|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
posted January 04, 2007 02:54 AM |
|
|
As I state my opinions you have your right to state yours as well William.
Dont let him tell you what to do on here.
He is not always right you know nor is every opinion he says are always facts.
Speak your mind dude.
Even if I or anyone else considers it interesting.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 04, 2007 03:08 AM |
|
|
Thanks for that Aculias, means alot.
But I figure the best course of action for me, would be to stay clear of this particular thread.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 04, 2007 03:42 AM |
|
|
I agree.
For one your way too young to understand the actual feelings about this certain issue.
Not a bad thang but I bet you dont even have a steady GF  .
For two you welcome.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted January 04, 2007 03:46 AM |
|
|
Well I do know about these subjects and what Abortion is, and if you are saying I am a bit too young, I am older then Mvassilev.
But I guess that being younger then 16, we wouldn't have had any experience with this issue, like the "abortion" issue, so I will stay clear of that one, for now, maybe in a few years when I have had actual experience with it then I might post.
But I might say one thing before I go:
I have heard that some people have had abortions because there is a risk that their child might be mentally disabled/handicapped whatever you may like to call it.
I find that to be wrong, because having an abortion just because the child might be mentally disabled, is just wrong.
But that is just my opinion, but most mentally disbaled kids I think are actually pretty bright but they just don't know how to give their points across, because of the mental disablity, I think that's right, I think I read that somewhere or I learnt it at school, but yeah that 's just my last opinion to this topic.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 04, 2007 03:46 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 03:47, 04 Jan 2007.
|
Well . . .
I'm 31 and I'm not certain that even myself is "old enough" to fully comprehend these matters. But I want to be courageous by exploring the unknown and learning as much as I can. I know there are many things that I do not know . . . but we can't let that stop us from endeavoring/yearning for the truth/wisdom.
For all that we do not know . . . we cannot give up! Still we must try!
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 04, 2007 03:50 AM |
|
|
It is easiar said then done.
Studying issues is easy then experiencing them.
We would never know without feeling the pain or agreeing with the pain of what the woman decides to do.
I disagree with the last reply.
Studying & experiencing are completely two different feelings.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 04, 2007 03:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm 31 and I'm not certain that even myself is "old enough" to fully comprehend these matters. But I want to be courageous by exploring the unknown and learning as much as I can.
Well said, Consis! Ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what William thinks. It doesn't matter what Acu thinks. It doesn't matter what Bob Dole thinks (at least, any more). The decision is ultimately that of the mother, although the father, if he is a breadwinner, should have considerable input. It is not for the lawmakers to decide, but the mothers.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 04, 2007 04:05 AM |
|
|
What are you talking about?
Thats what I just said.
Why dont you take someones advice on here & read before you make replies buddy.
I still disagree partially with that reply still.
Then again I think I know why.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
VaRuAs
Famous Hero
Only The Chosen Will Survive
|
|
posted January 04, 2007 04:22 AM |
|
|
The Abortion/Child Support Double Standard: Women have Choice, Men Don't
Women have absolute say regarding getting an abortion: she bares no
responsibility towards her unborn child. But, a man has no choice
regarding child support. Women's body, women's choice? Well, men's
money, men's choice, right?
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 04, 2007 04:30 AM |
|
|
Yea while women argue & we can leave the room with no hassle right?
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
VaRuAs
Famous Hero
Only The Chosen Will Survive
|
|
posted January 04, 2007 04:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yea while women argue & we can leave the room with no hassle right?
Err... i guess so..
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 04, 2007 06:33 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 06:34, 04 Jan 2007.
|
A Note:
I 'googled' a search for topics addressing these three issues:
Abortion - 110 million hits
Contraception - 14 million hits
Stem Cell Research - 13.8 million hits
I felt that this information is in some way significant. According to this, one might think abortion to be the issue of greater significance.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 04, 2007 01:52 PM |
|
|
Well, obviously abortion is the greater issue. Contraception is simply prevention of conception. No one can say that contraception is murder. It's like saying abstinence is murder.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 08, 2007 09:33 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:39, 08 Jan 2007.
|
mvassilev wrote:
Quote:
Disclaimer: What follows is my opinion.
Unnecessary. You wrote it. Who else's opinion would it be?
Quote:
1. The fetus is part of her body.
Prove it.
Quote:
If she can't support a child, she can abort it. If she doesn't want to go through labor pains (medication would avoid it, but, if she does...), she can abort it. If she doesn't want a child for any reason, she can abort it.
There are those who would say that, if she can't support a child, if she doesn't want to go through labor pains, etc., then maybe she shouldn't be having sex in the first place. The basic problem is that nowadays sex is not respected at all. It is an intimate affair that should not be entered into lightly (for both physical and emitional reasons), but it is nevertheless casually engaged in by young people because they have your attitude, which is that they can easily extricate themselves from the "negative" consequences if the cards don't fall in their favor. Your argument completely exonerates the woman from any share of the responsibility of being pregnant that she might have. Essentially you set the standard that it is ok to engage in ANY risky behavior without considering the consequences, because there's an "easy" way out. Maybe in some cases abortion is justified, but by using it as an a priori "get out of jail free" card, you encourange young women to have promiscuous sex because they know that they can just have an abortion if they get pregnant. Nevermind the fact that abortion itself is an enterprise that itself carries physical and, probably more importantly, emotional and mental risks that should not be overlooked. But young women (and men) don't think of that - they're too busy trying to have a good time without worrying about the future. It's just one more example of how personal accountability is a thing of the past. As with any risky behavior, you should to be prepared to take responsibility for your actions, even if you don't want to, even if it leads to a "hard road". Only through learning from our mistakes - by paying the penalties resulting from them - do we learn to better ourselves, and become a better society. Taking the easy road out of the bad situations we create for outselves teaches us nothing, and only creates bigger problems for society later on.
You can argue whether abortion should be legal or not until you are blue in the face. There's probably not a universally correct answer to the problem. But even most pro-choicers would probably agree that the decision to have an abortion is a serious one, and the option should not be taken lightly, certainly not for such a stupid reason as "but having a baby is going to hurt" or "my clothes aren't going to fit".
Quote:
2. Even if the fetus was not considered part of her body, the fetus is far from being a person. I define a person as one who can reason logically. I realize that my definition alienates many humans who are already born, but I don't care. For me, not all humans are "persons". The mentally ill are not "persons".
Uh huh... right. And what perverse logic did you use to come up with that opinion?
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted January 09, 2007 05:03 AM |
|
|
um... Consis
Quote:
I 'googled' a search for topics addressing these three issues:
Abortion - 110 million hits
Contraception - 14 million hits
Stem Cell Research - 13.8 million hits
I felt that this information is in some way significant. According to this, one might think abortion to be the issue of greater significance.
it could also mean that most people hear about abortion long before they hear about the other two (especially stem cell research) ...in some cases, years before the others are brought up
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2007 02:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
mvassilev wrote:
Quote:
Disclaimer: What follows is my opinion.
Unnecessary. You wrote it. Who else's opinion would it be?
I wrote it to avoid flames.
Quote:
1. The fetus is part of her body.
Prove it.
Let's see. It's inside her. It is attached to her via umbelical cord! It developed inside her.
Quote:
If she can't support a child, she can abort it. If she doesn't want to go through labor pains (medication would avoid it, but, if she does...), she can abort it. If she doesn't want a child for any reason, she can abort it.
There are those who would say that, if she can't support a child, if she doesn't want to go through labor pains, etc., then maybe she shouldn't be having sex in the first place.
I disagree with that. She could have sex, but she shoould have used contraception of some sort. However, if she didn't use it for any reason, she can have an abortion.
Quote:
The basic problem is that nowadays sex is not respected at all. It is an intimate affair that should not be entered into lightly (for both physical and emitional reasons),
I sort of agree.
Quote:
but it is nevertheless casually engaged in by young people because they have your attitude, which is that they can easily extricate themselves from the "negative" consequences if the cards don't fall in their favor.
If they can extricate themselves from the "negative" consequences, then all the better for them.
Quote:
Your argument completely exonerates the woman from any share of the responsibility of being pregnant that she might have.
She became pregenant because of her actions (most of the time). That doesn't mean she has to stay pregenant.
Quote:
Essentially you set the standard that it is ok to engage in ANY risky behavior without considering the consequences, because there's an "easy" way out.
If this "easy" way out really works, then yes.
Quote:
Maybe in some cases abortion is justified, but by using it as an a priori "get out of jail free" card, you encourange young women to have promiscuous sex because they know that they can just have an abortion if they get pregnant.
Abortion should be a last resort.
Quote:
Nevermind the fact that abortion itself is an enterprise that itself carries physical and, probably more importantly, emotional and mental risks that should not be overlooked.
Of course.
Quote:
But young women (and men) don't think of that - they're too busy trying to have a good time without worrying about the future.
As is their nature.
Quote:
It's just one more example of how personal accountability is a thing of the past. As with any risky behavior, you should to be prepared to take responsibility for your actions, even if you don't want to, even if it leads to a "hard road". Only through learning from our mistakes - by paying the penalties resulting from them - do we learn to better ourselves, and become a better society. Taking the easy road out of the bad situations we create for outselves teaches us nothing, and only creates bigger problems for society later on.
I disagree. If one can get rid of the negative, go ahead.
Quote:
2. Even if the fetus was not considered part of her body, the fetus is far from being a person. I define a person as one who can reason logically. I realize that my definition alienates many humans who are already born, but I don't care. For me, not all humans are "persons". The mentally ill are not "persons".
Uh huh... right. And what perverse logic did you use to come up with that opinion?
Read the rest of my posts.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 09, 2007 05:09 PM |
bonus applied. |
Edited by Corribus at 17:12, 09 Jan 2007.
|
mvassilev wrote:
Quote:
I wrote it to avoid flames.
Does stating beforehand that something is your opinion reduce the likelihood of being flamed for it?
Quote:
Let's see. It's inside her. It is attached to her via umbelical cord! It developed inside her.
1. Just because it's inside you, doesn't make it part of your body.
2. Just because it's attached to you, doesn't make it part of your body (a pacemaker is attached to you AND inside your body, but it's certainly not PART of your body). And if you want to take the example to the extreme: what about conjoined twins?
3. It's not always so clear cut as "it developed inside her". Things get complicated when you start talking about surrogate motherhood, egg donation, and fertility treatments. And even so, what does developing inside her have to do with anything? *I* developed inside someone, so does that still make me part of my mother's body?
Quote:
I disagree with that. She could have sex, but she shoould have used contraception of some sort. However, if she didn't use it for any reason, she can have an abortion.
That doesn't really explain how you are disagreeing with my statement. My statement was, in essence, "if she wasn't prepared to face the consequences, she shouldn't have been having sex in the first place." You say you disagree with that. Why? Are you using the option of abortion to basically condone unprotected, casual sex? That's what it seems like from your statement.
Quote:
Quote:
The basic problem is that nowadays sex is not respected at all. It is an intimate affair that should not be entered into lightly (for both physical and emitional reasons),
I sort of agree.
I sort of don't understand what you mean by "sort of agree".
Quote:
If they can extricate themselves from the "negative" consequences, then all the better for them.
And really, this is the basic problem that I'm getting at. It's an attitude that goes beyond the issue of abortion. Essentially, you are saying that, if there's an easy way out, then I should be able to do whatever I want. Nevermind the moral question: it's all about getting oneself out of trouble. From your perspective, this isn't a pro-life/pro-choice argument at all. You aren't really arguing about whether abortion is good or bad from the standpoint of moral principles - you are arguing about the lengths one should be able to go to escape undesireable situations. In other words, you feel that protecting your own butt is more important than whether the method of protection is RIGHT or WRONG in the first place.
Let me make an analogy. Let's say there's an expensive diamond necklace at a local store that you really want. You DO have enough money to buy the jewelry, but you know that if you do make the purchase, you will have no money left over to buy other things you enjoy, like cable television, movies and video games. Thus, if you purchase the necklace, you will have to sacrifice these other things for a period of time. What you really want is to be able to own the necklace AND have your spending money still in reserve. Unfortunately the way of the world is that sometimes to get one thing we want, we have to risk sacrificing other things that we want. One who goes to the store and buys the necklace does so with this knowledge in hand - he knows that if he makes the purchase, the amount of money he has left may not be enough for other things. But that is the CHOICE he makes. He weighs the consequences beforehand, understands the risks of his action, and decides what he wants to do. Afterwords, he should accept the consequences. He doesn't whine and complain that he has no money later on because nobody FORCED him to buy the necklace. You learn about the risks of your actions, you make choices, and then you accept the way that time unfolds. If you blow all your dough on a necklace and have nothing left for other goodies for a year, then next time you probably won't be so reckless with your hard-earned case. That's called learning from your actions. It makes us better people.
But you don't like this. You're not stupid - you know the consequences of buying the necklace, but you don't want to have to accept them. You tell this to a buddy of yours, and the buddy tells you that he knows a way for you to have both the necklace AND your money. All you have to do is STEAL the necklace. "But won't I get caught and go to jail?" you ask. (After all, the reason people don't steal necklaces all the time is because there is the risk of a CONSEQUENCE to this action. Some people feel the risk is worth it and steal anyway.) Your friend, a lawyer, tells you he knows a loophole in the law and that if you steal the necklace under a certain set of conditions, he can get you off the hook when/if you get arrested.
The question is, knowing beforehand that you can get out of the negative consequences (prison) of stealing the necklace, do you steal the necklace? In a broader sense, what I'm asking is: if there is a way around the physical consequences of an action, does that justify the action? In the case of abortion, which is basically nothing more than a loophole in the law of nature (and thankfully science offers many), you are saying that this is so - that it's ok to steal the necklace because you know you won't be punished for it later on. Unfortunately, what you neglect when you say "YES, I can steal the necklace if I can get around the consequences!" is whether the act of stealing is morally right or wrong in the first place. I.e., you need to separate the issue of whether or not you should engage in an action because of morality and whether or not you should engage in an action because of what might happen to you afterwords. They are really separate issues.
If you can get away with stealing, is it still right to do so? And don't forget, just because YOU can get away with stealing, that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt SOMEONE ELSE. Never forget that there are consequences to every action that go beyond what happens to YOU. In the case of stealing the necklace, just because YOU have a way around prison, you also hurt the jewelry store owner, who no longer has a necklace to sell and cannot feed his family. You hurt the legal system, which has to deal with your trial (even though you know you will be innocent), sapping resources that could go to other purposes. You hurt your family and friends, who disapprove (morally) of your actions. You may even still hurt yourself in unforseen ways - future job applications, etc. The same is the case with abortion. Just because YOU have a way out of pregnancy, doesn't mean there are not consequences for other people: your family (again), the father, health insurance costs, etc., etc. It's not always a good idea to engage in an action, even if you know you can get around the worst, immmediate consequences.
There's another problem with this attitude that goes beyond the matter of consequences that you maybe need to consider, and I touched on it earlier. And that is: suffering brings enlightenment. We humans learn from our mistakes. More specifically, we learn from the negative consequences of our mistakes. Evil and "wrongness" only has meaning in context. Just as good and "rightness". If we can perform an action without facing the risk of negative consequences, then we as humans will eventually lose the ability to morally judge the action in the first place. I find that a scary prospect. If we make no mistakes - or rather, if we do not have to pay debts from our mistakes, then how do we learn from them? If a person steals - whether it's justified or not - and gets caught, and then society tells the person that there is no penalty for stealing, what do the person learn? What does his children learn, who witness the fact that their father can do something supposedly wrong and get away with it? They learn that it is OK to steal, that there is no moral ambiguity to the action. Eventually the justification of small crimes leads to the justification of larger crimes on the same grounds. They learn that earning/saving money is worthless and a waste of time(because you can just steal what you need). They do not learn to take pride in what they have. They do not learn to be grateful for what they can afford, and the value of a hard-earned dollar. Sure, maybe you can get around prison. But there are more, far worse consequences down the road if you take that option. And they take a toll on society as a whole. Abortion is a similar road to follow if you do not respect it and if you use it flippantly. For what do you learn about the physical and emotional value of sex if there are no risks involved? How can you learn to respect life if you can so easily get around the bumpy spots that must be involved when living it.
The funny thing is that we are speaking of consequences to abortion here and are not even discussing the issue of abortion itself. I have not even once stated my opinion on the moral question of abortion, which should indicate to you that maybe you are focusing on the wrong part of the question.
|
|
Ecoris
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2007 07:43 PM |
|
|
Thank you for a very good and interesting post Corribus. I have a few comments, but a agree with you on much of what you wrote.
Quote:
Abortion is a similar road to follow if you do not respect it and if you use it flippantly. For what do you learn about the physical and emotional value of sex if there are no risks involved? How can you learn to respect life if you can so easily get around the bumpy spots that must be involved when living it.
"flippantly"? "easily"? I have no personal experiences on this matter at all, but surely those that decide to have an abortion do not use it "flippantly" and surely it is not an easy way out. I'm sure that the decision and the whole process is both difficult and stressful. One who went through this would know the consequences very well; having the child would be more than enough.
About the diamond-analogy: It points to many interesting facts but it can't be applied to abortion the way you put it. In the analogy the person is making a conscious rational choice if he decides to steal it. A woman that wants an abortion is very unlikely to have had the intent of becoming pregnant (or have unprotected sex). Rather, she didn't consider the possible consequences of her actions; she did not make a conscious choice but acted to some degree according to her instincts. But she might never have intended to become pregnant; at most she was unaware of the consequences of her actions.
In the diamond-analogy the person is fully aware of his actions and their consequences. This is a very significant difference that is left out.
Actually financial crimes are punished much harder than a casual violence, for that very reason: Intent. This leads on to a philosophical discussion about whether actions should be valued/judged according to their intents ot their consequences. It is not a question about either or, but about balance.
I think this also shows that the moral question of abortion has no absolute answer; if you remove it from it's context it becomes meaningless.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 09, 2007 08:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"flippantly"? "easily"? I have no personal experiences on this matter at all, but surely those that decide to have an abortion do not use it "flippantly" and surely it is not an easy way out.
Of course not, and nor should it be. But that is the insinuation of mvassilev. Afraid having a baby is going to hurt? Well, step right up and have an abortion, the easy way out! He implies that abortion IS an easy way out of the situation, but it is not. Physically, maybe. In the short term, maybe. But there ARE consequences to having an abortion. And it's certainly not a good reason to have unprotected sex. He implies that a woman need not even consider the risks of sex (pregnancy) because there's always abortion. But it's more complicated than that, as I think you obviously agree.
Quote:
About the diamond-analogy: It points to many interesting facts but it can't be applied to abortion the way you put it. In the analogy the person is making a conscious rational choice if he decides to steal it. A woman that wants an abortion is very unlikely to have had the intent of becoming pregnant (or have unprotected sex).
But really, that's my whole point. If you are having sex, you KNOW there is a risk of becoming pregnant. Just as if you are stealing something, you KNOW there is a risk of getting caught. Yeah, you might not, but there's a chance that the dice will roll against you and you have to pay the price for your actions. My point is that whether or not you can get out of paying that price does not have any impact on the morality of the act itself. Escaping the penalty for the action does not make the action OK. And the problem is that when you know, beforehand, that you CAN escape the penalty (even though the escape may be worse, in the long run, than the penalty itself), we often neglect to stop and ask about morality. Because, if you can't be caught, then who cares if it's right or wrong in the first place. That's the whole problem with mvassilev's attitude, which is sadly shared by many. People are more concerned with the effect of the cause than with the morality of the cause itself.
Quote:
Rather, she didn't consider the possible consequences of her actions; she did not make a conscious choice but acted to some degree according to her instincts.
What separates us from animals is our ability to use logic to determine what is right or wrong. "Acting according to your instincts" is not an excuse for an immoral action, just as being drunk is not an excuse for an immoral action. You can't kill a person and say, "I was just really mad and my instincts took over." Conscious or not, rational or not, if you make the choice, you pay the consequences. In the present scenario, the woman knows the risks of sex, then chooses to have sex, and then must deal with whatever consequences there are to that action. If she thinks it is morally OK to have an abortion, then so be it. That's a choice made accordingly to her own moral code. But what I disagree with is her knowing the risks of sex, then choosing to have sex because she thinks there are no risks because there's always abortion if she gets dealt a bad hand. It's especially problematic in this case because abortion, as you mention, isn't the easy fix many people think it is. But at the core, what I'm trying to make is a distinguishment between the morality of the issue, and the simple act of trying to justify an act (whatever the morality) based on simply avoiding responsibility.
Quote:
But she might never have intended to become pregnant;
Of course she didn't. Women don't intend to become pregnant and then get an abortion. Most criminals don't INTEND to become caught. Most poker players don't INTEND to lose. But sometimes you get caught, and sometimes you lose. A poker player doesn't ask for his money back after he is dealt garbage. You know going in that there are risks. But I reiterate that intention has nothing to do with it. The point is that once you ARE caught, once you DO lose - how do you deal with the situation? What is the MORAL thing to do? That's all that matters, really. That and: what did you learn from losing. You learn nothing if losing has no consequences, as I've tried to state.
Quote:
In the diamond-analogy the person is fully aware of his actions and their consequences. This is a very significant difference that is left out.
I'm really not sure how that is different from having sex. If you seriously don't know that having sex can lead to pregnancy, then there is something wrong with you. And sure, you might be seduced by passion and then wake up the next morning and wonder what the heck you were thinking. But: live and learn, right? You could just as easily try to say she was drunk and didn't know what she was doing. Well, who chose to drink? SHE DID. What if she was raped? Well, that's an even more unfortunate situation. As I said, I haven't even stated whether I think abortion is morally right or wrong. We're not even really arguing that issue yet! All I'm arguing about is that abortion is not a reason to have unprotected sex. It does not relieve you of responsibility. The people that believe it does are doomed to repeat their mistakes and learn nothing.
Quote:
I think this also shows that the moral question of abortion has no absolute answer; if you remove it from it's context it becomes meaningless.
As with everything, yes. And since context is variable, that's why this issue is so difficult, as with many others. Thanks for the thoughtful reply to my post, though. 
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 10, 2007 12:49 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
In everything we do there is a risk/reward ratio. In most things, the risk (negative consequence) is negligible in either probability or seriousness. In most cases we have some idea about the reward and risk, and make an almost unconscious decision to perform an action. We know that when we get in a car that there is a chance that we could get killed, but we go ahead and do it anyway. We've decided that the reward is worth taking the risk.
The issue of sex/pregnancy/abortion is largely an issue of young people. We hear it said all the time how young people feel they are immortal or invincible. When we hear or say that, we don't mean it literally, but understand the point. When an action is fun or pleasurable, the risk associated with the action is often overlooked. The risk is not much more than words, "it's not gonna happen to me" after all.
I think it takes a certain number of years for us to fully realize that, yes, it really can happen to us. That it can not only happen, but with many actions, the negative consequence is actually LIKELY to happen. We know this because, after enough years, it's not words any longer, we've actually seen it happen way too many times....it's no longer words because the proof has been placed right in front of us where we can no longer ignore it. We've symbolically seen way too many tombstones with the words "it's not gonna happen to me" written on them.
When something is fun and we want to do it, people are experts at rationalization. Far too often words are not enough. We need it beat into ours heads before we finally admit that we can't always do anything we damn well please without consequences.
There are far too many people with the attitude that "it's not gonna happen to me" when they have unprotected sex.
"But look at the X's on the calendar, I shouldn't have gotten pregnant."
Then why are you pregnant?
"I tried to pull out, it's not my fault."
Now hold up your fingers to show me what your IQ is.....and oh yea, you're also a liar.
"The condom tore".
Yep, it sure did.
"Not gonna happen to me." Yea, right. But you have a convenient way out don't you, you stupid idiots.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
