that they do always.
