|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 6:50 pm
BE The problem is, the amount of women who get abortions in that age range from THAT is SO miniscule. Most abortions are from older women who are married and with children -- and generally the numbers are boosted because they have repeat abortions. My mum had two abortions prior to me, due to medical reasons. However, those numbers are tallied up and they go "TWO MORE! HOLY CRAP!" -- even if it's the same woman. 12% of abortions are the 15-25 I believe.. how many do you think of those are honestly from unprotected sex? From what I've read, it tends to be a break in a condom moreso than the "pulling out" method. I actually thought of a random idea a long time ago, that would force women to forgo abortions or become sterilized after a certain amount of abortions in a certain amount of time. How you could successfully implement that without impeding heavily on a woman's rights however, is beyond me. :/ So I agree that women who get pregnant from screwing around are irresponsible, I view it this way: Giving birth should NEVER be a punishment. Forcing a woman to have a child is like holding her prisoner for 9 months - no matter how irresponsible she is. In an instance of a one time mistake, I say "Alright, it's fine". If it's REPEATED, which is highly unlikely, then that's where someone has to point out she's crossed the line. I agree completly it is a womans right and If your gonna get one that is fine but There really does need to be somthingthat will drill it into those particular cases that casual sex without birth control is not cool. Maybe after a certain amount of abortions like maybe 2 in 2 years they have to go see a sex therapist or maybe court order depoprovera. I dont know so many issues around it. oh here is a good one, Maybe after they hit there limit they have to serve a week as a foster mother to an infant, that would make them realize that they really need to have safe sex.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:11 am
I like the idea of a court ordered injection to prevent pregnancy. That actually seems plausible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:09 am
BE I like the idea of a court ordered injection to prevent pregnancy. That actually seems plausible. Wouldn't that be walking all over a woman's rights though? Or do you just mean in certain cases? 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 7:44 am
Nikolita BE I like the idea of a court ordered injection to prevent pregnancy. That actually seems plausible. Wouldn't that be walking all over a woman's rights though? Or do you just mean in certain cases? 3nodding Hail eugenics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 10:56 am
Nikolita BE I like the idea of a court ordered injection to prevent pregnancy. That actually seems plausible. Wouldn't that be walking all over a woman's rights though? Or do you just mean in certain cases? 3nodding certain cases we were talking about things that could be court ordered after a certain number of abortions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:00 pm
wotfan1983 Nikolita BE I like the idea of a court ordered injection to prevent pregnancy. That actually seems plausible. Wouldn't that be walking all over a woman's rights though? Or do you just mean in certain cases? 3nodding certain cases we were talking about things that could be court ordered after a certain number of abortions I'd assume there'd be blatant abuse of abortion. Although on a completely different note, it only hurts the woman for her to get an abortion. However, if she's getting abortions that are being paid by the state, the state should be able to step in and say "Alright, you get 3 abortions in this amount of time. If none of them are for medical reasons, then you have to get this lovely injection that makes you not have babies for the next few years." It would make sense, and it would probably cause the woman to be more responsible with how she deals with these things. Not because she's BEEN injected, but because of the POSSIBILITY. But I'd only really enforce it if taxpayers were paying for the woman's abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:05 pm
BE wotfan1983 Nikolita BE I like the idea of a court ordered injection to prevent pregnancy. That actually seems plausible. Wouldn't that be walking all over a woman's rights though? Or do you just mean in certain cases? 3nodding certain cases we were talking about things that could be court ordered after a certain number of abortions I'd assume there'd be blatant abuse of abortion. Although on a completely different note, it only hurts the woman for her to get an abortion. However, if she's getting abortions that are being paid by the state, the state should be able to step in and say "Alright, you get 3 abortions in this amount of time. If none of them are for medical reasons, then you have to get this lovely injection that makes you not have babies for the next few years." It would make sense, and it would probably cause the woman to be more responsible with how she deals with these things. Not because she's BEEN injected, but because of the POSSIBILITY. But I'd only really enforce it if taxpayers were paying for the woman's abortion. That seems about fair. You get 3 irresponsible abortions and then you get the injection. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:30 pm
Nikolita BE wotfan1983 Nikolita BE I like the idea of a court ordered injection to prevent pregnancy. That actually seems plausible. Wouldn't that be walking all over a woman's rights though? Or do you just mean in certain cases? 3nodding certain cases we were talking about things that could be court ordered after a certain number of abortions I'd assume there'd be blatant abuse of abortion. Although on a completely different note, it only hurts the woman for her to get an abortion. However, if she's getting abortions that are being paid by the state, the state should be able to step in and say "Alright, you get 3 abortions in this amount of time. If none of them are for medical reasons, then you have to get this lovely injection that makes you not have babies for the next few years." It would make sense, and it would probably cause the woman to be more responsible with how she deals with these things. Not because she's BEEN injected, but because of the POSSIBILITY. But I'd only really enforce it if taxpayers were paying for the woman's abortion. That seems about fair. You get 3 irresponsible abortions and then you get the injection. ninja The criteria would be widely disputed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:36 pm
Bondage Zombie Nikolita BE wotfan1983 Nikolita BE I like the idea of a court ordered injection to prevent pregnancy. That actually seems plausible. Wouldn't that be walking all over a woman's rights though? Or do you just mean in certain cases? 3nodding certain cases we were talking about things that could be court ordered after a certain number of abortions I'd assume there'd be blatant abuse of abortion. Although on a completely different note, it only hurts the woman for her to get an abortion. However, if she's getting abortions that are being paid by the state, the state should be able to step in and say "Alright, you get 3 abortions in this amount of time. If none of them are for medical reasons, then you have to get this lovely injection that makes you not have babies for the next few years." It would make sense, and it would probably cause the woman to be more responsible with how she deals with these things. Not because she's BEEN injected, but because of the POSSIBILITY. But I'd only really enforce it if taxpayers were paying for the woman's abortion. That seems about fair. You get 3 irresponsible abortions and then you get the injection. ninja The criteria would be widely disputed. I think I'm sitting on the fence for this issue... I can see why some people might like it, myself included, but I can see some cons for it too. *hides* xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 1:49 pm
Nikolita Bondage Zombie Nikolita BE wotfan1983 Nikolita BE I like the idea of a court ordered injection to prevent pregnancy. That actually seems plausible. Wouldn't that be walking all over a woman's rights though? Or do you just mean in certain cases? 3nodding certain cases we were talking about things that could be court ordered after a certain number of abortions I'd assume there'd be blatant abuse of abortion. Although on a completely different note, it only hurts the woman for her to get an abortion. However, if she's getting abortions that are being paid by the state, the state should be able to step in and say "Alright, you get 3 abortions in this amount of time. If none of them are for medical reasons, then you have to get this lovely injection that makes you not have babies for the next few years." It would make sense, and it would probably cause the woman to be more responsible with how she deals with these things. Not because she's BEEN injected, but because of the POSSIBILITY. But I'd only really enforce it if taxpayers were paying for the woman's abortion. That seems about fair. You get 3 irresponsible abortions and then you get the injection. ninja The criteria would be widely disputed. I think I'm sitting on the fence for this issue... I can see why some people might like it, myself included, but I can see some cons for it too. *hides* xp Well, it's definitely an issue of eugenics, a short step away from regulated breeding. Mind you, i'm all for it. Nothing annoys me more than people who play the child lottery, having child after child for the wish that one out of many might be the successful cash-cow (I work with one such person). Or those who simply don't use condoms because they feel bad and neglect to do so much as get on the pill. I advocate eugenics in jest, but there is a grain of truth in every jest, right? If I were tyrant, i'd like to say that I would give this shot to all stupid people, or get something as simple as consent forms signed by parents to administer it to their children while they are still not considered consenting adults. Takes a load off their mind, and ensures that their little pride and joy doesn't come home with an unexpected package brewing in the oven. Not only that, but the military application would be far-reaching, ensuring that Uncle Sam can secure his investment by keeping those unexpected pregnancies from cropping up when lil' miss Prvt. Parts is about to be deployed (it makes her undeployable, for the child's sake).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 3:07 pm
Maoiuwroisdajlkdszfsz:S:ZDCFLKIJMUYHB GAHWEROIAERH
*screams and ends a rant that was really more of a vent*
So bored, so lonely, and so sick. *Sighs and goes up to bed*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 8:49 pm
I worry about our rights being violated later if we dont start making changes now, I mean what about whe we are so over populated that we have to get a license to concieve. We wont have that but our children might, I dont want that for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 1:21 am
I feel the need to rant about families with more then two children. If anyone is offended by this is am truly sorry but it is my opinion that familys with more then two children are leading to the overpopulation of the planet. For the population to be stable two parents must replace themselves with two children. That makes sense right? And when two parents have only one child then they are helping to lower the population by half in their case. When a family has more then two children it really bothers me because they are just encouraging the over population of the planet. For me it's perticularly the people in third world countries. They have more children then they can support and then wonder why their children end up dying. Maybe if you stuck to just one or two you could feed them and get them some medical attention. Also I realize that they don't have access to birth control like we do but can we have a little self control? I mean sex is of course a natural function but you have a choice. If you can't afford to be pregnant then don't do it! I get the closeness and the love and everything else but still. If you can't support the baby then don't have the sex. I know it is hard for them with disease and so little food but it still frustrates me. I really think every woman on the planet should be sterilized after two children. I know that would lead to the problems like they have in China with boys being desierable and things like that but it seems like the best thing for the good of everyone. I'm sure there would still be some adoption around so if you want a larger family adopt a couple of the ones that other people give it. If there were less people on the planet there could be a better quality of life for all of us. Ok I think that about does it for the rant. Thanks for listening guys. I appreciate your opinions if you would like to share them. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 8:15 am
Chalda I feel the need to rant about families with more then two children. If anyone is offended by this is am truly sorry but it is my opinion that familys with more then two children are leading to the overpopulation of the planet. For the population to be stable two parents must replace themselves with two children. That makes sense right? And when two parents have only one child then they are helping to lower the population by half in their case. When a family has more then two children it really bothers me because they are just encouraging the over population of the planet. For me it's perticularly the people in third world countries. They have more children then they can support and then wonder why their children end up dying. Maybe if you stuck to just one or two you could feed them and get them some medical attention. Also I realize that they don't have access to birth control like we do but can we have a little self control? I mean sex is of course a natural function but you have a choice. If you can't afford to be pregnant then don't do it! I get the closeness and the love and everything else but still. If you can't support the baby then don't have the sex. I know it is hard for them with disease and so little food but it still frustrates me. I really think every woman on the planet should be sterilized after two children. I know that would lead to the problems like they have in China with boys being desierable and things like that but it seems like the best thing for the good of everyone. I'm sure there would still be some adoption around so if you want a larger family adopt a couple of the ones that other people give it. If there were less people on the planet there could be a better quality of life for all of us. Ok I think that about does it for the rant. Thanks for listening guys. I appreciate your opinions if you would like to share them. Thanks! I agree you should replace yourself and your spouse I dont think 3 is to far but families with more than that bug me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 11:38 am
Chalda: There was an article on Fark awhile back in which a woman in Arkansas (sp? I think that's where it was), who had 14 kids and was pregnant with her 15th. Oldest kid was about 16 I think, the youngest was an infant, maybe 1 year old. I don't remember which. Anyways the article was saying she was awarded the "Mother of the Year" award in the town. Here I know I have the article somewhere... *goes to check the Fark bookmarks of diff. commentary threads* The article (moved to archives): http://search.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040525/NEWS/40525030The Fark commentary thread for the article: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=969471From the article: Michelle, who home schools her children and is helping to build the family's new home in Tontitown from the ground up, started having her babies when she was 21, four years after she and Jim Bob married. Her 38-year-old husband is a real estate businessman.
Their children include two sets of twins, and the parents have stuck to the letter "J" for their names. There is Joshua, 16; Jana and John-David, 14; Jill, 13; Jessa, 11; Jinger, 10; Joseph, 9; Josiah, 7; Joy-Anna, 6; Jeremiah and Jedidiah, 5; Jason, 4; James, 2; and Justin, 1.For the record, she started having kids when she was 21 - she's 37 now, her husband is 38. They're Southern Baptist I think, and they don't use birth control because they believe children are a "gift from God". (I don't disagree with that, I just think 15 is a few too many gifts from God.) I'm pretty sure I saw an article on the local news about this somewhere, too, which is why I'm saying some stuff that I don't think is included in the article. Anyways, so she's been what, pregnant and breastfeeding for 16 years straight? Oh, and all of her kids' names start with "J" - her husband's name starts with "J" too (Jim Bob xd ). Crazy people. I think people like this should be sterilized. No way one couple needs 15 kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
