Should it be legal in other countries apart from the Netherlands? What are your thoughts on this subject?
I think it should be the woman's choice. It's not the governments or anybody else's business. But, emphasis should be focused on preventing unwanted pregnancies so there will be less need for abortions.
An unwanted pregnancy is no reason for murdering a baby. It sickens me to see today's "enlightened" generation raising such a ruckus over an old lion being killed while supporting or ignoring the murder of millions of babies and the selling of their body parts. The whole thing stinks of Nazi crematoriums and their selling hair for mattresses and fat for soap making and ash for fertilizer. Have Americans been reduced to that level of depravity?
People should pay for the choices they make, and public policies should be consistent. Those who are not involved in this choice should not be forced to pay the bills, either through taxes or insurance regulations. If a woman has the right to choose whether or not to kill her baby, this ignores the baby's right to life, which should take precedence over a woman's right to choose. How can we say, at the same time, that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body, and that vaccinations should be mandatory, or that government should regulate what people ingest or otherwise put into their bodies?
Coming from a Catholic country, my stand on this issue is obvious - a big no. But although I am against abortion, I am also against population explosion. To me, population control is a very important factor in controlling the population. I believe that the population cannot keep on growing because the resources, particularly land is limited. So what happens when we run out of land, we run out of water, we run out of air?
It's a controversial subject in the US. I go with the woman's choice even though it may be in some view murdering a baby. A driver stopped for a traffic violation shouldn't be murdered but it happens too often in some places or mother's sweet seventeen year olds sent to fight and be killed because one president doesn't like the president of another country or his policies, and that I suppose is a country's right. Life is imperfect and abortion falls in that category, I suppose. Yes it's controversial. But should be left to a woman and her doctor or her own judgment. The government should protect our shores and that sort of thing. It's hard for me to take a government seriously when they're so involved in micromanaging a woman's life.
Soon, there will be laws requiring mandatory vaccinations. In most states, it is against the law to drive a motorcycle without a helmet. In probably every state, it is against the law to drive a car without a seat belt. There are laws regulating the use of certain drugs. There are laws regulating the use of alcohol and tobacco. There are laws prohibiting the use of certain plants. In the United States, we are not allowed to even know whether we are eating genetically modified foods. In most public schools, government mandates what foods children can eat, whether provided by the school or by parents. Ultimately, government has more control over children in this country than parents. I could go on, but these include actions that harm no one other than the person who is not allowed to make choices, so I am not overly impressed with the rights of a woman to dispatch her unborn child, who then become a victim of his or her mother's choice. I am also disgusted with the fact that women who want to keep government out of these choices nevertheless insist on the taxpayers footing the bill for the choices that they make, either directly or through mandatory insurance clauses.
Well, then it sounds to me like our government is too intrusive in our lives. But like I said there is controversy associated with this. Old men in congress who expect to spend a lifetime on the public dole, supposedly representing their people back home, make up these rules, some of them with not enough sense to really know what they are legislating, decide these things. But that's the way we do things. I don't agree the government ought to pay for it. If you think abortion should be avoided, Ken, then i disagree with you. There nothing complicated about that. But we will all go with what the law dictates we do.
Well, of course the big story in the U.S. is about how Planned Parenthood has been selling baby body parts for money. If you watch the various undercover videos, they are really heartbreaking. As far as "choice" and who "has control" over a woman's body... Well, unless somebody is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to have sex (rape) then women and men DO have their own choice as to whether or not they are going to have sex with someone and they DO have control over their body and who they are going to involve their body with. Human beings have to understand if you're going to participate in the act that may very well produce a baby, then if you don't want one, then don't participate in the act. The vast majority of aborted babies are from laziness and simply because a woman doesn't have to bother to take birth control because she can just abort on demand. It's got to stop. We need to value and respect life. That does mean sometimes in rare cases, that in order to save the life of the mother, the baby has to go. But again, I think these cases are very rare. I am still on the fence about rape and incest. It would seem that most cases of incest would involve very young girls and that would probably go back to save the incest victim because she is too young to safely have children. As far as rape, certainly it would seem that nobody would want to wait months for the baby to really form and develop so late abortions would not be needed. Then again, I think there would be rare cases where a woman is kidnapped, tortured and brutalized for months and becomes pregnant. Are we also going to force her to have the baby of her torturer? Which is the lesser evil? I don't know. But we have killed almost 60 million babies since roe v. wade and the vast majority of them could have been prevented.
Looking at the big picture Sarah, does this country really need 60 million more people who come into this world unwanted by their own mothers who are unable to give them proper care. Most will be raised on welfare by mothers who might not have been on welfare if not for having a baby to care for. The vast majority of those on welfare today are young women with children. The crime rate from this group is very high. As I said, preventing unwanted pregnancies should be the goal but until that goal is achieved abortion needs to be an option. As for who is to decide who can have an abortion. Every situation is different, including the women's age, health (mental & physical), financial means to raise a child, etc. Who knows these facts better than the woman herself.
So, lower the crime rate by killing babies. Thin the welfare ranks by killing babies. Eliminate poverty, kill babies. Hey, if it works that way, why not end warfare by simply killing lawyers and politicians? Kill rich people and distribute their wealth. Religions a problem? kill everyone but atheists. Killing the innocent is not an answer.
Allow me to apologize for my two comments. I am out of the loop, politically and socially. When I get serious and honest with myself I know I reave no opinion any longer. My kids are grown and it is up to them and you who vote to determine and find answers to questions such as this. I have no answers and not much opinion any more. I should recognize that more often. Cheers.
I helped make a decision many years ago, to have a pregnancy aborted, my son and his girlfriend were so young. I thought I was doing the right thing. I WAS WRONG. Now I am 72 years old and no grandchildren. I am not proud of what I did and I am paying the price. I will have an empty stop in my heart FOREVER. I should have encouraged the pregnancy and raised the child myself.........my eyes glance down in shame every time I read something about abortion. God forgive me !