1,000

Not necessarily. If a woman has an abortion simply because she doesn't want the child it is of course her decision, but personally I see it as murder. If she didn't want the child it could be given up for adoption and go to a family who would love it.

as far as i'm concerned, giving a child for adoption is a state of neglect.
but besides that, why should a woman pass 9 (dangerous imo) months of her life to give birth to a child she knows she can't (or won't) keep, just to give it for adoption? and i believe giving your child after birth must be a painful experience. more painful than abortion.

So taking it from an environment where it might not be even loved and taking it to a family who would raise it as their own and love it is neglectful?

I know there are instances where birth control can fail, but generally when women have abortions due to not wanting a child it is down to not using any protection, as someone said they consider abortion almost a form of birth control.

I wouldn't go into the street and kill someone just because I didn't want them in this world, it is not much different.

I've got to have lived under communism to know I don't want to? Is it appropriate for me to say "war is hell" without parachuting into Iraq or Africa?

Let's leave it at this:I don't complain about your country's practices, you extend mine the same courtesy.

Adrian

PS And for the record, we don't live in a democracy, we're supposed to be a republic. Big difference between the two.

No of course not, but I hardly think that a teacher in an AMERICAN school could give you a fair picture of socialism or communism, because they don’t know what it is, neither do the leaders of your country.
Hey, I’m sitting here and defending communism! None will believe me if I tell them…

Wouldn't it be lovely if the leaders of your country could come up with this conclusion as well? Then they could stop flying "terrorist" or whatever you like to call them around the world and to pit stop every here and there such as in my country. In your country unfair treatment of prisoners are the right thing to do, but it isn't in mine.

Wow, you don't live in a democracy? Shit, I've always expected this, but I didn't think an American would confess just like that. Would you mind looking those two words up in that dictionary of ours and post the definition here at Jovitalk so that I could have good laugh?

I'm going by what those words meant back when they were part of the formation of our country. A democracy was a nation where all citizens made the decisions ie 51% could vote away the rights of 49%. A republic was a nation where representatives were elected, but governed within a framework of laws protecting rights. The founding of our country is something I know a little bit about. In fact, I've read several essays (you'll forgive me if I do not have every work of literature I've ever read immediately at hand) where the founding fathers expressed their desire that this country NOT become a pure democracy for precisely the reason that 51% could vote away the rights of the remaining 49%.

Adrian

So they created a system where the 49% can win over the 51%.


Ponrauil

I hope I'm not the only one who finds that just a little bit weird.

^^^That wasn't the intention either. The idea (and IMO it's still the best there is, just corrupted by people who don't keep the law in their hearts) was that it would be tremendously hard for a majority to abuse a minority (or the other way around) when their representatives (it'd also be easier to remove an offending individual from the political game rather than a collection of them) were restrained by law and some kind of public debate was required rather than an up or down vote.

Of course, as we've all found out, it doesn't work quite right when neither the people nor their representatives care about the law. But that's not a failing of the law itself, that's a failing of the people assigned to guard it, and the people that are supposed to be guarding against THEM.

Adrian