Yes, because your morals > others and therefore the morals of the majority should be forced upon the others.
Why in the world do you even care if someone else decides to not want an unwanted baby which DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A FUNCTIONAL BRAIN YET? Why allow something to start gaining life when it'll just end up being unwanted, unappreciated, and probably even poor? The baby won't know it died, as it technically doesn't even exist as a baby yet. And what about Stolen? What about ripped condoms? How would you feel if a baby would screw up your chances at college? How would you feel if you barely have enough money to feed yourself, and suddenly heard you were pregnant? How would you feel if you're suddenly pregnant and the father runs never to be seen again? You can't know, because I'm guessing you're male, but I at least hope your not some apathic psychopath.
Also, seriously, a free country? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH. Free in the sense that the government doesn't care about you, yes. McCain wants to just let the banks go bankrupt. Yes, they could not take the crisis, the concurrence, they were weak, they had to go (a Hilter argument, again, but whatever). Okay, there are millions of people who put their savings in a bank, they expect it to be safe, they expect to gain a little money by saving. The bank goes bankrupt, all their money, gone, away, nowhere to be seen. CAN YOU BLOODY IMAGINE WHAT THAT'S EVEN LIKE? No, you can't. Well, McCain, being the friendly old grandpa he is, doesn't care. At all. Without social security of any kind, these people are forced to live in poverty, and if this goes on, any family having any kind of money in the bank will have to suffer the same faith. Because if nobody cares, this crisis will go on.
And learn the bloody difference between socialism and communism.
Socialism: The gouverment manages the economic situation, because Adam Smith's theory that everything works out is flawed, monopolization, abuse of the working class, to the point where they are reduced to slaves, aristocratsation, and mobility between social classes being virtually impossible.
Basically, it works when you only look at the enterprises, it fails when you look at the human beings involved.
Social security forms the foundation of socialism, it pretty much allows everyone to have at least a chance at being happy, with stuff like minimum wages, pensions, partial repay of medical costs, and so on. This to make sure nobody ends up in poverty because of invalidation, age, social status, and so on.
Communism: Like Adam Smith's liberalism, a theory which has been tested and failed (although some people still think this kind of liberalism is still the way to go, like McCain, just take a quick look at European history to see what it can do). Communism basically wants everyone to be equal not just when it comes to rights, but also when it comes to income and possessions. Or, "no possessions". Problem is that it hopes that nobody will be selfish enough to want more, and everybody will care about each-other. It actually worked in Russia, until the computer came and evolved too fast for it to be collective property.
Socialism is the synthesis between communism and liberalism, which is enough to prove that it's the only way forward. Sadly, forward is not the way the conservatives want to go.
And seriously, darkrai1246, grow a brain so you can actually start discussing this.
Just know that I have absolutely no sympathy for people who don't want to change just because of habit. But you probably knew this already, so whatever.
