No one will ever tell you that abortion is an easy or convenient solution, unless it’s an anti-choicer trying to incite outrage. It is expensive, it is inconvenient, it can be painful, and for most people it is an emotionally weighty decision. I would call that consequence enough for a lack of caution, especially since it can and does still occur when both parties have been prudent and used protection.
Calling me Anti-Choice is a nice way to continue this. Anyways: tangible consequences are, again in my opinion, enough of a reason to not have sex or to try to protect ones-self while in the deed. If you encounter those consequences--it's your own damned fault. I do not see stupidity in action as an excuse. What you're doing right now, in my opinion, is undermining your own argument. Every pro-life speaker I've heard has agreed that abortion is often an emotionally scarring process. However, a "next-morning" pill is a quick and easy way to try to skip out on the consequences. As part of my pro-life view, I do not support a "next-morning" pill through pharmacies. If you need the pill because criminal sexual activity occurred recently, then you should go through the police department and file a report. At the end of that report, you have the option of taking a pill. I'm not saying we should ban drug birth control either, as it's often a necessity for the medical well-being of young ladies.
The alternative you advocate – for a young woman to bear an unwanted child for nine months of her life, enduring social stigma, hormonal fluctuations, nausea, back and leg pain, among many more symptoms and innumerable inconveniences, as well as the risk that she will be unable to finish school as a result of this ordeal and will subsequently live in poverty – is not a fair consequence. All these symptoms almost exclusively affect the female, when her partner is just as responsible for the predicament. What good is a consequence that only affects half the target population?
It's her fault. You can always say "no". A direct result of sex is pregnancy. Disconnection with reality often distorts that view: if you **** around, you may very well become pregnant. It's a serious choice, and people should treat it as such. The youth of America are often disconnected from reality: reconnect and it is my opinion that you deal with issues regarding youth. Teen pregnancy, no matter what the rate, is why I am personally against abortion. You start at one place, and the rest will fall into line. So yes--if she goes and ****s around and comes home pregnant, she should have to face the actual consequences of her actions instead of moseying around them. It's part of the "No, it can't happen to me!" phenomenon: it'll never happen, and if it does there's a fast and easy way to dodge reality.
And the fact is that none of the current anti-choice candidates support a sensible sex-education and family planning program. They oppose many safe, effective birth control options nearly as vehemently as they do abortion. The educational programs they endorse feed young people blatantly false information, (that condoms don’t work, for example, when in fact they do in the vast majority of cases) and withhold the facts that they need to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy or disease. Abstinence may indeed be the best option for many people, but for others it isn’t, and for those who do not choose abstinence there must be other options, and they must know what those options are.
The current system, in my opinion, will work if the consequences become real. I do think we need to rethink our approach to sex education. Even so, exposure brings acceptance. Acceptance will result in most sex ed. classes ultimately failing. That's basic, advanced, abstinence, or any other really. And there are other options: I went through an abstinence program and they still hammer the points down. 1) Having sex is risky: pregnancy isn't the only consequence. 2) If you're being pushed to have sex, odds are it's abusive. 3) Condoms can make it safer, but no method is 100% successful. 4) You live with the consequences of your actions.
When unwanted pregnancies no longer occur, there will be no need for abortion. But no anti-choice candidate is going to address this root cause rather than criminalizing what I would call the inevitable outcome.
My opinion is the best way to stop unwanted pregnancies is self control. When you realize the consequences you can stop the problem. Pro-choice won't accept that either: you instate reality. Abortion was created as a medical solution for medical problems: not as a medical solution for wide-spread social problems.
Anyways--I've also remarked that the best vote against abortion is with a senator or a congress(wo)man. Voting for a pro-life president won't do much. On the other hand, I think this election we should be taking a much closer look at the vice president as well: and I support Palin's views against abortion, though she will have to give up some of the details if she, as president (be it from McCain's inabilit to preside or a future election), wishes to get any legislation through. For that reason--I'm more than willing to keep track of candidates votes and ensure my support is added to those I most support in policy, avoiding the hype machine. And what you're missing is the fundamental point still: it is my opinion that this genocide can be greatly scaled down by bringing reality to those most likely to **** around. You make a mistake and you live with the consequences. They'll have sex anyways--though connecting consequence and action together will lower that rate. Again, in my opinion.
Poll
