Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Lord Raven Aug 1 2010, 02:33 AM

http://forums.gtsplus.net/index.php?showtopic=7381

I'm pro-choice cause I believe in freedom of choice yadda yadda yadda i don't give a shit enough anymore to give the full reasoning behind my viewpoint


Note: If anyone is doing anything like what Drew was doing in the previous thread -- ie, saying controversial things and ignoring all points directed to them while only bringing up repeated arguments of their own -- they will be warned 10% IMMEDIATELY. There are no strict guidelines to this, but if someone is saying something to you, don't just ignore them and go on your own tangent; that's just fucking rude and disrespectful. They gave you the time to respond to your post, you should honor them with the same time and respect they gave you. This applies to pro-choicers, in fact probably moreso because there are more of you out there.

Posted by: Stardust Snorter Aug 1 2010, 02:34 AM

I believe in choice as well. I'm all for having that option for women who have been raped and are in critical danger of death from a misplaced fetus- especially if it starts growing in the fallopian tube where chances of its survival are 0%


I say this out of my own experience having been raped as a child.

Posted by: PikaDiety Aug 1 2010, 02:36 AM

Okay, just gonna state my opinion and run right now, cause it's 3:30 in the morning and I'm about to head off to bed.

I support abortion to the point where a fetus becomes a baby. In my opinion, the point where it can survive outside of the womb. I would only actually have an abortion in the case of rape or threatening my life. Abortion should always be legal in rape and life threatening cases. No matter what. But it should be allowed anyways. Women have the right to do what they want to their bodies.

Posted by: Galahawk Aug 1 2010, 02:37 AM

As I stated in the previous discussion, I am pro-choice. Seeing as how my gender is the one directly affected, I feel that I have the right to control what happens to my own body.
Although I condone abstinence and safe sex to just as equal of a degree. But all-in-all, it should be the mother's decision if she feels she has a good reason to.

Posted by: The Mad Hatter Aug 1 2010, 02:37 AM

lol some minor copy paste.

If the girl has sex unprotected or below being a legal adult, and gets pregnant, it is her fault. She is stuck with the baby throughout the nine months and one week she must carry it. Then she may put it up for adoption if needed. Tough shit. Not pro-choice on this aspect, but I wouldn't call it pro-life either.

If she's young and the pregnancy was because of rape or it is a fatal pregnancy and sh eis going to die, then I'm pro-choice.

Posted by: Lord Raven Aug 1 2010, 02:41 AM

i've said this before, but that's almost as if the child is a punishment for having underage sex... I'm not quite sure i feel comfortable with using a child in that regard

Posted by: The Mad Hatter Aug 1 2010, 02:43 AM

Yes, but the child could go up for adoption as soon as the baby is born. Therefore, if the family is caring enough, it would be nice. Then the fucker of a mother could go and use condoms.

Posted by: Reyo Aug 1 2010, 02:44 AM

Pretty much still the same. Rape, the risk of birth defects, broken contraceptive, and incest (because of the social aspect) are pretty much what I have sympathy for. Other than that, it's shirking responsibility.

Obligation aside, I'm getting tired of this topic. Comment if you want, but chances are I'm going to spend 90% of my time acting as a 3rd person observer. Hope that doesn't cause too much disrespect.

Cue comments on how I'm a sexist communist.

Posted by: Stardust Snorter Aug 1 2010, 02:45 AM

Depends on the age in that regard if the teen had sex and was pregnant at 16+ then the age for reproduction is fine with little complications. Under that would bring issues overall. Nursing school yay...notreally. Lol.

I think that schools should change their abstinence teaching towards contraceptives. Teens are gonna fuck regardless of what you tell them.

Posted by: PikaDiety Aug 1 2010, 02:46 AM

Yes, but think of how fucked up the foster care system is and how many children don't get adopted. They spend their entire childhood in the system, possibly being abused. Then it's just a punishment to the child as well as the woman for forcing her to go through nine months of pregnancy and then the actual birth.

Posted by: Stardust Snorter Aug 1 2010, 02:48 AM

Indeed. I hate the foster care system. The time I was actually homeless...a lot of the teens that were on the streets were run aways from the foster care system. A lot of the girls were raped and sexually abused by their foster parents. It was sickeningly really. The system is completely over strained. People think it's okay to just pop out children and abandon them thinking that it will fix itself. It won't. It just increases the rate of poverty and illiteracy.

Posted by: The Mad Hatter Aug 1 2010, 02:48 AM

I full heartedly agree with this. People are having sex anyway, but they don't know how to stay safe. If they're taught, it would lower the total numbers of teen pregnancies. Thus, lowering the number of abortions.

Posted by: Galahawk Aug 1 2010, 02:49 AM

It may have been irresponsible, but it's still a possible danger to the potential mother. Plus as was mentioned in the previous thread time and time again, putting a child up for adoption =/= actually getting adopted. Our system is just too royally screwed up to be that idealistic.

I only support the idea of telling people to just put the child up for adoption if they're willing to adopt for themselves.
(which I'm more than willing to do, the thought of having my own child scares me)

Posted by: Master Element Aug 1 2010, 02:56 AM

My reasoning is short on this matter

If the woman was given no choice when the baby was conceived, such as rape. Then she should most certainly be given the choice to keep the baby or not. But if the baby was conceived through the poor choices of the woman, then she should be given no choice and must bear the potential burden the child may bring. Unless of course the baby, while developing becomes a potential danger to the mother to be.

I'm not very well established in debating, so I do hope I made my view clear enough to understand. =D

Posted by: Breeder Drew Aug 1 2010, 03:14 AM

Okay guys. I'm sorry for acting like that. I shouldn't have. You can forgive me right?BTW the guy above me pretty much stated my opinion.I was bein an ***.

Posted by: Phovos the Raptor Aug 1 2010, 10:10 AM

I'm gonna be quick with this.

If the child isn't their fault, or it's rape or it'll kill the mother or some other extreme like that, yes, go ahead, abort.

If the child was a mistake on behalf of the mother... Well, it depends. You can't just put them up for adoption, because life for adopted children almost always sucks. You either get lucky or you have a cruel childhood. It's one thing if you've arranged everything beforehand (surrogate mothers, that sort of stuff) but if you just dump them at an orphanage when they're born, that is just... irresponsible.

Then again, the choice of abortion wouldn't be such a bad thing in this time of age. We have a population that is growing and probably won't stop growing, and not letting people, including (ignorant, foolish) teenagers (who don't do it safely) who can't look after or will struggle to look after a baby, will just make our population increase further, bringing more children who we can't look after into the world.

Posted by: joker Aug 1 2010, 10:36 AM

On the moral side....abortion is horrible if done at the later stages...its basically killing a baby. But if we are talking about freedom of choice, then i guess it should be allowed. Still, its taking away all the potential the baby has in this world. Borrowing a cliche: this baby could have been the one to find the cure for cancer. My point is, abortion is just not killing the baby himself/herself, but all of the potential and the possiblities that the baby had. I mean think of it...

Posted by: Breeder Drew Aug 1 2010, 11:55 AM

I agree completely with this. BTW Sorry for being an ***.

Posted by: PikaDiety Aug 1 2010, 12:02 PM

If we're going with that argument, the baby could also become the next Hitler. Meaning it would be kinder to abort it. You don't know what a baby is going to grow up to do, we don't have set destinies. I doubt when my mom was pregnant she'd ever suspect I'd be trying to work my way to becoming a writer. Some parents don't even think of what their kid will be while pregnant, and don't until after the kid is born.

Posted by: Crystal Shards Aug 1 2010, 12:18 PM

Copy/pasta from last thread:

I think these two videos sum up pretty much how I feel on the actual debate of abortion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LflNHygv4wE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymF6b09VO9w

My stance? I'm pro choice. What we should be looking to do instead of arguing over whether women should be allowed to have safe abortions, we should look for ways to lower the rates of unwanted pregnancies. This can be done by making contraception easier and cheaper to get a hold of (where I am at, each month of the pill is $10 and each quarter-year shot is $75, condoms are free in some places like hospitals and some schools but not all) and better sex education. What I mean by better sex education is that women and men should both receive better than abstinence-only education and that they should receive lessons on what a baby actually needs. Many younger girls, thanks to celebrities like Britney Spears and television shows like 16 and Pregnant, seem to see pregnancy as glamorous, and babies as pets. They don't seem to understand that babies need constant care and affection, and that you can't just give it away when it's done being fun. Having a child affects more than just the body--it affects entire lives of everyone involved. So it's important that if you are going to have a child, that you're trained to be able to take care of it, and you understand the responsibilities.

These two things, more available contraception and better sex education, would greatly reduce abortion rates because they would reduce unwanted/teen pregnancy rates (and, by extension, pregnancy rates as a whole). With lower pregnancy rates (especially those due to a lack of knowledge/materials) comes lower abortion rates.

Really, this isn't an argument about abortion being allowed, because it's going to happen whether or not we support it. It's about whether we're going to allow abortions to occur within a safe environment. I applaud anyone who takes on the massive responsibility of parenthood, but the fact of the matter is it's not for everyone. I think a vast majority women actually think before having an abortion. It's not a decision to be made lightly, and anyone who is actually pregnant is going to be more likely to fully understand the consequences of their actions. When a woman gets pregnant, regardless of her initial feelings, she should go to a doctor and have every option explained to her in an unbiased manner. She needs to make an educated decision for herself. If she'd prefer to take the fetus to term, then she has two options: adoption or keeping it. If she doesn't, then her option is abortion. ANY of those choices are going to have psychological effects on the mother, and so she should be carefully monitored.

Also you can't send every unwanted baby into foster care or adoption agencies. As much as I personally prefer adoption to abortion, it's not economical. At all. Foster care centers and adoption agencies have enough strain on them as it is without piling on at least a million more kids per year, assuming every kid not aborted goes into foster care/adoption agencies.

Using the "what if you were the fetus" argument is ignorant with the light we've cast upon what a fetus can actually feel and think about. It's the same as the "what if you had the next president of the United States" argument--what ifs mean nothing. Frau Hitler was advised to abort for health reasons and didn't. Does this mean we should advocate abortion 100% of the time? No. So why should the argument work the other way? My mom's family asked if she could have an abortion, and she decided not to, and I'm here. If she had (not that it's really all that easy to do at six months), I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be here to feel regret about being here. Woopdefreakingdo.

On a side note, really rape shouldn't even be an issue here. Either a woman has complete control over her reproductive organs or she doesn't. To say she doesn't would only add insult to injury in a case like rape. Not to mention rape/incest cases are like, 1-2% of abortion cases, last statistics I saw (and 6% are due to health reasons).

Posted by: Manticore Aug 1 2010, 12:21 PM

Choice plz. But please, we can haz REAL sex education in schools? I'm absolutely POSITIVE that if kids are taught about birth control and not just 'SEX IS BAD, U GET DISEEZ AND FORM BABBY' That the abortion rate will drop DRAMATICALLY.

An Ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.

Posted by: Galahawk Aug 1 2010, 03:52 PM

I agree with you on the later stages part. I think that if you want to abort, don't wait until the third trimester because at that point, the fetus is more like a baby than a clump of cells. Besides, if you wanted to get an abortion anyway, you shouldn't have waited that long. (For a lot of people, it's not too hard to tell if you're pregnant or not, the exception here would be for people who don't "show" it)

And for the "cure for cancer" thing, abortion means stem cells, man (which in a lot of cases, can cure a lot more than the child would ever have in its lifetime). For instance, I was born and I don't want to find the cure for cancer, so that means if I was aborted and my stem cells were used, I'd be curing a lot more ailments than I am now and possibly ever will.
(but getting OFF the topic of stem cells, that's for another debate thread)

... Or that child could be circulated into poor or heaven forbid, abusive foster care and never reach their potential. Period.


EDIT:
I support both the teaching of abstinence AND contraceptives. That way the students can choose to be abstinent, or if they do decide to have sex, they can learn to have safe sex. I don't see why it has to be one or the other. (my life sciences teacher taught both, and she did a good job at it too)

Posted by: Crystal Shards Aug 1 2010, 05:56 PM

Even by FOX News's numbers, there's only like 100 abortions in the US per year that occur after the 24th week, which is like, .01% of all abortions in the US. (There is no scientific evidence to say that there is any fetal consciousness or awareness prior to the 24th week. This does not mean it develops in the 24th week.)

EDIT: Oh, just in case anyone wants to call me a liar: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html

Posted by: Manticore Aug 1 2010, 09:24 PM

Well obviously you wouldn't exclude the whole 'not sticking your dick in a girl is the only 100% way not to get her knocked up' but when it's the only thing taught, like it was at my school, kids don't know wtf to do when they DO have sex. And they usually do. So if they don't know what condoms or other contraceptives are, or how to work them, they end up forming babby.

Posted by: Galahawk Aug 1 2010, 10:00 PM

In general I also support the idea of sex education BEFORE high school. I knew a lot more about sex when I was seven than a lot of people my age do now because my parents bought my brother and me a book on it. It's sad that people are pushing for abstinence-only sex ed and not teaching them how to have sex but not get pregnant. It's people like that that mess up the way teenagers view sex.

Personally I'm holding off on sex, but even then I know how to use contraceptives like condoms, the pill, etc. So all-in-all, yeah. This is something schools seriously need to consider because the rate of abortions would possibly drop significantly, but don't because of butthurt parents. It's sad.

Posted by: Caesar Augustus Aug 2 2010, 09:09 AM

QFT. Also don't forget "GOD CRIES WHEN YOU HAVE SEX".

Otherwise I'm Pro-Life. No I'm not going to try to argue with all of you Pro-Choicers because I'm going to lose and I don't want you all to change my views. Fact.

And if you've read my other debate posts, I'M NOT RELIGIOUS. Let me repeat that.

I'M NOT RELIGIOUS

So there will be no religion in my stance. This will be pure science.

Myth: The fetus is not a human.
False. A fetus is a human. It is a genetic combination of two human parents, a father and a mother. It has its own set of DNA that is exclusive to it and it alone. Identical twins/triplets/etc. are split from the same zygote.
As soon as the egg is fertilized, the zygote becomes its own living thing. It has its own set of DNA.
Day 21, heartbeat starts. That's three weeks, people. Most women don't know they're pregnant until after this time.

Stopping a beating heart = death. Intentionally stopping a beating heart = murder.

Myth: The fetus is not human until it can survive on its own, aka outside the womb.
False. The fetus has its own heartbeat, brainwave pattern, and breathing pattern. It receives nutrients from the mother. That is all.
Oh, and let's not forget the fact that a newborn baby cannot survive on its own. It needs to be nurtured by another human so that it can survive. Just because it's no longer getting nutrients via umbilical cord, it doesn't mean that it can't get up and walk on its own. Or get its own food.

Now onto stats. Rape/Incest cases only make up 5% of all abortions. Most abortions are "social abortions". Aka "I don't want a baby for __________________________ reason". Fill in the blank with whatever lame-ass excuse made up. Money, responsibility, time. Social abortion =/= rape abortion.

Also I'd like to point out that when the fertilized egg is stuck in the fallopian tubes, called an "ectopic pregnancy", is 100% fatal for the fetus and almost always fatal for the mother. It also makes the mother infertile.

Removing a fetus from ectopic pregnancy =/= abortion. That fetus will not live. Ever.

Posted by: Manticore Aug 2 2010, 10:07 AM

Addressing this, I prefer to say a fetus isn't viable before a certain point, it may have a beating heart or brain activity but as a whole, if you were to remove it from the womb, it's so underdeveloped that it cannot survive. It doesn't have an immune system, its lungs cannot breathe, its skin is often so thin and weak you can't even touch it without it tearing.

To me it's akin to cracking an egg before the animal inside is ready to come out.

Posted by: Reyo Aug 2 2010, 01:02 PM

As long as you realize that it is both alive, and human, then I can understand you feeling that way, but remember that having lungs, a heart, an immune system does not necessarily constitute something as "alive". It does for multicellular organisms, but there are plenty of single celled life forms that go on ticking without all of that.

The fascinating part is that all of those single celled organisms are able to live because of organelles that act like lungs, a heart, and an immune system.

Posted by: Annakyoyama358 Aug 3 2010, 09:46 AM

This is basically my opinion. Stop pretending that if you tell kids not to have sex, they won't, and hand them a pack of trojans. It'll reduce it a helluva lot better.

Posted by: Rivals Aug 3 2010, 11:58 AM

Logical pick: The mother should decide. If she didn't want the baby she can choose abortion, although there are much better choices around. Foster, give to sperm donater, with exception of rape, etc, etc, etc. Abortion should be a last resort.

My personal opinion: I believe abortion should be used oly when the baby will die soon, and is in pain.

Criticism accepted...

Posted by: Crystal Shards Aug 3 2010, 01:57 PM

Er, what?

Posted by: Caesar Augustus Aug 3 2010, 02:20 PM

Men who donate sperm aren't looking to have said children. They're doing it for couples who are infertile. =\

Posted by: Annakyoyama358 Aug 3 2010, 07:07 PM

Or the occasional lesbian couple.
YAY DOUBLE MOMMIES!

Posted by: Rivals Aug 3 2010, 07:40 PM

I did not know that.

Posted by: Crystal Shards Aug 3 2010, 07:41 PM

Okay but that doesn't explain why it's being brought up in a topic about abortion. Foster care makes sense (in theory anyway, I've already mentioned the setbacks of adding 1 million+ kids per year to the foster care system, assuming all that aren't aborted are given up to foster care). Sperm donors don't.

Or are you agreeing with me that's it's confusing that's listed? Because it seems like you're replying to me and not Caesar Augustus. xD

EDIT: Grammar fail.

Posted by: Rivals Aug 3 2010, 07:57 PM

Fine. Take it off the list.

Posted by: Gryphaena Aug 8 2010, 12:00 AM

I don't like abortion but I accept that people will probably have them anyway.

I'd rather have women go to actual certified doctors for it then unlicensed people.

I think the father should know if the mother wants an abortion (except in rape and incest cases of course).

Posted by: Kod Aug 8 2010, 05:50 PM

Like the others have said, the adoption system is horribly broken. Once they hit 18, out on the streets to fend for themselves.

I'm pro-choice, by the way.

Posted by: Crystal Shards Aug 9 2010, 07:30 PM

My friend posted this article to his Facebook, and I thought it was relevant to the discussion. This kind of crap pisses me off. If the stuff they said was TRUE, that'd be another thing. But it's all lies. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/844997--deception-used-in-counselling-women-against-abortion

Posted by: Annakyoyama358 Aug 13 2010, 10:17 AM

I think fathers should stay out of it. To many deadbeat and/or abusive dads would harp about how they don't want their kid to die, then not help the mother at all.
Woman's body, woman's choice.


Also, bogus 'charities' like those deserve to be sued and shut down.
Fucking pigs

Posted by: DrMmmPie Aug 13 2010, 09:08 PM

I think Jason Mewes sums it up, just right. and I think the same, so I'm pro-choice

tl;dr I'm Pro-choice

Posted by: Caesar Augustus Aug 14 2010, 12:37 PM

Legally the father doesn't have a choice with what the mother does anyway. He can't make decisions for her. If she's pro-choice and he's pro-life and she wants an abortion, he can't stop her. Reverse the roles, he can't force her to get an abortion either.

Posted by: pichu egg Oct 28 2010, 04:57 PM

I'm pro-choice.

1. I'm not a Bible-thumper.
2. It will help lower population growth.
3.It's the woman's choice.

Although I'm pro-choice until the 24th week and I WILL Support abortion in any case of rape, incest, maternal life, and all of that.

Posted by: nikki101709 Nov 20 2010, 11:47 AM

I support abortion.

Although it's a sad procedure...I guess it's for the better??? :/

Posted by: jhunter Nov 23 2010, 10:55 PM

I'm pro choice, even though I will never be able to make the choice, because I don't want to limit a woman's rights. It all depends on the circumstances though, I wouldn't want a woman to get an abortion without thinking about it, because that's just cruel.

Funfact: If abortion was made illegal, you would still be able to get an abortion if was rape, or threatened your life.

I'm so glad I'm a male, we don't ever have to do the hard stuff.

Posted by: evolutionrex Nov 26 2010, 03:27 PM

I believe it's a mother's choice, but I'm actually surprised on how many pro-choice people posted here.

Posted by: Sladin4Ever Mar 6 2011, 06:29 AM

I am pro-choice and neutral-abortion, meaning I'm not fore or against. If a mother wishes to abort their fetus for any reason, doesn't matter what, then I'm okay with that. If a woman wants to keep their fetus, then fine. It isn't hurting me so it doesn't bother me

Posted by: ForeverIsNow Mar 24 2011, 04:58 PM

Abortion is a weird subject for me. If you had sex without a condom, don't just abort the baby like an irresponsible idiot.
However, if you were raped, or fi the baby and you are both going to die anyways, I believe personally that's okay.

Posted by: MoogleSam Mar 24 2011, 06:53 PM

People that do NOT want children could be possibly abusive parents or not meet the emotional support requirements that the child/children NEED. And abusive parents leads to a high chance of those children being abusive to their children when they grow up. Aborting a baby isn't irresponsible if they know they won't be able to handle it, won't want to look after it, will neglect it, will act horrible to it or so on. It would actually be RESPONSIBLE to get rid of it instead of keeping it. There are quite a lot of situations where it would be better not to keep it.

And no, giving it up for adoption is not a good idea before you even bring it up. The adoption system is rubbish. Any kid above 6 is less likely to be adopted because they can already talk, walk, eat, drink and do the main things that adults want to teach their children to do. And the main people that adopt can't have children of their own and just want a cute baby that they can raise as their own. Any kid above 10 is very unlikely to be adopted because they know a lot parents want to teach them already. If you are 15 or older then you are incredibly unlikely to be adopted because you aren't as cute as babies and you are almost an adult.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Mar 24 2011, 07:03 PM

i'm pretty sure a select few of those kids put up for adoption are adopted, and... well, i can't really imagine what's more depressing; actually aborting the child or being put up for adoption and knowing my parents didn't really want me. :S it's so depressing to think about..

Posted by: Iconox Mar 24 2011, 10:21 PM

Sorry if I've already posted here (can't totally remember xD)

I'm not into abortion much. In my opinion, if you choose to have unprotected sex and wind up pregnant, then it's not really the fault of the kid. Why should the unborn baby die? As Raven put it though, dying or knowing that your parents didn't want you are both pretty suckish so it's not really good either way.

That being said though, I wouldn't tell a person to not have an abortion. I see it as immoral but it's wrong in my opinion to force one's views upon another.

Posted by: MoogleSam Mar 25 2011, 03:23 AM

Well, the ones that were aborted would never truly know life and wouldn't know what was going on. However, children put up for adoption are either unwanted or the parents could no longer look after them. And as they get older it is less and less likely they will be adopted so I'd say the giving up children for adoption is the most depressing because if they aren't adopted, they grow up feeling unwanted. There are a select few that are adopted at 15+ but it is like children being sponsored, the youngest are all picked quite quickly because they are cute but the oldest ones take longer to get picked, if they are picked at all.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Mar 25 2011, 11:28 AM

I still find abortion depressing because you're still killing (human) life, it's just subjective from there because that life doesn't really have a conscience.

Posted by: MoogleSam Mar 25 2011, 05:18 PM

I don't find that depressing but I've never been that affected by the death of humans. I can see the reasons why you would find it depressing, the adoption thing just seems more depressing to me because they are alive but feel unwanted if not adopted. To me, emotional suffering is just worse than the death of someone that doesn't understand life.

Posted by: Iconox Mar 25 2011, 08:47 PM

I see your point. It's still murder in a way though; therefore, no matter how depressed the person could become, it's still taking their life.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Mar 25 2011, 09:59 PM

I mean we can beat around the bush with "what is murder" and "what isn't murder" but in the end I guess we can all agree to disagree that everyone's sense of justified and unjustified death is subjective in the case of abortion.

Posted by: Kira Wolf Mar 26 2011, 05:18 PM

I cannot remember if I posted here before, but I do not think abortion is right. You're giving up your own child. I think that is cold and heartless. If you did not want the baby in the first place, why have it? It just isn't right and in my opinion doesn't exactly make sense.
Whoever does abort though is cold and heartless, unless, they were doing it for a good reason. The only good way I can see you abort a child is if you cannot afford to take care of them or something like that, then it could appear to make sense and seem right.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Mar 27 2011, 01:11 AM

I find your stance contradictory, because it's hard/actually impossible to find the objective morality you want with abortions. I mean yeah, there are many people who would be absolutely fucked over if they didn't get an abortion, but there are many people that can afford to not have one and yet they still do it anyway just because they were abusing the system...

it's kind of hypocrisy if you say "well I had the murdering of innocent children" but then say "oh wait but THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS!" because that's showing a double standard... basically what i'm saying is the second half of your post directly contradicts the first half in a way that most people don't realize... so in legalizing abortion, pro-choice so to speak, we need to legalize all abortions as opposed to the ones that are done "for good reason." It's kind of a black-and-white issue as a result, because most wandering into the gray area has hypocrisy attached to it.

Posted by: Kira Wolf Mar 27 2011, 06:23 AM

Ah...yes. I apologize for my post, if it did not make sense. I do think all abortions should be legal like you said. Even if it is for a bad reason.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Mar 27 2011, 11:55 AM

Oh no, it made perfect sense, sorry if I worded myself awkwardly, but I just thought there was a bit of self-contradiction in there. You cleared it up by taking a stance, at any rate.

Posted by: MoogleSam Mar 27 2011, 01:01 PM

Condoms can break, the pill can fail, coils can come out (I heard that happened to one girl at my school but she didn't become pregnant), spermicides can fail, their drink could have been spiked so they became very drunk and no longer knew what they were doing, or so on. It is not always the person's fault if they become pregnant.

No, whoever does abort is not cold and heartless, they are ordinary people making a choice, not monsters with no hearts. Pretty much all reasons can be justified in some way to make it a good reason for abortion.

They don't want it? They could be abusive parents if forced to keep it, the contraception could have failed and they never wanted a child in the first place which could cause them to hate it and mistreat it due to that.

They can't afford it? Well, of course that is reasonable, right? Financial problems can happen suddenly.

If the fetus/baby is going to kill you? Then duh, that's a good reason. Adults can try to have another baby soon afterwards so it is not worth dying for.

If the baby is highly likely to have a mental condition or a disability, then once again, that is a good reason. Why? Children with mental conditions and/or disabilities are harder to care for and look after and cost more to look after than a child without them. People also have a harder time handling them and could become abusive or neglectful. They could also develop depression due to the stress of raising the child. They are more draining in general and though they aren't bad people, they can be too hard for people to raise.

They change their minds? Perfectly reasonable. They could realise they are too immature to raise a child and decide that abortion is the best solution. Again, could become abusive if forced to keep it.

They were raped? They could have psychological damage and be unable to care for it due to this or hate it because it has half of the DNA of their rapist and therefore act abusive or neglectful.

I actually can't think of a bad reason to get an abortion besides the reason that it is murder but I don't see it as wrong murder even if it would still be technically murder. It would be similar to killing a parasite in my mind because that is what it is until it is born, a parasite. It is relying on the mother for everything: oxygen, water, food, getting rid of waste and protection. People have every right to get rid of parasites because they make them unwell, which is what children do until born too. Sometimes people can't handle that, no one likes feeling sick after all.

However, despite the reasons of getting an abortion being easily justified, the getting pregnant in the first place isn't always for a good reason and isn't as easily justified at times. :/

Giving them up for adoption is another option but as I mentioned in my last few posts here, children not adopted can feel unloved and unwanted if not adopted. That can lead to depression and them ending their own lives which is worse than the parents ending it before they understand life. Or it can lead to self-esteem issues, an 'everyone hates me' mindset which can lead them to harm others on purpose, or it could just make them angry as hell that they were abandoned before given a chance. It could seriously affect their personality really.

Posted by: Iconox Mar 27 2011, 02:23 PM

Yeah, those are all reasons that people would use to justify having an abortion; however, one can justify anything. When it comes down to it, there is no wrong or right murder.

Posted by: PikaDiety Mar 27 2011, 10:23 PM

Uh, abortion isn't murder.>.> That is one of the stupidest arguments out there on the anti-choice side. (Who I refuse to call pro-life, considering there are so many contradictions on that side of the spectrum. But that's for another post.) Until the fetus is born, it is a fetus, not a baby. A fetus is a lot like an internal parasite. And those aren't bullshit excuses, they are true. It is also true that the adoption system is complete crap and a lot of children grow up without any love. Even if it was murder to abort a fetus, I would rather kill my own fetus than give them to the adoption system. And that does not make me cold hearted. Especially with the fact that children depend on human touch to grow and function, especially babies. So, being denied the love and attention they need after being put in the adoption system is much more cruel than abortion. Add in the fact that fetuses do not have souls and cannot feel pain, your argument is invalid.

Posted by: Iconox Mar 28 2011, 06:21 PM

When did I say I wasn't pro-choice? If you want to kill your child, who am I to stop you? Once the kid has a beating heart, it's alive from a biological standpoint. And yes, after 20 weeks a fetus can feel pain. I just don't enjoy the parent making the decision of whether or not their child gets to live. But, unlike the converse, I respect your opinion and will not criticize it.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Mar 28 2011, 11:35 PM

MoogleSam, I'm not sure who you're trying to convince, considering they already stated their stance to be essentially agreeing with you. Unless you were arguing on principle and not stance.

Make that post.

Well first off, "soul" is subjective too considering people like me, while we are spiritual to some extent, actually don't necessarily believe in the concept of the "soul" at all. You can't objectively prove that abortion is not murder while bringing in a subjective argument, it's not the right way to prove your point.

Furthermore, the fetus is literally alive. You are killing life, no matter what, and murder is the killing of a living being essentially. It is also human, genetically, so you are technically killing another human, if you want to get into the actual technicalities of it (since you're calling the fetus a parasite, which is technically true).

Though, from there, as I've said too many times before, what constitutes moral/legal murder and what does not is up to you; conscience vs non-conscience.

You seem extremely cold about the way you present your point, but I feel as if we are able to speak like we do -- in saying we'd abort a fetus if we needed to -- because we haven't been in that situation. I don't disagree with your stance (I'm pro-choice), but I'm just saying you're far too adamant with dismissing everything in your post. As far as I can see you're listing reasons not to place babies up for adoption as opposed to allowing abortions to occur. The two are related, very little, but it still feels like kind of a stretch to justify abortion with "they'll live shitty lives anyway..." which is not necessarily true, considering many could end up productive with their lives regardless of adoption.

Posted by: MoogleSam Mar 29 2011, 04:45 PM

I wasn't exactly trying to convince anyone but more explain that there aren't really bad reasons for abortions and why they would get them because Kira Wolf said it didn't really make sense to her(?) unless they couldn't afford it. As well as explaining that the pregnancies may not always be the person's fault though of course, sometimes it is and that the pregnancies themselves could be for a bad reason.

Though it was stated she was pro-choice, I didn't look at this actual page again until I finished my reply as well sooooo, yeah. XD

Posted by: Blueberry Apr 5 2011, 10:33 PM

I really do think abortions should just be legalized and it made a law not to harass these people. You have a right to protest but when my friend got her abortion this lady basically made her cry and it's things and vicious acts like this that make me hate people who make you pick a side. She wanted to give up the child for adoption but it was simply not working for her with her drug use so that was her option.

When I looked at the children of Chernobyl I would of given the child up for abortion because they suffer more alive than letting their "souls" be placed into another being to be reborn into a potentially better lifestyle.

After reading "What Dreams May Come" by Richard Matheson (which had nothing to do with abortion; just life and death) I did get another view on abortion. That what is growing inside your belly is a vessel for another being. And if the soul inside it has not..."taken" then the life is not wasted. Just simply placed elsewhere.

I actually hate that the two common reasons "pro-choice" people argue for abortion is "what about rape?" or "what if it's born into a family that can't take care of it properly?" but really if a person can seriously walk into a clinic and give up the thing (I say thing because I do not consider them a person or a living being until it is actually born) growing in their belly and seriously deal with the emotional bitch-slap an abortion is than go for it.

These pictures are HIGHLY DISTURBING in some of these links, so be careful unless you are ready for reality:
For things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster (if you have not seen the pictures of the victims from this then do google them) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_tube_defect such as http://www.anencephalie-info.org/e/stories.php..I could not morally bring that child into the world without thinking I would be damned to where ever I was going if there is an afterlife.

Abortion depends on the person but I don't think the government has ANY right to take a woman's right to choose away from her and no one has the right to bitch at a woman for what she wants to do cause you don't have to live with her choice, she does. If god wants to punish her for what she has done then let Him do it. It is NOT your job or the governments.

Posted by: Skins T Apr 13 2011, 06:41 AM

I've noticed that a lot of people seem to miss two key things, too:

Pro-Choice = Supporting the choice to make an abortion, not always abortion itself.

Pro-Abortion = Supporting abortion itself.

While it might seem like a minute difference, it's actually a rather large one. I consider myself Pro-Choice, but I am not Pro-Abortion. I dislike the idea of abortion yet I have the brains to know that it is necessary in this day and age.

I think that Pro-Lifer's seem to be living in this fairytale world where every form of birth control works 100%, that rape doesn't happen, that woman AND men are good little angels and don't have sex until marriage, and who think that every woman who has an abortion is a slut/whore. [And may I point out that most Pro-Lifer's I have come across are either all of the above or only some of it]

What needs to change is this mindset. Woman are NOT all whores and sluts. Woman are NOT incubators without rights, not anymore. So I don't think anyone should come in here and say 'she deserved it', or 'she should deal with it.'

No. You [in general] are an idiot if you believe that it is the woman's fault every time if she falls pregnant. And you are an even bigger idiot if you think that woman should be forced to raise that child for the rest of her life.

Because yes, it is not 18 years people. It is until the child's life ends or the mother's life ends, whichever comes first.

So to any future Pro-Lifer who stumbles into this thread with their biased crap, I ask you this - Get out of your mother's basement/Bible/bedroom and open your eyes to the real world. It isn't your fantasy land where everything is chipper.

Posted by: Blueberry Apr 14 2011, 12:04 PM

@Skin-T: No one uses the term "Pro-abortion" even if you are an abortion supporter, you wouldn't use that term. Really in the argument it's either "pro-life" or "pro-choice". Whether those who agree with abortion as a right thing or not if you think it's up to the individuals right to choose then you are pro-choice. I, personally, would take offense to someone calling me "pro-abortion" (though I am) there is just a more euphemistic way of putting it (and it does spark instant debate if called it in public.) But Pro-choice can be applied to other things like gay-marriage.

I do agree though that our society is becoming a little bit too radical to honestly say that the bible is to be followed to the letter. And I went to the clinic and got birth control for free without any judgment. So really those who close their eyes off to things like birth control are usually turned off by their families because they do not believe in such things. They would rather their teenage children remain virgins (lmao) and not have sex (LOL) then consider something like birth control.

Posted by: daniff Apr 15 2011, 03:42 AM

well if you have sex without contraception at a time when a child isn't ideal isn't that your fault if your life takes a turn for the worst....?

(rape is different)
if you chose to abort then you will have to live with the fact that your life could have been different (better or worse) and that you could have a had that child and if everything worked out it could have been amazing.

i would like to think that in most cases i would keep the child, but prolly i wouldn't, but i do think it would hurt to think that i was too immature/selfish to try and make it work.

Posted by: Galahawk Apr 15 2011, 03:06 PM

A person's quality of life can change in the blink of an eye. The mother may suddenly experience health issues that could threaten the life or potential lifestyle of the child. That or the child you're carrying might have a high potential to be born with a debilitating mental or physical condition due to your genetics, and you hadn't known this at the time you got pregnant. Children with mental or personality issues are much, much more difficult and expensive to raise than those without. (I would know because over my lifetime, I had to have occupational as well as psychiatric therapy which included expensive meds, and had to be placed in different classes at school due to the fact that I've had a learning disability for as long as I can remember. Add all this onto the fact that in elementary school I had to change schools twice and be homeschooled all throughout junior high due to issues that arose due to my problems.)
People can also lose their jobs, home, go bankrupt, or have their lives turned upside-down at any time, and these sudden changes may make the potential parents reconsider, and instead choose to have a child when they're back on their feet rather than in the middle of a crisis that didn't happen until AFTER they got pregnant.

I will agree with you that if the person is of age, in a good place in their life, the child will have a high chance or guarantee to be born normal and healthy, and no problems arise throughout the entire pregnancy, then they really have no reason to abort it. At that point and ONLY that point, to me, it seems more like they're aborting it just because they changed their mind. That goes without saying, of course, I personally believe that a woman should always have a choice.

Posted by: amberfunk Apr 18 2011, 06:40 PM

After years of being pro-life I have just come to the conclusion that I am pro-choice. But I am only pro-choice in certain situations: rape, the woman's life is in danger, the baby might not live and birth defects/genetic disorders. If a woman (teenagers, etc) decides to have sex without protection and knows full well that she could become pregnant by not using protection and becomes pregnant and wants to have an abortion, I have no sympathy for them at all. Accidents happen but it's not an accident when you choose not to use protection. Those women should pick adoption. The adoption rates for infants are very high and the child will more than likely go to a good family.

In cases of rape abortion I feel would be the only way. I myself could not raise that child and I don't think many others could either. Also if the child is given up for adoption or the mother decides to raise it there is a high likelihood that the child could grow up to become a rapist as well or have mental problems because of their genetic coding.

If the woman's life is in danger of course abortion is ok. Of course I'm sure that some women might choose to still go on with the pregnancy and deliver.

If the baby might not live abortion is of course acceptable by all means. I don't think anyone would want that child to be born and to suffer if they might just die anyway.

Birth defects and genetic disorders. There is a lot of birth defects and genetic disorders that abortion would be likely the only option, spina bifida, cystic fibrosis, heart defects etc. With these the child will more than likely have a crappy quality of life that I don't think anyone would want a child to have to live through or the child will die as with some heart defects.

Some personal reasons why I am pro-choice:
My cousin became pregnant last year by sleeping around, she was 19. My cousin also has the mentality of a twelve year old or younger and has no means to take care of a baby, no job and not going to school to better herself. She gave birth to a baby girl. The baby died less than a week later. She had a heart defect. My uncle and aunt were devastated. This could have been avoided had my cousin used birth control or had an abortion.

I became pregnant in 2007 when I was a senior in highschool. I was on birth control and also taking mood stabilizers that were in pregnancy category d. I would have had that baby but the risk of it being born with a disabling disorder was enough to make my decision. I would not have wanted a child to have to live like that.

And as a response to the fetus not being able to feel pain, a fetus can feel pain as early as 16 weeks.

Posted by: Iconox Apr 18 2011, 07:26 PM

I can understand your opinion; though, just because someone's a rapist doesn't mean that their child will become one. Crimes aren't part of one's genetic makeup. Now, schizophrenia could be inherited; however, there is no 'rape' gene.

Posted by: amberfunk Apr 18 2011, 08:09 PM

Sorry I should have made it clearer. I didn't mean that rape is in a person's genetic coding. Just like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other personality disorders are inheritable through genetics so are the disorders that a lot of rapists have. That's what I meant that the child could inherit that particular genetic coding for some mental disorder that could cause them to become rapists or something else that's bad.

Or perhaps that a child that is a product of rape finds out somewhere along the line in their life that they are the product of rape it could cause the cycle of that child becoming like their father who was a rapist. Just like in abusive homes the child/ren could themselves grow up to be abusive.

I'm not saying that all children that are the product of rape grow up to be bad people. I'm just saying that is what might happen in a bunch of different possibilities.

Posted by: Romeo Apr 18 2011, 08:31 PM

I'm against abortion. You should pay for your mistakes, it breaks my heart when i see aborted young babys who will never get a chance in this world. Imagine, thousands of people "TRY" to make babies all the time but they sadly dont succeed with their plans to make a family. My friends mom was trying for 20 years to have a child, the doctor said it will be a miracle if she got pregnaent and if she did, the baby will surely die within a month, my friends mom proved that doctor square wrong <3 :] this topic is so . . . . ehhhh....

Posted by: Skins T Apr 19 2011, 08:05 AM

I've seen many Pro-Lifer's group those who are pro-abortion and pro-choice together in the one group, and the Pro-Choicer's argueing that what you are saying isn't the case. You'll find that many people who identify as pro-choice may or may not identify as pro-abortion.

You are one that does, I'm one that doesn't. It's not meant as an offense to you so much as a differing of opinion on what someone chooses to support.



Whose fault? The mother's or the fathers? A friend of mine engaged in consensual sex with a partner who removed his condom without her consent. Should she be blamed for getting pregnant?



No, it isn't. The end result is the same. How the child got conceived should not matter.



I'll word this another way:

if you chose not to abort then you will have to live with the fact that your life could have been different (better or worse) and that you could have not a had that child and if everything worked out it could have been amazing.



So if a 9 year old is raped, falls pregnant, and gets an abortion, do you think she's selfish?



*Laughs bitterly. HARD*

Even if adoption rates for infants are high, are you aware that, according to adoption rates, about 1 in 100 children are actually adopted into 'good' families?

And also, I'll ask you the same question as the poster above: Why is how the fetus is conceived matter to you? The end result is the same no matter how it happened: the fetus gets aborted. Instead of judging woman for aborting, why not judge those who seek to stop sexual education, the root of problems in regards to this?

I also find it extremely ironic that you consider yourself better than other woman, considering you had an abortion. What, are you above other woman, are you? You're exactly the same as every other woman whose ever had an abortion. You had sex, you got pregnant, you had an abortion. It's as simple as that.

I implore you to read this: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html Enjoy.



Wrong. This was proven as false and pro-life propaganda.



Once again, I'll reword this:

I'm against abortion. The child should pay for your mistakes, it breaks my heart when i see young woman who will never get a chance in this world.

And no amount of aborted babies will make your mother, or anyone else who is sterile, fertile. Think about that.

Posted by: The Contributor Apr 19 2011, 12:02 PM

Freedom of choice, definitely. Women should do what they want with their bodies, and there is also the case of lack of money/support, and we have enough homeless/orphaned children and babies already.

Posted by: amberfunk Apr 19 2011, 02:51 PM

I never said that I was better than other women that have had abortions. I simply said that I had good reason too being that the baby had over a 90% chance of being born with a disabling illness that I wouldn't want my child to go through. All I said was that if a woman, who is a teenager or otherwise, is going to have sex then she should be using protection and not use the fact that they didn't use protection an excuse for having an abortion. Also the lack of sex education is not always the case for some women that have sex without protection. I've known people that have had the best sex education and gone on to have sex without protection and got pregnant. I don't think it's right to abort when they could have done something to prevent getting pregnant in the first place. That's all I'm saying. I don't think it's right but also no one should be able to stop them from getting an abortion if they want one. It's my opinion and everyone has a right to one.

Don't say that I'm exactly the same as every other woman who has ever had an abortion or that all women that have had abortions are the same in their reasons or otherwise. Every woman that has had an abortion had one for their own reasons.

Posted by: Romeo Apr 19 2011, 03:15 PM

hmmmm... what a democrat answer?


I did not think it was necessary to reword or dissect and switch around little words in my sentence?

Did you even read among the whole statement I put about this topic? I said "friends mother" my mother did have 2 wonderful, beautiful children, my brother & I. She had one mis-carriage so yeah, why don't you think about that when your aborting your 7 month old baby who couldv'e been the next person to make an antidote for Aids or Cancer Just Saying !

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Apr 19 2011, 07:20 PM

I thank you for wording it like this but this point really irks me whenever someone brings it up. It almost feels like people are being punished for unprotected sex, and how unprotected sex sounds like such a sin that they should be punished with a baby or something like that. Something like that just irks me an extreme amount about this stream of logic...


(sorry, it's one point in a plethora of points that were made, i'm sick of arguing abortion since the other thread really got up my ass and there were like 20 pages of arguing between Reyo and I out of a 105+ page thread... got locked cause some asshole decided to be a troll in it)

Posted by: The Contributor Apr 19 2011, 07:51 PM

Well it certainly seems that your day hasn't been... stress free? Is that the right phrase?

It's the internet and I don't see much of a reason for some nobody to get on your nerves (correct me if I'm wrong).

Posted by: amberfunk Apr 19 2011, 08:25 PM

In the u.s. it's illegal to abort that far along in a pregnancy in most states. Not sure what the laws are elsewhere. Just thought I'd point that out.



I didn't mean for it to sound like I think that people should be punished with a baby if they have unprotected sex. It's a bit hard to explain in text for me. I guess just to clarify I think that people should think before they have sex about the consequences. To sum up I think people should use some sort of birth control and if they do get pregnant and want to have an abortion that they should really sit down and think of all the possible outcomes and choices. I get the feeling that a lot of people (I'm not saying that everyone does think this way) think that having an abortion is an easy fix and that there is no consequences (for lack of a better word) and then everything will be ok. I have never heard of anyone having an abortion being 100% back to the way they were before they had one. There is a lot of emotions involved. So this is my opinion yes people should have a choice whether or not to abort but I think that there should be some counseling involved or something of the sort to make sure that they are making an informed decision for the well being of the woman.

Posted by: Romeo Apr 19 2011, 08:42 PM

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

<3 XD idk why but your posts always making me laugh or happy ;3; love you amberfunk

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Apr 19 2011, 09:21 PM

Your point? It irks me when it's used in debate. Yes, I've had somewhat of a stressful day (and the week prior was pretty stressful too) but I'm not at all expressing that in my post. The second half of the post was merely the fact that I already debated abortion to death and i am completely done with it lol pretty powerful stalemate though, abortion's an extremely controversial subject since there are two legitimate sides to it, especially because the people on either of the sides are even morally dissonant themselves.

Hmm, it's still kind of a strange logic that irks me, because that's still labeling the baby as a consequence. I know you didn't mean for it to sound like that, but that's ultimately what the argument ends up summarizing to, since I know you tried even harder to stray away from it (don't, you actually got closer to implying that it's more of a punishment :P) but it's just the strangest argument in the world for people to say "it's human life!" and then follow it up with "they should've had protected sex! it's their fault the child was conceived!".. i don't like the argument at all.

Posted by: The Contributor Apr 19 2011, 09:36 PM

No point at all, it's just my opinion. However it's very understandable if you're going through hell week. Lol, it's funny how many subjects there are that is considered touchy (on the topic of abortion).

Though I see what you're getting at. You can only discuss abortion for so long. Not quite as large (or dangerous for that matter) as politics or religion.

I'm probably going to get out of here before some people start calling me out. Debates on abortion isn't quite my forte.

Posted by: Skins T Apr 19 2011, 09:46 PM

A good reason to you. My point is, reasoning shouldn't matter. The minute you bring reasoning into account is when abortions get limited to those who need it. How are you going to prove to a practitioner that your 'reason' is true?



It takes two to tango, mate. Are you saying that only woman should be using protection? If so, then how very sexist of you. I hope that that isn't the case.

Either way, of all abortions performed in the US, only 7% of those were done on woman who had completely unprotected sex. Of that 7%, 4% were unable to use any form of contraceptive for medical reasons.

So the woman you are pointing the finger at make up for only 3% of all abortions performed. Seems kind of biased to judge woman like that, don't you think?



Just as I've seen woman who took all precautions and got pregnant anyway be denyed an abortion for not having a 'good enough reason'. It goes both ways.



And those reasons should not mean a thing to you. You ARE the same as every other woman whose had an abortion, because in the eyes of someone who is Pro-Life, your reasoning means nothing. You're just another 'murderer' to them.

So what makes you so very different from the woman who get pregnant carelessly? You had sex, you got pregnant, you dealt with it. Other woman, regardless of how it happened, had sex, got pregnant, and then also dealt with it.

You are no different than any other woman who has had an abortion. The ONLY difference is what you wrote down on the consent form as your excuse. In the end, your result is exactly the same as any other woman who has an abortion, regardless of circumstances.

And of course, you have the right to have an opinion. I never said once that you didn't. However, I am also exercising my own right to have one too.



Typical American response, aligning me to a party that doesn't exist in my country. My opinions are my opinions, thank you very much.



Well I could say the same about your entire opinion, but I digress.



I read your statement entirely, and posted my response. My point still stands.

And just as the fetus's could be great doctors, they could also be the next Adolf Hitler. BTW, did you know his mother was thinking about aborting him?

Aah, the plot thickens doesn't it?

Posted by: Romeo Apr 19 2011, 10:05 PM

like you said, Opinions are opinions and in my "typical american country" freedom of speech

so let it be,

EDIT: To say something else, when a pregnant women gets murdered or killed, it will say "2 were killed or died" since it says that the women and the unborn fetus dies, doesnt it mean that you are brutally killing a life when you preform an abortion it thickens even more ?

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Apr 19 2011, 10:11 PM

Yes because every single American on this forum (and the internet) keeps saying "what a democrat answer" or "what a republican answer" with no further things to say on that point.

Posted by: The Contributor Apr 19 2011, 10:15 PM

I'm American.

And I pay no attention to politics. To me it's just orangutans in tuxedos arguing on television.

Posted by: Skins T Apr 19 2011, 10:43 PM

Its called double standards. Look it up.

And you can use your power of freedom of speech as much as you like, however I can use mine to disagree with you.



Mhm, because I totally said that. :/

I have seen that many posters from America liken rebuttle answers to particular parties that it, for me, became typical. Hence my reply.



Haha, that's an insult to the orangutans. XD

Posted by: The Contributor Apr 19 2011, 10:56 PM

I rest my case.

~

Abortion is something I don't particularly agree with. If you don't want a baby, don't have unprotected sex. In the cases of rape or broken condom or something of the sort, then that's more understandable. If you cannot afford to take care of a baby, that's understandable IN THE CASE that you were using protection. If you cannot afford a baby, don't go have sex unprotected.
Nowadays, common sense isn't very common.

Posted by: Skins T Apr 19 2011, 11:00 PM

It isn't so much common sense is so much that a lot of people aren't educated properly in the field of sexual education. A lot of teens don't know how to put a condom on a penis, for instance.

Then of course, there is the problem with restricted access to contraception.

Also, how would you react to a couple who for whatever reasons, could not use any form of contraception? Should they never have sex?

I'll also ask you too: Why is reasoning so important? In the end, no matter the reason, if a woman gets pregnant and has an abortion, it's no different to another woman who got pregnant and had an abortion. The results are the same.

Moral reasoning is a fickle thing, and even more fickle in debates.

Posted by: The Contributor Apr 19 2011, 11:11 PM

I don't know about you, but I find condoms rather primitive.

As for the couple without any means of protection, it's a difficult thing to think through. Um... ejaculate outside I suppose, but whatever happens, happens. That's a hard one to say to be honest. But the people without any means of protection are either primitive and have a baby and accept it, or homeless people (who may have tried stealing condoms or something? I dunno).

Well, whoever they are, it's their opinion. We don't have to think it's right, but we shouldn't intervene on their lives in the first thing.

Posted by: Skins T Apr 19 2011, 11:18 PM

Uh, I have a friend who cannot use any form of contraception, and they're not homeless or primitive. :/ The male is allergic to the latex used in condoms, and the woman is unable to use birth control or diaphrams. They are a married couple who until recently were not ready for children.

Luckily, when they had a surprise pregnancy, they were able to handle it.

And while ejaculating outside can prevent pregnancy, it doesn't always work. ^^;

I wish more people would take this in their stride.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Apr 19 2011, 11:25 PM

Yes I did exaggerate but the point still stands. I'm not sure where you've been lurking but I have never seen that as any sort of rebuttal to a general debate. Having that said, if someone's going to be using that argument, they may as well use the other side (republicans) as an insult and not democrats.

Posted by: Skins T Apr 20 2011, 12:30 AM

I've debated this issue and others on many sites so I've seen some pretty stupid responses. Party choice/influence comes up a lot, surprisingly.

Posted by: The Contributor Apr 20 2011, 12:38 AM

"You're such a Democrat!"

"Oh don't you get all sassy with me, Republican!"



And there I am, like, "Can I just shoot you both?"

Posted by: amberfunk Apr 20 2011, 12:49 AM

Thanks that just made my day:)


Ah, so basically everyone could just keep going around and around on the topic of abortion and will always wind up with the same arguments. I wonder if it will ever be solved.

And just throwing it out there, not to get my head bit off or anything, but it's a good read and pertains to the whole debate of pro-life vs. pro-choice. If you all ever get a chance you should read it, Unwind by Neal Shusterman. It's about the pro-lifers and pro-choicers coming to a compromise and gives a different take on the whole thing. I'm in no way suggesting that anyone does what they did in the book, I'm just throwing it out there.


That is true that reasoning shouldn't matter then. Using reasoning does just make it to where anything gets limited. I see your point. Well put.




I meant that both parties should use protection. Thanks for pointing that out. I accidentally mistyped on that one. Also was not aware of the statistics.



Also just throwing out there that there is also lambskin condoms that can be used for people allergic to latex. It prevents pregnancy but not std's.

Posted by: Iconox Apr 20 2011, 08:26 PM

Fetuses feel pain anywhere from 18 to 29 weeks; regardless of whatever political/religious persuasions you may have, that's a biological fact. As a Christian (and simply a person that finds the idea of killing a defenseless human, born or unborn, to be disturbing), I abhor the institution of abortion. On another note however, I have not/will never experience the thought process that occurs when a woman learns that she is pregnant and does not want the baby. It may not seem wrong to get the process done, but it just comes down to a moral question.

Posted by: amberfunk Apr 20 2011, 08:41 PM

Actually, and I just looked this up, it is still unknown as to whether an older fetus can feel pain. The technology that we have is not sufficent to figure that out. They could do brain scans and the brain would light up in certain areas but that does not mean that the fetus is feeling pain, it might be feeling something else. So no it's not a biological fact that a fetus can feel pain because no one knows. Although one would think that after the nervous system develops that the fetus does feel pain but again no one knows.

Posted by: Skins T Apr 21 2011, 08:33 PM

As Amberfunk said, there is no proof yet of that. Cite your sources, please.



Many Christians I know also support abortion. There is nothing in the Bible the says abortion is wrong or right, but you might be interested to know that Abortion EXISTS AND IS PERFORMED in the Bible.

Numbers 5:12-14
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: If any man's wife go aside, and act unfaithfully against him, and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act; and the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled in conception; or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled in conception;... [Skipping some of it which just explains about the offering)

Numbers 5: 16-24
And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before HaShem. And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water. And the priest shall set the woman before HaShem, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, and put the meal-offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal-offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that causeth the curse against fruit of the womb.
And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;
but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--and be by him then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the HaShem make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when HaShem doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell; and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy fruit to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'
And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness.
And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

[Blah blah ritual]

Numbers 5:27
And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and have acted unfaithfully against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her fruit shall fall away in blood; and the woman shall be a curse among her people.

It's pretty cut and dry explanation about "Hey, the herbs used to consecrate the temple are abortifacents, and here's how you induce herbal abortion if someone cheats,"

FYI, that's a direct translation from the Hebrew Bible, so it's far more accurate than the other english translations.



I'm pretty sure most woman don't go in with the mentality of liking the idea.



Assuming you're male (that is, as your profile has you listed as), if you got a woman pregnant, would you force her to keep it, or understand that her choices are hers and hers alone?

Posted by: KyoushiroTheSilver Sep 4 2011, 07:14 PM

Her uterus, her choice. Whether the condom broke, she was raped, or teen pregnancy - doesn't matter. As long as it is before the baby has developed enough and feels it(I think it is six months - ?), I think it's fine.

Posted by: Skins T Sep 17 2011, 01:33 AM

22-24 weeks is the general consensus.

Posted by: Dubbleyew Apr 11 2012, 07:43 PM

I’m very pro-choice. I believe women should be allowed to have abortions for any reason, even reasons I may personally disagree with. I’ll explain why.

First of all, I'll address the concept of considering an embryo a person.

Consider how twins are formed. Identical twins are formed AFTER conception when one embryo splits into two. (That’s why they have the same DNA) How do we determine their personhood? Are they only one person because only one conception took place?

Also consider fraternal twin embryos that sometimes fuse together into one embryo. Fraternal twins occur differently than that of identical twins, two conceptions take place with different sperm and egg cells causing them to have different DNA and be no different from any other siblings aside from being born together. Once in awhile two fraternal twin embryos might fuse together into one, causing the born person to have two different sets of DNA in different body parts. Even though they’re born as one physical organism, should we consider them two different people, since there were two conceptions and at one time two embryos that fused together into one, and because they have two different DNA sets?

Of course there’s other questions the concept raises, such as, if there was a burning building where vials of several embryos were in one room, and a 4-year-old child was in another room, which do you save? If you content that embryos are people just the same as you and me, then you’re morally obligated to let the 4 year old burn to death to save the embryos, since there’s several of them you’d save more “people” that way.

Plus, do you have a funeral every time a woman miscarries? If not then why not? Do you celebrate conception days instead of birthdays? If not then why not?

Thing is, it’s not proven that embryos can feel pain until the third trimester, or even that they’re at all sentient or autonomous beings. It IS proven however, that women CAN feel pain and that women ARE sentient, autonomous beings. Shouldn’t we favor the rights of the one we KNOW is sentient over the rights of the one that only MIGHT be?

That brings me to the next issue, the implications it has on women and their rights.

There were some cases in which women have been arrested for having miscarriages, because they were suspected of not wanting the baby. I remember there was a case in either Utah or Iowa I don't remember which, where a woman fell down the stairs on accident and then had a miscarriage. When she was talking to the nurse in the hospital, she admitted that she had previously thought about having an abortion (but changed her mind) that's when she was arrested. For a thought crime. In a world where embryos are considered people, the bodily rights of women become severely restricted. What they can do, what they can eat, what they can drink, what they can admit to thinking about, etc, sometimes before they even know they're pregnant.

Plus there are SO many situations one would consider abortion that a lot of people don't even think about before they go harass people in front of planned parenthood clinics. Having diabetes can make for a risky pregnancy. Suspecting you might have cancer but not able to undergo a certain screening while you're pregnant. Being on anti-depression meds. Those things probably wouldn't fall under an exception to an anti-abortion law that allows them if the woman's life is threatened, but these circumstances can still cause a woman to be more likely to die if she doesn't get an abortion. The "pro-life" position I don't really consider to be "pro-life" because it doesn't save fetuses, it just kills women.

For those who think abortion is ONLY okay if a woman is raped, I don’t like the argument of “if a woman has sex she should bear the consequences” that is essentially saying women should be punished for enjoying sex. It’s slut-shaming and sexist at its core. Hospitals don’t refuse to treat lung cancer patients who got cancer by smoking and very few people argue that they shouldn’t, even though they got cancer through their own fault. We don’t tell them to “suffer the consequences” we let them get treatment if they want it.

It's not "shirking responsibility" if someone gets an abortion after a condom breaks or whatever, in many cases that may be the more responsible choice. It requires you to acknowledge the fact that you're pregnant and take action. Whether or not you agree with that action is not relevant, that doesn't make it irresponsible.

For those who DON’T think abortion is okay even if a woman is raped, consider this; If someone is dying of kidney failure, and you’re the only person within 100 miles who has the same blood type and you could save their life by donating a kidney, can the government force you to do it, even to save that person’s life? NO. The right to life does NOT entitle you to use someone else’s body against their will to survive. Even if YOU’RE the one who CAUSED their kidney failure by drunk driving and ramming your car into them, you still can’t be forced to relinquish any rights to your body, your organs, or anything on that personal level. Yeah you may have to give up money or service or serve jail time, but nobody can perform any medical procedure or deny you certain medical procedures against your consent regardless.

So then my question is, why should pregnant women have to? Why should women be the ONLY people in society who are required to give up their bodily rights and autonomy for what you believe to be someone else?

And no, it’s not the embryo’s fault if the woman is raped, nobody ever says it is, but it’s not the woman’s fault either. Raped women don’t get abortions to “punish” the embryo, they get abortions to preserve their own bodily autonomy and not have to give birth against their will.

And yes I also realize that some raped women do choose go through with the pregnancy and give birth. And that’s perfectly fine if that is their choice. But the key point there is that they CHOSE it. That doesn’t mean ALL women should be FORCED against their will to give birth if they don’t want to, especially after a rape.

Forcing someone to do something with their bodies that they don’t want to do, again, IS essentially rape and it’s re-victimizing.

Let's not forget that around 60% of rapes aren't even reported, even fewer get a conviction. If we were to restrict abortion based on whether or not the woman is raped, you end up with a lot of raped women who were raped but unable to prove it who can't get an abortion.

In conclusion I am 100% pro-choice, because I believe that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy outweighs that of an insentient, non-thinking, non-feeling being. It’s impossible to assign two sets of completely equal rights to beings that share a single body, because if they ever conflict, a choice has to be made as to which one trumps the other. And I think the sentient woman’s rights trumps the insentient embryo’s rights.

I’ve known people who have gotten abortions, and it’s a lot different than how people stereotype them. They don’t regret their choices like many believe, and in fact abortion saved their lives in some cases...say for example you're in an abusive marriage. Having a baby would tie you down financially to your abusive husband and make it much more difficult to leave him. Having an abortion and then being more capable of leaving him can prevent you from being killed by abusive people like that...

If you're personally against abortion and would never have one yourself, that's fine. When I say I'm pro-choice I really mean pro-choice, that means if you WANT to have a baby then I'm 100% supportive of you deciding to have a baby. Just please don't deny that choice to other women who may make a different one than you.

Posted by: sinx Apr 29 2012, 06:14 AM

Prochoice but as long as it's kept following the rules of around 22 weeks. If the foetus has a good chance of survival outside for the womb with modern medicine, then it's wrong. I see abortion as murder but that would never stop me having one.

Posted by: Reyo Apr 29 2012, 05:29 PM

Not sure what the main point is that this snippet is trying to make. Are you trying to prove that, because twins are different people, embryos are not people? Usually people don't look at DNA when determining someone's personality. Yes, it's important, but it's shared experiences, and commonality that seem to determine someone's "validity" as a person.



There's a question medics have to run through every time there's a MASCAL situation, which is "Who here has the best chance at survival with the worst injuries." Someone with a sucking chest wound has the same chance of survival as someone with a missing limb, but the person with the missing limb has the more severe injury so he's treated first. Once that person is stable, you move on to the person with the sucking chest wound. With that said, I wouldn't save the 4 year old just because he's a "person" and the embryos are not, I'd save the 4 year old because he has the greatest chance of survival. Why are the embryos in jars? When I'm told something like that, I get the image that it's because they're already dead, and are being preserved for some random scientific purpose, so "saving" them would do nothing. In order for an embryo to have the best chance of survival, they need to be incubating inside of a womb, but I'm guessing that wouldn't work for the analogy since the fact that the embryos are attached to a "valid" life would dilute the point.



Some things are done for the sake of ease and efficiency. Most people might not remember when their child was conceived, but will most definitely remember when their child is born. Ad holding funerals for aborted fetuses would be a waste of money and resources given the amount of abortions that take place, and the idea that when a mother has an abortion, there's usually a level of dissonance that has to be relieved that would only be agitated if the child were "humanized" by being given a funeral.



Sentience and pain are convergent factors that are completely irrelevant to whether or not an organism is "alive".



To be honest, that's a completely different issue. That's more "How much blame can we put on someone for a thought" rather than "Should we abort unwanted fetuses".



Don't you think you're generalizing when you try to pass off the point that everyone who's "pro-life" is just refusing to acknowledge that pregnancy complications can occur that make the birthing process a greater risk than the removal of the fetus?



Well, for one, there's no physical, brain altering addiction associated with sex that there is with nicotine. Second, there is no "male oppressive alternative motive" that's even remotely true when it's said that women should be "punished for enjoying sex". I'm fairly certain that the argument I've seen is more that if a women is completely irresponsible, she should have to deal with her choices. Most of what I've seen is that abortion is acceptable is contraceptive is used, and fails, but shouldn't be allowed if the parents were just irresponsible.



As I already said...



I'm having trouble associating this analogy with abortion. What is the government physically forcing me onto the operating table to give my kidney support supposed to signify? Are you saying that people are physically forcing these women to not have abortions? That's...what?



The same question can be asked with respect to the embryo, why should the embryo be the only "people" in society who are required to give up their bodily rights? Because they're "less than a person"? They are human, and they are alive, so the only criteria being used are convergent factors that are completely independent of whether or not someone is "alive".



Associating that with rape is essentially resorting to emotionally charged terms to try and get your point across.



Again, we're back to convergent factors being applied to whether or not something is valid for "life". Sentience, and the ability to think are completely independent to life. Tell me, what are your thoughts on comatose patients?



What? How common are these specific occurrences, where having a child would 100%, without a doubt directly result in the death of the mother by way of the abusive spouse? I understand, and agree with where you're coming from, I really do, but I can't help but feel that most of your argument is founded in emotionally charged feelings that are causing your argument to sound inherently flawed.



Most of human action is founded in dissonance, and the removal of that dissonance when it pops up. If it helps you to dehumanize a very human fetus to hold a certain viewpoint, then that's your own issue, but given biological science, which isn't subject to change on a whim as is true for the human mind, the fetus is a very human, very alive organism. As long as you recognize those facts I have no quarrel with your opinion.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Apr 29 2012, 11:45 PM

what the fuck is a convergent factor

seriously, you keep using that term


also, reyo, may i add; you're basing whether or not a woman is allowed to have an abortion on semantics. stating that certain things are "Convergent" factors is more or less what i'm getting at; it's dumb. I just dont see any reason to allow someone that is unborn and taking residence inside of a woman to have rights

not to mention, those that are against abortion are for death penalty and war

Posted by: Reyo Apr 30 2012, 12:44 AM

A convergent factor is how biologists like to use the idea of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". To put it simply, a protein is nothing more than a chain of amino acids that, if left on their own, would do jack all. That chain, however, is in a specific order, and 3 dimensional figure to act as an extremely efficient catalyzing agent. Certain enzymes, for example, are shown to be the most efficient at separating enantiomers when in solution. That efficiency is said to be a convergent factor since such a thing can definitely not be said about a simple mass of amino acids. It's why your brain, though only comprised of simple atoms that can be seen on a periodic table, is capable of what everyone associates with "the personality".



That's...actually pretty funny. I feel the exact same way when people say "It can't feel" as justification against abortion. It's debating semantics given that the ability to "feel" has nothing to do with how "alive" anything is. How "alive" something is has to do with the 7 characteristics of life, which I know I've shown you, where "Can feel" isn't one of them, nor is it the mysterious 8th characteristic.



I'm guessing you're getting at the "people die in all three, so you should only have one thought process with respect to all three" argument? That's a rather black and white opinion to hold on a topic that's shrouded in such grey. The death penalty, and certainly war, have completely different holds on society compared to abortion, and certainly with more than just "there's death involved."

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Apr 30 2012, 02:55 AM

i don't understand what's going on here

your entire argument here verges on the personality being a "convergent" factor, when that is a huge portion of why a human being has feelings towards another anyway. if not that, then a woman who doesn't have enough sympathy for her fetus to keep it shouldn't be told that its morally wrong, i'll explain why below

and on top of that, the woman may not feel much sympathy for the fetus until birth, and even at birth it's hit or miss. some women do, some really don't (and will continue to groan against the government for not allowing her to make a choice)

theres no other way to word it, i was merely stating why people feel sympathy for other people; the fetus has none of the reasons to hold sympathy for another human being aside from being the initial state of a human being

except that there are enough people that feel the exact way i feel about fetuses that it doesn't matter if its technically human, it has no way of attaining sympathy from many people. how alive it is matters not when its ability to garner sympathy is of question; and frankly, how alive it is has nothing to do with the crux of abortion, and that's because part of my views is that a man has no right to state what a woman can't do on the grounds that they are not a woman. we aren't the ones that are holding the baby or giving birth, now are we

i don't see how my viewpoint is purely semanticsl. you're calling these convergent factors, when we're not arguing that feeling or whatever makes a human being alive or some shit; we're arguing that personality makes a human being feel sympathy towards another

yeah i am, but ironically i'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty so it's w/e

but your entire argument is "the fetus is a person so it doesnt deserve to die" so i don't see how this is any different in any of the above three viewpoints. your viewpoints are very black and white, by the way, so don't start accusing others of having viewpoints in black and white.

Posted by: Alicat Apr 30 2012, 03:26 AM

I'm very much pro-choice on this topic. After all, it IS her body, her choice. If a woman doesn't want to have the child due to her current situation (say, the father left, poor financial, etc), or because the baby existing could have life-threatening outcome, then definitely think about abortion. Young pregnancy is a rising issue, and with that the rate of abortions is also going up.

Maybe your birth control (hormonal) didn't work properly? The condom broke? You were drunk and unaware? Whatever the situation, it's still ultimately up to the could-be-mother to decide the fate of their child. If the woman doesn't want the child, but doesn't want to abort, there's always adoption, but many people don't think that far. (I personally would probably put the child up for adoption knowing I couldn't support it, or atleast that it could have a better life with a family instead of a single uneducated mother. HOWEVER, depending on situation, abortion may be the way to go.)

Depending how far along the fetus may be COULD also be the ultimate deciding factor. At what point is it classed as "killing a living being"? At what point would the fetus really "feel" the pain or fear of the process? It is theorized that they start having sub-conscious thought from conception (when the egg implants? When the egg and sperm meet? yet another controversial question) onwards, others say when their brain develops.

All in all, it's more the choice of the woman with the baby, than the man who created it. It's more her choice than those effected by the child's existence, but it IS a good thought to talk to others about the choice... unless you're hell-bent on getting rid of that kid ASAP xD

Posted by: Reyo Apr 30 2012, 10:53 AM

I've never said that it's ridiculous that people are removing whatever dissonance they have over abortion by saying that the kid can't think, I'm saying that the argument of "It's not alive" is ridiculous when "the kid can't think" is used as the main answer of why.



Now, you see, your argument hinges on the fact that it's not fair to "force" a woman not to have an abortion despite how fair it isn't to completely deny an entire gender, a gender you're a part of, from holding a certain viewpoint simply because they're a member of that gender. women can choose whether or not they have an abortion, yet I can't even get involved in the discussion because I'm am man, something I had no control over at birth.



We as in you and me? Because I'm fairly certain my initial comment was to someone completely different. Don't tell me you're going to wedge your way into a discussion, argue different topics, and then yell at me for debating irrelevant points.



Negative, my argument has been that the fetus is both alive and human, and deserves a chance to live (well...remain living). And no, if anyone should know how wrong that underlined statement is, it's you given how much we've conversed on this topic. My views on it has always been that the fetus should be given a chance if it's existence is due purely out of the irresponsibility of the parents. Instances like rape, complications in pregnancy, and failed contraceptive I do wholeheartedly understand.

Posted by: Hexxy Apr 30 2012, 11:35 AM

Fuck your sciencey crap.
It's the woman's body, it's her decision. I don't really think that bringing in the paragraph rant maker 2000 is necessary.

Posted by: Reyo Apr 30 2012, 02:07 PM

Yeah, screw science! God created the Universe! All of that proton/neutron stuff is pure malarchy, matter is composed of plum pudding! There's definitely NO need for ANYTHING scientific to be discussed HERE!

Posted by: Freeze Shock Apr 30 2012, 02:20 PM

Personally, I only really see abortion as an option if:

- Woman is a victim of rape
- Child will be severely handicapped and have a very low quality of life
- Woman is in great danger if she has the baby; high chance of death.*

Other than those things, clearly you should have been more careful. There are contraceptions for a reason. Afraid one condom will break? Make the guy put two on. They don't give these things for a reason. If the woman gets pregnant, goes through with the birth yet doesn't want the baby, they could always give it up for an adoption. I'm sure a young couple who are unable to have a baby due to certain extremely unfortunate circumstances would be very happy to be able to adopt a baby to raise themselves.

/prepares for some person complaining about it.

*if anyone does actually reply to this, I don't care. It's my opinion. I'm not a woman, but this is what I believe when abortion should be an option.

Posted by: Hexxy Apr 30 2012, 02:26 PM

Ok yeah I have no idea what I was talking about in this post just going to BOOP BOOP BOOP redirect you to my other post

Posted by: Reyo Apr 30 2012, 02:50 PM

My persona shit? I'm not privy with that anime. I know it exists, but I don't "know" it enough, not even enough to be confident that that's even what you're talking about.

In short: What?

Posted by: Hexxy Apr 30 2012, 02:50 PM

God is bullshit of the imagination
no need for heavy sarcasm and implying that a spaghetti monster created errything
or hope to hex I hope it's sarcasm
I was talking about your need to explain everything ever
kinda creates a holier-than-you vibe if you dig what I'm saying
like srs just state your opinion because you're kindof making me not want to even read your posts
like not trying to be a douche or anything but yeah it's kinda getting annoying with your excessive quoting and huge rants that do not help further discussion whatsoever

just uh
I don't even know what I'm talking about my bad
I'm getting off topic
but I digress

again it's her body so it's he decision
idgaf if the woman just doesn't want the baby or if it was rape or w/e
being female myself I can say that if there was a baby inside me for any reason I don't want it
:I
oh my god I'm such an asshole <3

Posted by: Reyo Apr 30 2012, 03:03 PM

Yes, it was primarily sarcasm, I don't seriously believe in the plum pudding model of the atom. That's just silly. (The rest of it to...). And I explain everything because people tend to ask what the hell I'm saying when I try to vent my Bio classes in this forum, like when Raven asked what I was going on about with "convergent factors". If that makes me seem "holier than thou" well I'm sorry...it shouldn't. What I learn in Bio class tends to be relevant to what I find interesting to discuss, like abortion and the whole "Evolution or god" thing. If that's making you feel insecure because you don't have a bio class to channel...well...shit...there's no real way to say "I'm not going to feel bad about that" without sounding more like the asshole you think I am. I do things like "explain everything ever" because it's both pertinent, and people ask about it. I could just passively reference everything, but I've been told that I look arrogant when I "say unnecessarily big words with the assumption that everyone knows what I'm saying". There's no way around that, so forgive me, but I'm not going to feel bad about it.

As for just "stating my opinion", my original comment wasn't a "state my opinion and leave" style comment, it was a response to someone else's comment. As for why I didn't then explain it to Raven is simple, him and I usually end up conversing on this topic...regularly...I coulda swore he already knew.

And I'm sorry if you feel that my "walls of science/text" don't help the progression of the discussion, but to be honest a two lined reply of "Stop that, it's annoying" isn't a very good reason as to why I should "Stop that", hence my sarcastic reply. Here you have more than just a 2 lined rebuttal, though I still get to defend myself...this is a debate subforum.



Then if you don't mind me asking, what sort of precautions are you taking to prevent pregnancy since it's so unwanted? Since it's so unwanted, I can only assume that the rational thing for you to do would be to prevent it by any means necessary and not just swing and hope for the best.

Posted by: Mister Blah Apr 30 2012, 03:12 PM

ABORTIONS ALL DAY EVERY DAY

I'm not a female, but I think it should be their choice. I mean, if I had a parasite living in my body I'm pretty sure I'd like a choice of keeping it there or not.

On the topic of abortion debates within the government I think it's stupid that so many people argue over it. I say leave it be as it is currently. It drags attention away from something more important. Like the economy.

Posted by: Hexxy Apr 30 2012, 03:15 PM

Well condoms and birth control are nice.
But condoms and birth control don't always work.
As for people who have unprotected sex fully knowing of pregnancy and wanting an abortion... Well, I'd say that that's where you should draw a line, but the fact is that you can't be sure who was a result of failed contraceptions and who just had sex unprotected. I'm still pro-choice though.

stop being rational dammit
Oh dear I don't even know what i'm trying to say anymore.
But uh really I think I was just angry at the endless scrolling associated with this topic on a phone. That and the fact I'm getting the feeling you're bringing irrevelent science facts into this topic and also that, despite your explanations, I really cannot see what you and Raven seem to be discussing. I think that makes my opinions moot but w/e


Ok yeah I have no idea what I'm talking about i'd much rather just discuss abortion than attempt to justify myself and continue looking petty and immature

Posted by: Mister Blah Apr 30 2012, 03:21 PM

SPEAKING OF BIRTH CONTROL

I think it's idiotic that you can't get the morning after pill over the counter here in America. What are we, a third-world country?

Posted by: Reyo Apr 30 2012, 06:15 PM

That pretty much is where I draw the line, it's irresponsibility when that happens. You should know the cause and effects of sex and pregnancy well before high school. And the uncertainty is why I remain relatively apathetic when it comes to how adamant I am at it. I really don't care much what you do with your body, but don't sit there and expect me to listen to "It's not alive and/or human" as justification of why with a straight face.

Posted by: Hexxy Apr 30 2012, 07:21 PM

But the thing is, if it was me(I'm 16 so kids is a huge hell no), then even it being full irresponsibility wouldn't keep me from getting an abortion. I think that even if it is irresponsibility, then the female should still have a choice about if she wants to push a melon-headed spawn through her, well, yeah. I don't think we should let people have abortions willy-nilly, but getting rid of them for women alltogether is a terrible idea IMO.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see a huge problem with abortion in general. Someone earlier brought up that fetus's feel pain, but I never really saw any evidence to that. Nor did I see anyone bring up the topic of teen pregnancy...? Which is mostly irresponsibility as well, but I believe it's more justified for an abortion(fact being that when you're 16-18, contreception shit is hard to come by. Mostly getting most of this from my eighteen-year old roommate, who has in fact given birth and put the baby up for adoption.)

Posted by: Reyo Apr 30 2012, 07:47 PM

Well now let's be fair, the reason for it being "bad" for 16-18 year olds to get pregnant and have kids is purely cultural, not physical. Biologically speaking, a woman is physically capable of bearing a child when she has her first period, whenever that may be. It wasn't that long ago that teenagers, some as young as 14, were raising legitimate families with a husband and kids. So it's not really an issue of whether it's good or bad physically. Were it physically detrimental, then it wouldn't have developed that way in human females, or at least it would be very short lived.

I do agree though, there is a degree of leeway that needs to be considered if there are physical complications (because they do happen), failed contraceptives, and rape. My main question is if it's primarily due to the mother's/father's irresponsibility, why is it the fetus that deserves the punishment?

Posted by: Hexxy Apr 30 2012, 09:02 PM

I don't really see it as fetus punishment, as much as simply... ridding yourself of it.

But there's a reason teenagers don't bear children in this age(in America anyway). Teenagers aren't really responsible enough to have a child. School and education with a child is borderline impossible in this generation. Back then, women in general only had household chores and responsibilities. Times have changed a lot in the US(and other countries, but I don't really know the standpoints from there.) and women/men are pretty equal in education oppurtunities and etc. That and the fact that I'm thinking abortion is kindof a mercy, even if you're thinking of adoption. Fact is, children aren't always adopted, and some kids really do not take well to having foster parents and finding out their real parents abandoned them. A few minutes of pain for the fetus(if it even feels pain) is miniscule compared to a possible lifetime of disappointment.

Of course, an adopted kid could have a wonderful childhood and the like. But that's just my standpoint on it. Tbh, I can't really sympathsize for the fetus at all, mistake or not.

Posted by: Dubbleyew Apr 30 2012, 10:00 PM

First of all, what you need to understand is that puberty doesn't just happen overnight, for either boys or girls. A boy doesn't go to bed one day, then wake up with a full beard and increased muscle-mass. Girls don't wake up and suddenly have wide hips and big boobs. It's a process, usually a painful one, that takes awhile to complete. A girl may be technically capable of becoming pregnant at say, age 12, a fertilized egg may be capable of implanting into the uterus, but that doesn't mean the rest of her body is yet ready to handle it. Young girls who aren't totally sexually mature yet, but have started puberty and can get pregnant, can quite easily die in childbirth, and more likely to do so than an adult.

Also, you're forgetting about/ignoring the other cultural aspects that existed during that time period.

Back then, women and girls were property. Daughters were the property of their fathers until they married them off to another man. Their their sexual desires and needs, as well as their reproductive freedom were considered either non-existent or unimportant. 14 year old girls weren't just raising families, but they were raising families with much older men, and didn't get a choice in who they married or when they married.

If your father wanted you to marry a much older man, then that was that, you had to marry him, your own choices or rights be damned. Didn't want to have sex with your older husband? Too bad, he could pretty much rape you as you were expected to bear his children, and rape within marriage wasn't even considered a crime back then. (It still ISN'T in some countries)

Also back then, deaths during childbirth were extremely common, at one point around 50% of all childbirths would result in the death of the woman. Not just from lack of modern medicine, but also due to women pretty much being forced to have kids at the wrong times, regardless of their age or health.

As women gained more freedom and rights, they started having kids later on because they then had a choice. They could have families and kids when they NATURALLY desire to, when they BIOLOGICALLY got the urge to reproduce, not when their fathers wanted them to.



Who said anything about punishment? Can you even effectively punish an insentient being? Wouldn't it be a bit like trying to punish your computer by hitting it? It wouldn't do anything because it doesn't feel it and doesn't learn from it. Punishment is an act done to reprimand someone for undesirable behavior. If they aren't self-aware or conscious, then they can't feel the effects of a punishment, and can't be deterred from any kind of behavior, thus insentient being like fetuses cannot even truly BE punished.

And if the parents are so irresponsible, then why would you want them raising kids anyway?

Posted by: Amberfunk Apr 30 2012, 10:02 PM

Just wanted to point out that using two condoms at once is extremely dangerous since that makes them more likely to break.


Also I wanted to bring in that the world is over populated and that there are thousands of children is foster homes and orphanages that don't have a family. People who want to adopt could also always just adopt an older child.

Also birth control is not that easy to obtain. Condoms are going up and up in price, hormonal birth control is through the roof and you need to get a prescription for it which also brings in the need for health insurance, etc.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven Apr 30 2012, 10:19 PM

except its fucking true

it's definitely not fair for us to even have a proper viewpoint on this issue because we're men, i'm pro-choice if only because it offers more freedom but i don't claim to have much perspective. dont bring up the "no control" fact either, because if you're going that far then it's almost like saying it's not fair that women can get pregnant because of factors they couldn't control.

i do not believe men will ever have a proper viewpoint on this, and i believe it is wrong for a man to vote for the option that constricts a woman's right to do something that is specific to their sex.

tell me one thing, what makes abortion any different in instances like rape, pregnancy complications, failed contraceptive, etc? because most rape crimes are never found out, you can't prove a failed contraceptive, and pregnancy complications are another matter entirely

i don't see how you don't spot a contradiction here, you say a fetus deserves to live "unless it was the product of rape etc"... it's very much black and white even still, and i don't know why you say "well i agree with this up until a certain point." it's either all or nothing, and you can't prove half the shit in terms of abortions you're in favor for. in fact, some of the arguments in the previous thread almost seemed like banning abortion was a way of punishing unprotected sex, which many people's arguments hinge upon or at least give an impression of.

your viewpoints are purely black and white with bits of hypocrisy in there, just because there are exceptions doesn't automatically mean there are shades of gray in your argument. and i do believe this is a black and white issue to begin with.

and we conversed on that thread way back when i was in high school. i'm at least two years older now. bring it the fuck on

Posted by: Reyo Apr 30 2012, 10:28 PM

That is true, though it's also an entirely different philosophical debate as to whether or not nonexistence is favorable to a miserable life. While not all children are adopted, some are, and it's a bit of a stretch to make the assumption that any given kid you're talking about is going to live a lonely life of misery in solitude, or find a loving family.



I know very well the intricacies of puberty, but that doesn't change the fact that kids as young as 14 can, and have been mothers to children. While that's not true today for social reasons, it don't magically mean it's now physically impossible as well.



I'm ignoring them because they're irrelevant. I'm not trying to revive this utopia where women bore children at 13 and men owned their wives. I'm making the point that it is physically possible for women so young to have children.



I punish my computer all the time, useless piece of...

Then we're back to convergent factors determining something validity for life. If it successfully removes the dissonance that comes from aborting a fetus to say that it's insentient, and therefore less of a person, then fine. And that goes back to the question of why the mother should be "punished", because for all intensive purposes, she did display "undesirable behavior". And no, I'm not including rape, incest (though to be honest incest is "undesirable behavior"), or failed contraceptives, because I know that's your next point.

And I'm not saying they'd keep the child, I'm saying the child is given the chance to find, and live in a loving home.



You know what else is "fucking true"? A female can pass the army physical fitness test by running the 2 mile in 18:30, whereas a male running the same speed would, unceremoniously, fail it. I'm not asking if it's true, I'm asking if it's right.



How fair is it, then, if a couple ends up pregnant, the father wants the kid, and is perfectly willing to raise it himself, yet the domineering consensus is that the kid's aborted because the mother doesn't want it? Her body her choice? Yes, I get that, but she didn't make the kid by herself. Genetically, that kid is both the mother's, AND the father's, yet the fate of the kid rests in the hands of only one of the party that it took to conceive it.



What, my viewpoint doesn't match your preconceived notion that everything is black and white, which conveniently fits into one of your preplanned arguments, so you start giving me the ultimatum that my viewpoint HAS to be black and white? Just a few comments ago you were adamant that I was wrong that my viewpoint is so black and white, but now it NEEDS to be black and white? No it doesn't. That's not how the world works.

Now I've already told you this before, instances like rape and failed contraceptives I have sympathy for because they're not due to the irresponsibility of the mother, who would then have to go through with the pregnancy because of forces outside of her control.

And what "shit" haven't I proved, nor can I prove?



Oh no, this individual who hasn't, at all, been a part of the exact same time line as you, and is therefore still in high school (somehow) has been intimidated by your fearless confidence.

This individuals attack has been cut.

Posted by: Freeze Shock May 1 2012, 10:34 AM

That is indeed the case.

With the adoption thing, I guess it would be nice if people actually decided to adopt a kid than make more kids -shrugs- not my decision at the end of the day. I'm aware people are still gonna wanna make their own kids, but it would be nice that to curb the general idea of abortion as a whole and perhaps adopt a kid.

Certainly, I know I won't be making kids, and I'll probably adopt myself. Why make new life when you can nurture life that exists?

Posted by: Mercenary Raven May 1 2012, 08:47 PM

mr biologist,

women aren't naturally built to be as strong or muscular as men, something i'd expect you to know

counterargument: father isn't giving up any bit of his own physical body to harbor the kid for 9 months, all he did was unleash a wad of sperm. just because he helped create it doesn't mean he's going through the physical torture of being pregnant and giving birth, and the person who is obviously should have the rights to the child's fate

my arguments are never pre-planned, i'm pretty sure you are paranoid as fuck if you are accusing me of such things

my preconceived notion of black and white? what are you talking about

btw i was stating that your arguments were black and white when you were saying this wasn't a black and white issue. i did later state it was a black and white issue, because any shades of gray are known as "hypocrisy."

i was referring to how it's hard to actually prove rape or something, because many rape trials never go in favor of the victim in court. not "never" but still very rarely. fail contraceptives is hypocritical, because you're pretty much saying, by your own principles, "you shouldn't have been here, be gone, you were just the result of a failed attempt to not conceive you." Which in every other scenario you are so adamantly against.

i don't see how you have sympathy if you won't let them get an abortion (i dont know your viewpoint on what they should do) or why you have sympathy if you keep saying "i'm against all abortion cause sanctity of life!" and then say "i guess there's not much sanctity of life when it comes to certain things"

what the fuck are you talking about?

Posted by: Reyo May 1 2012, 10:38 PM

I also notice that all trends are merely a collection of averages to note the tendency for something to be true, which is something I'd expect you to know given that it's such a simple concept. Some females suck at running while others are built like platforms on 50 foot legs. The same is true for males. My question is, if a standard is to be used to note physical ability, why is it that such a difference should exist? A male running the 2 mile in 16:30 is obviously much more fit for the job than a female running it in 18:00, yet who do you think gets to keep her job?
(Hint: look at the pronoun)



9 months vs 18 years...who's giving up more of what now? I know it's pain vs. financial/time hardship, but what grounds are we using to place one over the other?



It's rather curious when you start yelling at me for my argument being "black and white", and then claim that it needs to be "black and white" when I tell you it isn't. What you're pretty much doing is saying that there's no possible way for me to phrase my viewpoint without you labeling some kind of negative connotation to it, which, in all honesty, is in very poor taste. "You're wrong, and nothing you say, unless it fits my point of view, will be correct." That's arrogant...even for you.



Really...now we're going to act like the child has a sense of what's going on, where as before it was just unwanted biological mass? The fetus is both alive and human, but it'd be pretty ridiculous of me not to note that death is a very necessary part of life. I've already said that I could care less what you do with your kids...they're YOUR kids. You just have to live with the dissonance of what you do. Someone who tries to prevent the pregnancy, only it fails, I have sympathy for because such a thing was completely out of their hands. I've only ever said that I will judge the living hell out of people who knowingly have unprotected sex, and then suddenly not want the resulting baby, as though they had no idea that sex causes babies. It's like a kid who cheats on his homework and then wonders why the teacher is mad at him.



I'm not someone who totes the picket sign of "sanctity of life!" I understand life, and cherish it, but that doesn't mean I'm completely blind to the fact that death happens, and is very necessary. My stance has always been on one of responsibility for your actions.



This individual is completely unimpressed by your unnecessary bout of confidence.

Posted by: LittleShadowPokemon May 1 2012, 11:08 PM

The thing about that is, the father is consciously choosing to raise the kid for 18+ years. He can't complain about it if he knew what he was getting into. It's not like he couldn't ever have another kid with a different woman, which might actually be in his best interests if he and the mother differ on viewpoints of what to do about the pregnancy in the first place. The woman should have a choice if she wants to carry the pregnancy to term or not, no matter what, in my opinion.

Posted by: Reyo May 2 2012, 01:56 AM

Technically, neither can she given that both parties are equally responsible for the existence of the baby, so why is it that he needs to suck it up and rely on someone else, or even the same woman, bearing a child? If she were to go through with the abortion, she'd be consciously choosing to kill the fetus. I'm not saying that men need to be given total control in the matter, I'm asking why it is that men need to be given NO control in it. The second question is why that needs to be so simply because he's a man.

Posted by: Hexxy May 2 2012, 09:43 AM

The father isn't really raising the child by himself. In most cases, it's the woman who spends most time with the child. :I

I agree with raven when he said that men will never have a proper viewpoint on this, as they have no idea what a woman goes through during pregnancy nor will probably ever know from a first person standpoint.

Men shouldn't get a say because it is not fucking happening to them. Simple as that.

Posted by: Amberfunk May 2 2012, 09:54 AM

You also have to think of this, Reyo. Even if the mother carries the baby to term and the father raises the child without the mother, how do you think that child's life will be like feeling unwanted by their own mother. That can seriously mess a child up. Can lead to suicide, depression, drug abuse and other high risk behavior. That child would have likely been better off if they had been aborted before they could even think.

Posted by: Reyo May 2 2012, 10:33 AM

So we're back to classic statistics to explain a hypothetical situation? I never said that the woman would be spending "the average amount of time she normally would with the kid", in fact, if anything, I suggested that the mother would want to spend ZERO time with the kid given that she's trying to abort it. I didn't want to spell that out because I was just yelled at for "explaining everything" and being an arrogant prick.

And I know that men don't physically go through pregnancy, yet they're completely thrown out of a decision making process they physically helped create...simply because they're male. In any other light that's discrimination. So why is THIS form of discrimination OK, but saying something like "a woman's place is the kitchen" is not?



It can also lead to a completely healthy, normal adult with no side effects whatsoever. Who's to say that your outcome is the one that will DEFINITELY happen? And that brings us back to the point of which is better, a miserable existence, or no existence whatsoever.

Posted by: Amberfunk May 2 2012, 12:16 PM

Honestly for a lot of unwanted children no existance is better. It's also better for the thousands of children who are not taken care of properly, are in poverty, etc.

You're right it should be a joint decision between both parents not just the mother on whether to abort, put up for adoption or keep the baby. But all of those options should remain to every couple or single woman to make.

Posted by: Reyo May 2 2012, 02:41 PM

The difficult thing about this, though, is that there seems to be this "the grass is greener..." effect going on, but we don't have any sort of opinions from "the other side" given that nonexistence, by it's very nature, means we cannot possibly interact with "it". Nonexistence could suck...it could be the most awesome thing ever...that's why I just propose the question when the issue of "parentless life sucks" comes into play.

I'll be honest, I'm actually fairly apathetic when it comes to the physical act of abortion. I'm never going to have to experience the "joy" of childbirth for myself, so it's rather silly of me to adopt this adamant opinion on the matter, though I still note this general "unfairness" when it comes to the debate where the men in the situation are told to go to hell and leave the fate of their "just as theirs" child to the mother. I would be heartbroken if it turns out I got a girl pregnant, and she wanted to abort it. The kid is my genetic lineage, and I feel an evolutionary responsibility to it, but because I'm not physically carrying the kid to term I'm told to go to hell. Now I'm not a monster, there are some situations where a kid is a VERY bad idea, but I'm not sure I could bring myself to remain with someone who would do that under those pretenses. (For the record, the condom breaking would be the most difficult situation for me to make a decision like that...which is one of the main reasons I've chosen to remain abstinent until marriage) "It's MY body, you have NO say!" is a fairly absolute judgment to give someone when you're giving their own flesh and blood the death sentence.

And this may be the military talking, but I'd much rather take the finite, acute hardship now rather than the extended, medium level hardship later. That's the main reason I gave that one example where the man was perfectly willing to take the child off of the mother's hands, though now that I think back on it such a thing may be more due to the military culture I was introduced to.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven May 2 2012, 06:58 PM

Let's start by acknowledging how this argument came up

I said that men shouldn't have much of a right to this because they are physically incapable (barring some really weird shit) of being pregnant and therefore getting an abortion

However, this doesn't apply for women. They are perfectly capable of pregnancies and abortion. Therefore, they should be the ones to vote on a right unique to them. Understand my point now?

If men are to be so adamant about a view, it should be the one that is less restrictive towards a woman because it's the woman who needs to decide. Hence, I am pro-choice.

Now, let's continue the irrelevant tangent this argument went off on:

Women are built physically different to men, no matter if we have "strong women" or "weak women." Because they were built more around reproduction and being able to reproduce, whereas men were built in a way to hunt and provide for the family. Natural selection has more or less deemed that the average woman is weaker than the average man, and therefore their requirements for things are different as a result. women and men are biologically different, and it makes sense that something physical is differentiated by sex

18 years? where are you pulling this from

oh right, the fact that the son hasn't been born yet so therefore you are assuming he is born. except, if you're assuming we have a standard 20s family where the dad works and the kids stay at home with the mother, the mother is going through a lot more shit with the child, and taking care of the child, which is more work than the husband does. Stay at home mothers tend to do a lot more than men seem to believe.

no i'm yelling at the hypocrisy of you accusing someone else of having a black and white argument

and my views are fairly black and white, i dont think theres any gray when it comes to abortion. it's not as complex an issue as, say, economics.

where did i even say this

the impression you're giving with this point is

"they had unprotected sex"
"they should be punished"

ie, enforcing your morals against unprotected sex against people in a way

i don't see why people enjoy seeing others suffer for a mistake they've made. not that i'm saying you enjoy seeing them suffer, but you're judging them in a negative way that it's almost like Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking, and you're saying people should live with their mistakes. you sound like a religious preachers, almost

sympathy does jack shit for people if you are not willing to let them get an abortion

how are these two any similar at all? jesus christ, reyo

yes, you should take responsibility when your actions have the potential to hurt someone. a little unprotected sex will only ever hurt people if people like you got their way, other than that it's just 'womp an abortion, will never have unprotected sex again'

besides, the alternates to legalized abortions are abhorrent and they will happen in much greater quantities. if you got your way, we'd see back alley abortions far more often

"I cherish life" and "sanctity of life" are one and the same, it has nothing to do with death happening

i wasn't aware i was trying to impress anyone

Posted by: Reyo May 2 2012, 08:59 PM

Actually, what you said was:


You're just now introducing the idea of "much of a right". I'm not denying that women carry the thing to term, and then birth it, I'm saying that completely denying the father of any right to a decision is completely ludicrous, especially given the reason for why being one of discrimination.



Ok, I know you're better than that, that's just like what the guy was pushing in the Gos vs. Evolution thread where people have a choice to not choose God as long as you have no problem with going to hell for all of eternity. If you're going to say that people have a choice, you give them complete freedom to choose, none of this "as long as you choose this[/s]" malarkey.

"Sure you get to choose, go ahead."
"OK...well then I guess I'll go with th-"
"Oh no you can't go with that..."
"...what abo-"
"Nope, not that either."
"For fuck's sake..."

QUOTE

You've yet to say something I don't already no, or anything that actually addresses the point. The point is what good is equality if there's going to be this tangible gap? Women being paid less for the same job, expected to take care of the household, and given an imagine of this "sex object" are all produced by this "male chauvinistic agenda" yet a man can't have a say in the fate of his child. I'm not trying to push some anti-feminist agenda or end women's suffrage, I'm proposing the question of why we fight for equality at all if there are going to be exceptions put in place?



No, you're assuming all of that. I'm assuming that the mother doesn't want the kid (given she wants to abort it), but the father is perfectly willing to raise the kid himself so the mother can go on to live the baby free life she's going for. I know you think it's helping your argument to make me out as this sexist monster, but really it's just annoying.



Wheras before you were yelling at me for having a black and white viewpoint on abortion. Found here:


So tell me, what specific way would you like me to phrase my viewpoint so that you'll be happy?

Posted by: Reyo May 2 2012, 08:59 PM

You sure do love this "put words in other people's mouths" thing that you keep doing...yeah, no, my stance is, and always has been that if a pregnancy arises from unprotected sex, you have little room to act surprised and want it poofed away.



Actually, I more judge them like I would a student furiously arguing with his teacher that he shouldn't get punished for cheating. And to be honest, people do need to live with their mistakes. That's not even religious in nature, that's called growing up.

PS, You're not saying that I would still force victims of rape and failed contraception to get an abortion, right?



Teachers usually warn the students that they'll be punished if they cheat on their homework/tests much like students are also told that pregnancy tends to happen when you have unprotected sex. Student cheats on one of his exams, and is surprised that the teacher is (shock) giving him a zero on the exam, much like the couple who has unprotected sex and then freaks out when (shock) she gets pregnant.

Act: cheating
Result: punishment from the teacher
Response: kid arguing furiously that he shouldn't get punished
Why it's ridiculous: The kid was told he'd be punished for cheating.

Act: unprotected sex
Result: Pregnancy
Response: Couple furiously argues that they should be allowed to abort the baby because they don't want it
Why it's ridiculous: They were told in numerous life science classes that sex makes babies.



What? How exactly would unprotected sex suddenly hurt people if I "got my way"? I'm not asking that people only perform sex with super protective, barbed condoms for his/her displeasure here.



OK, that makes sense, though, again, my stance isn't complete removal of the abortion process, only screening to ensure that we're not wasting time to clean up after someone's stupid mistake.



As cliche as it sounds, it has everything to do with death happening. Think back to every Greek short story ever. Death is what makes life cherish-able. If no one ever died, it would just be "meh..."



It's too late for the modesty card...it just...it just is...

Posted by: Mercenary Raven May 3 2012, 12:03 AM

i hope to god you're being fucking sarcastic

its called personification, it's a literary technique

i never put words in your mouth, i said 'this is the impression i am getting'

i never mentioned that they should act surprised, but i actively defend that the female should have the freedom to decide what to do with it

once again this metaphor doesnt work

your reading comprehension skills are something you have needed to work on for a while

no, that is nowhere near what i am saying, i am saying that you should give them the freedom to get an abortion not force them into one

yes but there's no law against unprotected sex, there are many school codes and rules against cheating. there's a very large difference

once again, this heavily gives the impression of punishing people for having unprotected sex, and using a child as a means of punishing people

because not everyone is willing to give up their child to foster care, and not everyone has the means to raise a child. that would definitely hurt people both physically, emotionally, and academically.

this point gives the impression that you are once again preaching your sense of morality to another human being, especially because you are not a woman and you continue to restrict the rights of an action that is exclusive to women only

don't be a smartass


shut the holy fuck up. if you honestly think i am posting to impress anyone then i've got news for you; i'm not. i'm not some obsessive glory hound that argues for shits and giggles; i argue because not only are you wrong but you preach your beliefs in a way that is absolutely ridiculous and i will not let it stand that anyone sees your viewpoint as correct, for however flawed those reasons maybe

denying the father the right to decide whether the baby lives or dies is extremely in the right. officially, it is not the father's property; it is a personal thing that the couple themselves have to work out, because while the father's seed is in there the fetus does not reside in him, therefore he actually technically has absolutely no control over what's not his property

that's not discrimination towards men at all, don't you ever swing that shit in a discussion about abortion. this is not about a man's right to abort, this is about a woman's right to abort.

learn to make a coherent point htat's actually relevant to the point i made

the point i made:

"men shouldn't have a say in abortion, especially if it's more restrictive to the rights of a woman"

and everything spawned off of that. why do you wish to restrict the rights of women in that sense? i don't believe men should vote at all because this is not an issue with a man's body. i do not see how this is relevant to that crazy KKK dude's point at all, and you're just grasping at straws to make my argument look like shit

i never said shit about social equality

this isn't anything to do with social equality, this is biological equality. in which case, evolution took its course and decided that a woman's biology is more geared towards what i listed and a man's is more geared towards what i listed. this is a fact of nature, this is nothing to do with the social norms.

once again, the fact that you are a biologist that fails to grasp the fucking point i made makes this ridiculously grating. the fact that a man has control over the processes of a woman's body is also grating, be it his child or not; he is not the one that is going through 9 months of crap, painful birth, and then another couple years of sitting at home with the baby, so don't you spew it as if it's easy for us men to grasp what women actually go through when they're pregnant; they go through enough physically when they're not pregnant, too

but ultimately it exists inside the woman and lives off the woman, so giving the father any say in this is actually ludicrous because it gives someone else control over your personal property when they do not own it

i was yelling at you for your accusatory tone towards others for having a black and white viewpoint, while you claimed yourself that your viewpoint and this issue wasn't black and white. which i found extremely dumb.

Posted by: Nikki101709 May 3 2012, 01:01 AM

I'm pro choice. I believe a woman has a right to keep the kid or not. Going through 9 months of torture would suck and birth...fuck that, man. That sounds like scary shit. A woman shouldn't keep a kid because it's frowned upon to have an abortion. People are going to have sex! Most of the times...probably unprotected. That doesn't make the mother a whore. Maybe a bit foolish (since you have more chances of getting pregnant and there are diseases). The father can express his opinions about keeping the kid or not to her, but in the end, it's her choice. He should never force her into going through pregnancy just so they could give the child up. Adoption sucks. There's a lot of kids waiting to be adopted :/ this world has enough humans. Some animals eat their young. That's probably not the same as abortion though. But once I bred my betta fish and the father ate ALL of the young (boy was I pissed). There must have been at least 100 of them. He ate them all. Yup. But that wasn't wrong that he did that. My betta fish probably wasn't ready to be a father or he probably felt that tank wasn't the best environment for them (or he's just a bad dad). Anyways, in conclusion to my...debate, the woman can do whatever she please. Nobody should tell her otherwise because that's wrong. Thank you for reading

Posted by: Reyo May 3 2012, 03:47 AM

And that personification was the point I was getting at. If your main point is that the "thing" can't feel feelings, why suddenly use it as the basis to prove another point?



Then you like to assume much for your impressions given that you take an awful lot in that isn't there.



Already explained why it does.



Given that you tend to say one thing, and then mean another, I'd say that my reading comprehension levels are more at a clash with your consistency. Though what I'm seeing is that you're allowed to take little hints and clues from my argument that aren't there, but the second I try to preempt your argument you start attacking my intelligence.



I'm not talking in terms of what's legal and illegal, I'm speaking in terms of cause and effect. If you're given the effect to a specific cause, you shouldn't start acting surprised when that effect suddenly slaps you in the face when you go about doing the action already described as having that effect.



What sort of logic exists in a situation where someone insists they remain in an undesirable situation when given a viable way to remove themselves from that situation, and then whine about having to be in that situation?




Are we back on "I'm a man, and therefore have no say in the fate of my own child?" I thought that was an "unnecessary tangent".

Posted by: Reyo May 3 2012, 03:47 AM

I'm not even being a smartass. I've sat through way too many World Lit classes for that to be sarcasm.



Yeah, here's the thing: you were the one to start in on my comment to someone else, have continually cursed throughout the entire conversation, regularly insult various aspects of my character that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and so far I've been the one to actually provide quotes to support why I see inconsistencies in your argument.

You don't have the moral high ground.




The entire sect of science that is "Biology" would like to disagree with you there. I assume you're going on the point that because she physically she has complete ownership, but there's a very good reason that the saying "Possession is 9 tenths of the law" doesn't determine the grounds of ownership...well...pretty much anywhere. It's just a little bit more complicated than "I have it, so it's mine."



No, what you said was:


You...you're paying attention to what you're typing...right? That quote explicitly indicates that if men are to be given a choice, it must be one that is in favor of whatever the woman's choice is...which isn't choosing at all. There is no room for you to suddenly flip it around, unless you're willing to admit that you completely misspoke.



Then why does there need to be social equality at all? Tell you what, I'll go ahead and go there, if we're going to take the biological differences between men and women to heart, why not make it like it was in the early 1900's. After all, the biological differences are much more important than social change and equality?

And yes, I did just use an extreme to show you how ridiculous that notion is.



Raven, the fact that I've now had to quote you no less than 4 times to correct yourself when you've said "When did I (the word "fucking" is usually present here) say that?!" tells me that you're not even sure of what your own point is.



Oh, I was completely unaware that pregnancy meant that the mother would have the baby feeding off of her innards forever, and at no point will ever leave to be it's own organism...I may want to get my Biology professors on the line, they'll want to reorganize their lectures on human reproduction.

And no, that is not literally what you said, I'm, yet again, using an extreme to note how ridiculous that point is. No, I'm not a woman, and will therefore never have to deal with childbirth, but that doesn't mean my life has been 100% of long lasting hardships that I've had to suck up and deal with, which eventually ended.



What? I asked you if it was such a good idea to have such black and white viewpoints when it comes to such topics as abortion, war, and the death penalty because, well since you brought them up I can only assume that you did so to introduce some point similar to "How can you say that abortion is wrong, but not the death penalty". Why else would you bring those up in an abortion topic? If that's not why you originally brought such things up then I apologize, but would you mind telling me why you brought them up?

And to be honest, how is it hypocrisy to yell at someone for doing something when you yourself don't do it? Usually hypocrisy details you yelling at someone who's doing something that you yourself DO commit.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven May 3 2012, 05:02 PM

you're not being sarcastic

wow this is awkward

it's called personification, it's used all the time to refer to inanimate things in general, so my use of said literary technique is nothing to do with how i feel about the actual fetus. get it yet? it's not hard to grasp when you take a step back and argue without the intent of winning

I made no assumptions, i merely said that's how your post comes across to me, the fuck?

i have never said one thing and meant another in this thread, as far as i know

which is fucking ridiculous, because every single person i've talked to says that your points are ludicrous. my arguments are consistent and you're just trying to dissect something that isn't dissectable

Yes, and teachers punish cheating many times based upon the code enforced on them. they would probably punish cheating without it, just like how if- for example- a teen got pregnant then their parents would flip out on them. Not to say they would be surprised, but theres no fucking reason why they shouldn't be allowed an abortion even if they are surprised

you're pretty much taking one aspect of cheating on an assignment and comparing it to one aspect of why one would get an abortion. you are not attacking the pro-choice angle in any way using this argument

what sort of logic exists that allows a man to dictate what a woman is to do with her own body

my point gave no such impression


the fuck you are, your point had nothing to do with mine

And I never said I did? I've insulted you because you do this every single time to many people, and you say the same arguments and almost nothing gets through to you. you, like me, take these arguments very personally (but you know- i was fucking provoked because you also spewed some random attacks at my character too, whereas i've told you to learn to read better because you're doing a pretty poor job countering my points). this has always been a problem with you, and frankly i don't see why you are surprised.

it is a public forum if you cannot argue against anyone then you have no right to complain. swearing is not a big deal, and you've done absolutely nothing to provide inconsistencies in my argument. in fact, you've pretty much devolved my criticism as a personal attack and deflected them towards me; i may not have been good with quotes but i've checked my own arguments before confirming/denying anything. if we're really going to bring personal flaws into this, i would be happy to, but this is not the time. this smug attitude you've seem to have adopted doesn't help.

What point are you making? I've directly stated that it is her property because she's the one hosting it, in the eyes of the law the male shouldn't be so arrogant as to think his word is worth listening to; in private, yes there should be a discussion because otherwise psycho bitch is going to get an abortion, but the law has no right to judge such things.

Yes, therefore men shouldn't have any degree of input in this because their view may as well be the broader view. Because restricting the rights of something you do not and will never understand in the slightest is restrictive, arbitrary, and more importantly discriminatory. what's not to get?

Stop changing the subject, the biological differences between women and men extend to the military because a "strong woman" is weaker than a "strong man" but relative to their own sex they are strong, or whatever the scaling may be, simply because of these biological differences between men and women. Remember that this is purely a physical exercise and idea, and not a fucking social one. The social differences in the early 1900s will not change the physical differences between a man and a woman at all, which once again i don't understand how you don't get this.

No, I know what my point is, you just resort to this shit because you can't counter it. I've said almost nothing to the extent of what you think I've said all throughout this post. i've never said any of the shit you've accused me of saying, and whenever you quote things it's almost always out of context

9 months is a long time, and frankly i don't see why you are still commenting on this because you will never get pregnant and will never feel the pains associated with it.

This has nothing to do with women having abortions, nobody has had it but if a solution exists to fit their needs then womp, go ahead and take it. It's not a long lasting hardship anymore because they're no longer pregnant! I don't even see why you are wishing long lasting hardship on people at all

i don't even know why i bought it up, but it was mainly an attack on the fucking conservatives out there who preach the sanctity of life but preach the death penalty

as george carlin once said, "Once you're out of the womb, you're FUCKED!"

yes, because you were calling someone out on having a black and white viewpoint on a black and white issue- to which you have a black and white viewpoint. once again, not hard to grasp







Actually, fuck it all, I'm done with you Reyo. You do not take criticism in stride at all, you have an argument against everything that consists of poorly interpreting said argument and then throwing back a completely irrelevant argument. If not that, then you twist points using some degrees of logical fallacies, and then you get elitist and somehow end up playing the victim in an abortion thread. A male, playing the victim with no rights, in an abortion thread, is ludicrous. If you ever want to listen or learn to read, then be my guest, because I sure as hell would love to see the day where you do.

I'm not the only fucking person you've pissed off in debates throughout this board's history, Reyo, so do not for a single moment think my arguments and criticisms/insults to you are unfounded. It's a habitual thing that you are continuously guilty of, unlike the rest of us who are only sometimes guilty of it- but at least we own up! I'm fucking done otherwise. Good day.

Posted by: Reyo May 4 2012, 12:30 AM

You accusing me of arguing with the sole intent of winning. Oh...oh wow...now THAT'S awkward.

But yeah, no, you don't quite get what I'm getting at, so I'll put is simply in the form of a question. Why did you use the personification for your argument?



And how my post comes across to you is more founded in incorrect assumptions than they are in me inadvertently sounding like something I'm not.



Raven, I'm tired of quoting comments you've made in this discussion to show you just how inconsistent you've been, and the fact that you're continuing with this "I never said that!" stance is getting annoying. And I'll be honest, citing mysterious, so I'll just assume they're imaginary, sources that all magically agree with you and disagree with me means nothing unless those people actually come here to say it themselves. Now, have you actually been having these conversations in secret and are too lazy to put them out there, or even have the individuals come forward themselves, or are you assuming that just because you're not the only one I'm conversing with that I'm the village idiot and everyone's talking about how funny the "kick me" sign on my back is behind my back. It's pretty foolish to assume that just because someone else is arguing with the same person you're arguing with that they automatically agree with every single one of your points.

I'd be a lot less dismissive if those people were to actually come forward so I can at least have a chance to converse with them as well.

Or you can all chill at the cool kid table sneering at how "ludicrous" the geek is being at the loser table. That works to.



Because their parents freaking out about the pregnancy isn't a notion I proposed for my example, and I didn't introduce it because it doesn't fit. Is that why you introduced it, because it doesn't fit and is easy to argue against? Yeah, that's not how this works.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment



First off, neither did any of MY points that gave you all of the impressions you've been getting, yet here we are. Second off:


No such impression indeed.



Then what was your point that cherishing life had nothing to do with death?



Oh look, this is the one section you're passionate about. Meanwhile every other portion gets a sentence or two...max. YOU don't quite understand it Raven, YOU provoked this conversation on YOUR own for YOUR own personal reasons. If YOU want someone to yell at about taking the argument too seriously, why don't YOU go look in the mirror. If YOU want a reason why it's most likely YOU, why not try looking at the other conversations I've had with people. Do YOU note that none of them are cursing, insulting my intelligence, or requiring me to re-quote half of their argument?

Posted by: Reyo May 4 2012, 12:31 AM

The point I'm making is that the male is just as responsible for the kid's existence as the woman. If there were no father, there would be no child. It's his flesh and blood caused by his intervention with his genetic material. Your argument that 100% of the ownership is hers is completely ridiculous given that fact founded in very basic biology.



At least you didn't try to fight the quote off as "OH *expletive* you misinterpreted that *expletive!"

I know where your point comes from, the male can't physically understand pregnancy because he is male. I'm saying that such a thing is ludicrous because, for one, this fight that's going on for equality is meaningless if we're going to have these exceptions put in place, and second off because the kid is just as genetically his as it is hers. The only factor determining why he shouldn't have a say is that he isn't carrying the kid himself.



We're talking about the same job being done by two people that demands a degree of physical acuity. Since there's that degree of physical acuity, the organization that controls that job has to have a way of ensuring it's employees are capable of doing that job. So they hold a test. The two people take the test, only one passes and the other does not. However, given the fact that there's a difference in standards being judged for this test, it turns out the one who passes actually did worse than the person who failed. What we're left with is the person who is LESS capable of performing the required task doing the task while the one more capable of performing it never being given the chance.

That. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

That's what I'm getting at. There's no logic in the differences in standards between men and women when it comes to the army physical fitness test given what the test is supposed to say about the individual, that they're physically capable of performing their duties in the military. Are there biological differences between men and women? Definitely. Should they apply here? Definitely not, and I just explained why. My personal view, and why I brought this up in the first place is that the same thing can be said about disallowing the father a say in the fate of his own child when it comes to abortion.



Because I can't counter it? I've "resorted to this shit" because on multiple occasions you've had to ask where you (fucking) said whatever I replied to, and I've had to go back through the conversation and re-quote it for you. By that principle I should know more about your argument than I'd know about my own. Once or twice makes perfect sense, but I've done it 5 or 6 times. At that point, I'd stop yelling at my opponent and start looking at myself. You either have very little understanding of what you want to say, or you're very bad at wording it. I've countered every one of your points, it only seems like I half to keep backtracking to show you where you've said something you "didn't really say".



How long have you been alive? I'm inclined to agree with your hypothesis that 9 months is a long time, but only if it turns out you're less than 9 months old. Yes, 9 months is a considerable amount of time, but it's not permanent. Would it be different if I were a women? Probably, but I've been through activities that count as "considerable" with respect to their duration. I also have an understanding of how pregnancy works, would have support, and know that it's possible to survive it. I'd get through it on the simple fact that I know it'll end. Now, I'll curse, scream, and hate life like I did in training, but it's pretty damn motivating to have an idea of when it'll end.

But that's all irrelevant because I'm a guy, and will never "physically" experience pregnancy...right? I didn't want to do that because I know that pregnancy has it's own hardships, and it's foolish to predict how you'd act in a situation prior to dealing with it. That's simple Psychology. Why I did it though is because your argument is very simplistic (your specific, sentence wide comment of "9 months is a long time, and frankly i don't see why you are still commenting on this because you will never get pregnant and will never feel the pains associated with it." not your argument as a whole). I'm still speaking on it because I am a more complicated person than one made entirely up of "did" and "did not"s. Do I have experience with pregnancy? No, not physically. Do I have experiences with similar connotations as pregnancy? Yes, yes I do. There's a reason soldiers won't scoff at every soldier who has a different MOS than them. They didn't go to the same AIT that they did, but they still went to AIT.



Because sometimes, you do something stupid, something stupid that results in a long lasting hardship, a hardship that was told will happen if you do that stupid something where it's irresponsible as hell to do that something stupid, and then whine that you don't want to face the consequences.



Alright then I'm willing to forget about it. My views on life have always been ones founded in Evolution. We should want the species to reproduce, and anyone posing a nuisance to the rest of us should be removed. Those are very general, and very simple explanations of my views on the two subjects.



Raven, I'll say this again, you're the one who's had this air of anger, not me. I'm not capable of controlling anyone's emotions to make anyone angry, if you're angry it's your own business. Even if I had the Frenzy spell from Skyrim I have no way of getting it to reach you.

You probably don't want my opinion on this, since you vary rarely want anyone's opinion on anything, but you need to hear it. You're the one who replied to my comment on someone else. I didn't provoke you into debating with me. There was no "Hey, Raven should totally reply to this!", not even in some secret code. You're the one who originally had the problem with what I had to say, and I replied to it because this is a debate forum, not because I have problems taking criticism.

That's the other thing, if your honest to god thought process revolves around the idea that your criticizing people for having a different opinion than yours, you need to get off of that pedestal you've perched yourself on. You are not some internet white knight running around as the sole voice of reason. You are just as human, and just as biased as the rest of us. get over yourself.

Third off, I find it hilarious that you've been trying to grasp at the moral high ground this entire time when every other sentence has the word "fuck" in it. You don't add emphasis when you do that, you make the other side think you have to resort to expletives to get his point across. Besides, I thought cursing was only allowed if it wasn't excessive. I know excessive is subjective, but seriously? I'll go back and quote every single time you've said "fuck" just to show you why I've brought it up as a point, it's ridiculous.

You can walk away if you want, that's your choice, but you have some serious ego issues that could rival Tony Stark.

Posted by: Hexxy May 4 2012, 07:20 AM

Who gives a crap if someone curses? Cursing does not determine moral at, like, all.
Like just saying because you seem to have a serious issue with that. Js.
Oh also
"I'd be a lot less dismissive if those people were to actually come forward so I can at least have a chance to converse with them as well."
ok well I haven't conversed with raven about this but yeah.
also I have no desire to converse with you, so.

Also Raven's points make a lot more sense than your own, Reyo. I can barely read your posts without tearing my hair out and pounding my fists on the table like a whiny little kid.
Js.

Posted by: Reyo May 4 2012, 02:29 PM

Edited to reformat argument to a less aggressive nature:

I've always been told that the person who "wins" the argument isn't the one who gets the angriest over the "ridiculousness" of the opposition. If you find yourself reacting that way to someone's opinion and can't bring yourself to coherently argue against it, that's not the issue of the opposition. If it were, all anyone would have to do is say "I can't read your argument without getting angry, so I must be the winner". Just think about it, during interviews where someone gets ballistic over some controversial topic, where does the general consensus go on who had the better idea?

If you find yourself in an overly emotional state when faced with an argument that's different from your own, I'm sorry but that's a personal problem. I've faced a handful of arguments in the "God Or Evolution" thread that I would consider ridiculous, yet I've been able to counter every single one of those comments with one of my own in a calm fashion. Why? Because I'm confident enough in my stance on Evolution to be able to explain why my side is more concrete than theirs. You should be able to do the same, just as I'd expect everyone else to. So I'm sorry that you can't, or don't want to, but by that nature alone there's nothing really I can use to try to see things from your perspective.

Also, I have no problem with cursing. Fuck. Damn. Penis. Sexual Intercourse. When someone does it excessively, on the other hand, it starts to become less about emphasis and more about the fact that their ideas are founded in emotions, and not reason. That's why I brought it up. You'll notice I cursed in the earlier stages of the conversation if you look back...like...once.

Posted by: Hexxy May 4 2012, 03:00 PM

UNDERLINES BY ME
what was the point in including that i never said anything about anger or being angry THAT WAS UNNEEDED READING

cursing =/= showing emotion. i curse all the time and it has nothing to do with if i'm angry or happy or w/e.

Posted by: Reyo May 4 2012, 03:31 PM

It was a fancy way of me saying "what do you want me to do with your comment?" with an explanation of why. Because in all seriousness, what am I supposed to make of your comment? That you're right and I'm wrong and that's the end of it? I'm guessing it was in response to when I told raven that him saying "I've talked to other people and they agree with me" (since that's what you quoted), but I said that hoping to bring some of those "other people" out so I can address whatever concerns they had. You're the only one who's done that, but so far your only concern is that my opinion "enrages" you, which is none of my concern.



Given social connotations associated with cursing, I'm inclined to disagree. Go to any grocery store and yell "fuck" as loud as you can. Note how many funny looks you get. You'd get the same reaction if you just naturally used the word "fuck" in every other sentence in your normal speech.

Posted by: Hexxy May 4 2012, 03:38 PM

where did i say this in my post concerning you and raven

i was just saying because you were accusing raven jsyk. i never said any shit about you being right or wrong. which is essentially why i'm using shorter posts because i've noticed you like twisting people's words and etc.


lolk except i cuss when it has nothing to do with emotions
i never said people react well to cursing. your grocery store analogy(is that even the right word) isn't even relevant or anything because screaming fuck in public is not equivalent to using fuck in every other sentence. which raven wasn't even doing.

edit: dem quotes got messed up

Posted by: Reyo May 4 2012, 03:50 PM

Excuse me? In what sense did I twist anyone's words? Any time anyone says that I misconstrued their comment I usually have a legitimate quote, by them, explaining why I said what I said. I even did it with you immediately before this little snippet of comment. Saying "Oh well you just misunderstood that" doesn't constitute an argument either, it's not my fault when someone is horrible at clearly explaining their point of view.

Now, what was I accusing Raven of, and please PLASE tell me why it's MY concern how everyone words their own viewpoints?



I'm talking about the social connotations associated with cursing. It doesn't look good. That's founded in our culture. Usually, people curse when they are really really upset, like when my Dad has to deal with Dell customer support and can't go more than 3 words without yelling some expletive. Just because you'll randomly curse without feeling emotion doesn't make the entire society incorrect.

EDIT: Know what, this is getting tangential. This is supposed to be about abortion, not about how it's my responsibility that everyone words their argument correctly, or about cursing. I'm willing to just end this if you are.

Posted by: Hexxy May 4 2012, 03:58 PM

i wasn't prolonging anything imo, but whatever
i was just supporting what raven said.
but ok, i'll refrain from pointing out what i was saying before i guess

edit: Going on from what Raven said, I still am pro-choice. A girl deciding what she wants to do with her body shouldn't effect MEN'S rights or equality either. I'm really confused on where you're getting that.

edit2: added men's because yeah.

Posted by: Reyo May 4 2012, 04:06 PM

It relates to equality because Raven's view on it is that men shouldn't have any say at all...or maybe he didn't...maybe I'm just twisting more words around like some master puppeteer...I don't know anymore. In the very least what I got from his comments is that men shouldn't have any say at all because they'll never know anything about going through pregnancy, which is something we have no control over since our gender is designated right at conception. It delves into equal rights because it's not promoting equality for both sexes.

Posted by: Hexxy May 4 2012, 04:13 PM

Why should a woman deciding what to do with a fetus growing inside of her have anything to do with the man getting equal rights in the first place? And I swear to god if you say anything about it being the man's too because he just shot sperm inside of her, I will punch a baby or something. It's inside the woman. You have no idea or will have the experience of getting pregnant and going through child birth. Are you saying that if the woman was raped, she couldn't decide what to do with the baby because the man was not there, or if the rapist wanted to keep the baby?

This is hypothetical, but what if a wife was being sexually abused by her husband? Does the husband dictate whether the wife is allowed to get an abortion, or does the woman? In a normal relation or an abusive one, it should still be mainly the woman's decision.

If you're going on about this equal rights bullshit, then woman should be in the NFL and NBA and shouldn't be restricted from professional basketball and shit because they're women. Is that probably ever going to happen? No, it is not.

The man and woman should converse privately about such issues, but if the woman wants an abortion, by all means, let her get an abortion.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven May 4 2012, 07:35 PM

by the way, "i gave no such impression" or w/e referred to the "unnecessary tangent" part, not the "man shouldn't have a right to a woman's fetus"

i swore in order to show emotion, by the way, because i really didn't have any interest in a rational discussion with someone who is either a pro at twisting words or just really bad at reading comprehension or arguing, because half of the counters to my points were based on points i did not make

Posted by: Reyo May 5 2012, 02:33 AM

I thought you never had any intention of discussing this with me because I was some master manipulator of the human mind to be able to twist words around to my will. I'll discuss this with you, but not if you still have that mindset. I've already beat this discussion to death with someone who has it in his head that all I like to do in discussions is twist everyone's words around. I'd rather not do it again. If you're sure I'll go ahead and do my best to respond to your issues with my viewpoint.



You've obviously fixed your mind on that opinion of me, so I'll just say this: Even if I were some master manipulator and you walked into the discussion knowing that, I'm surprised you didn't decide to be the bigger person and at least participate in it like a rational human being rather than an emotional one. At least then you would've had the illusion of the moral high ground.

Posted by: Wings of Sorrow May 5 2012, 09:24 AM

Alright, first of all, TL;DR.
Second, seeing as there's an argument because of personal opinion or flawed statements (It's because of that, right?), I would have to ask: Can I have my own opinion about this without being yelled at or dragged into an argument?
Anywho, I'll just ignore that big hate war and post my own opinions here.

I think abortion should be approved, but only with a trial. Why?
How do you know the woman was actually raped? What if it was an accident and not rape? That's why we could have a trial, and you know, try to prove if she really was raped or it was just an accident.

More on the person who chooses the abortion, I think both the parents should be given the freedom to speak.
If the daddy or the mom wants to take care of the baby, then let there be birth. If not, then baby go bye-bye. If it's the case of husband and wife, and one parent wants the baby and the other one doesn't, then they'll have to discuss it or have it adopted.

Yes, I know, I made some dumbass statements. But I'm absolutely confused on choosing for this debate.

Posted by: Nikki101709 May 5 2012, 10:29 AM

I know you didn't want to be dragged into anything, but you are in a debate forum lol.
So you're telling me that if the father only wants to keep the child, the mother has to go through nine months of pregnancy and painful childbirth so that he can have a kid? Why should the father get control of something that's not in his body? And what happens if it was accidental? What happens if the mother did everything to be safe (birth control) but still got pregnant? Does she still have to keep the kid even though she tried to stay safe? A woman should do whatever she wants with her body. No trial should control that. Even if it wasn't rape, even due to carelessness, she should still abort if she wants.
I'm not yelling at you, sorry if it sounds like I am.

Posted by: Wings of Sorrow May 5 2012, 10:35 AM

I admit, you do have a point there.
But why should the woman get what she wants?
The dad is the bitch's husband. His wife should listen to him and stop thinking about the pain of childbirth. And vice-versa, the dad should also consider about the mother's pain for giving birth to the little bastard.

I don't want to sound like a preacher or anything, but most likely, the father who wanted the child may suffer emotional pain. He wanted a child, but he couldn't because of his wife, now he's sad.


Wait, how can the mom be the one that did everything to be safe? The dad did his part to try to be safe too, you know.

I don't want to argue with anyone about this, but I will.
Abortion is still murder. It gives away the freedom of life from the fetus or the unborn child. Regardless whether it is alive or not, it's still stealing away the right to have life. So it may give emotional pain to the parent when he thinks about it. He'll feel guilty about it, probably.

omg i suck at this

Posted by: Hexxy May 5 2012, 11:15 AM

Why should the man get what he wants?

Are you saying abortion doesn't emotionally affect the mother, just the father? Oh of course because the mother is obviously a heartless bitch for not wanting to go through childbirth!

Posted by: Nikki101709 May 5 2012, 11:27 AM

It's her body. That's why she has the will to do what she wants. You're making it sound like the mother doesn't care about the fetus at all. And the father is the victim here?



Okay, when you get kicked in the nuts, be considerate for others and don't think or even react to the pain.

Ironically, the dead fetus could save a life. It's stem cells, right? It may be so, but if the mother wants to abort, she still can abort.



Because she's taking birthcontrol?

Posted by: Freeze Shock May 5 2012, 11:49 AM

Although Stem Cells are good and all, I still think it's ethically wrong in a way. I can see why they do it, but I just can't bear thinking about it at times.

But uhm, yes, woman's body, she's carrying the baby so she really should be able to decide if she'd want to abort or not - for a perfectly good reason mind you.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven May 5 2012, 04:07 PM

Twisting words != master manipulator

you twist words or you suck at reading, pick one, but you twist people's words whether you do it intentionally or not

my viewpoints are in the moral high ground, but i sure as hell don't care if the way i'm conveying it is "morally inferior" (even though swearing doesn't make anything morally inferior)


No, it's in the name of the very forum this thread is posted in

The court is not likely to prove whether or not a girl gets raped, because many rape trials are never in favor of the victim

the "bitch"'s husband? "little bastard"? the fuck? so you're saying every girl who wants an abortion is a bitch?

the dad should not be allowed to legally restrict a woman from an abortion, since it is a decision that should be made, in private, with no government interference, between the couple. and why are we just taking this case? what if the father wants the abortion and the mother doesn't? should we extend this to "she should get an abortion" too?

if your answer is no, you are being a hypocrite. all of a sudden the father's word is not being valued because he wants the abortion but the mother doesn't

well then he'll find someone else, it's not his body

enforced wearing a condom
birth control, etc

why do we preach for rights more to the unborn than to people who are currently alive? it makes no sense

Posted by: Dubbleyew May 5 2012, 07:48 PM

A man shouldn't get to make a woman's medical decisions for her just because he had sex with her. And that's that.

Yeah he did help conceive it, but all he had to do was have sex, that isn't difficult. It certainly doesn't give him the right to make a medical decision for another person. It's still the woman who's carrying it inside her body, thus the choice whether to abort or not is the woman's medical choice.

Obviously, they should at least talk about it before aborting, but ultimately the decision should lie on her and her alone.

And seeing as only about 2% of rapists ever spend any time in jail, requiring trials before women can abort is a really, really bad idea.

A lot of things are physically possible. It's physically possible for one to shoot themselves in the foot, but that doesn't mean we should accept it as normal and okay. Girls getting pregnant at age 13 is DANGEROUS, hence one of the reasons why half of all pregnant women used to die during childbirth.

They’re very relevant, because girls and women DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE in when they married and raised families. OLDER MEN decided their fates for them. That’s a very significant factor. They didn’t have a choice, which means they weren’t able to choose what was best for their own welfare. They weren't able to have kids when they NATURALLY wanted to.

Posted by: Wings of Sorrow May 5 2012, 10:11 PM

Sweet mother of Cthulhu, I got pwned. XD
Alright, I admit it, I lose. XD
Raven, the reason I said "bitch" and "little bastard" is because I like to swear. Sorry about that.

I'm sorry I made a horrible point. I never really thought about the Abortion topic much.

Thanks to you guys, I've now changed my views on this. You guys made very good points compared to mine, but I still wish to question: How can you say that the fetus does not have life? Please explain.
I know, it's not a very good question since I contain stupidity. :P

Posted by: Reyo May 5 2012, 10:51 PM

I love how it's either I'm one of those two options, but the idea that you misworded your argument never even crosses your mind.



EDIT: Tell you what, I'm not even going to bother. I dislike talking with people who walk into discussions with some preconceived notion of the person they're going to be conversing with, nor do I like talking with people who like to automatically place themselves on this pedestal due to some abnormal ego problems. It seems you like to do both, so don't even. You said you were done anyway...or did I just imagine that and I'm just "twisting your words around" meaning I'm going to have to physically quote you saying "I'm done"?



Shooting yourself in the foot is also disadvantageous for a number of reasons. Childbirth at least propagates the human race. That analogy doesn't really work. And is there a source for that "half of all pregnant women used to die during childbirth" statistic? It's not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to know the specific statistic, and if there are any variables that the source gives insight on (like the fact that healthcare has also improved, meaning that trend could just be because the orderlies had "poor" hospital etiquette compared to today's health care professionals.)



I'm guessing you have a different definition of the word "naturally" than I'm using. "Naturally" can mean different things when used in different lights. For example, there is no real use for the word "natural" with respect to differing cultures in anthropology since "natural" can be used differently by those different cultures.

My point with it being physically possible for girls that young to have kids, though, was really more to counter the argument that it's overly dangerous for girls that young to have kids. Is it dangerous? Yes, birth is pretty dangerous. It's not just restricted to the young, but it's possible.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven May 5 2012, 11:18 PM

I never said it didn't.

My points were coherent, generally, your points were completely different than the points I made. The only way you could be making the points you made was through very blatant twisting of my words, misreading my argument completely or making some exaggerated point that is only vaguely related to my own point. This shit about us accusing you of being a "mastermind" results from at least one of these things.

I'm done debating you on abortion. As far as the other points? You're way off the mark, you don't know jack shit about me if you think I'm placing myself on a "pedestal." Furthermore, I've walked into this discussion, saw your logic, disliked that and the fact that people were agreeing with you and responded. I have every reason to have to be talking to you in this thread, considering I've dealt with you before when I was younger and more naive.

Posted by: Amberfunk May 6 2012, 12:06 AM

Just because it's living doesn't mean it has a life. Having a life is being outside the womb in the world living. Living is just having a beating heart.




You do realize that the world is over populated right? Abortion is only helping us not hurting us.

Posted by: Wings of Sorrow May 6 2012, 12:11 AM

Well, how do you make a counter argument when religious people say "they have souls." That's what my schoolmates use when it comes to abortion.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven May 6 2012, 12:38 AM

Then you say "not everyone believes in a soul, so you should let the mother make the judgment upon whether or not it has a soul and not enforce your religion on others" or something to that extent. Religious arguments are easy.

Posted by: Reyo May 6 2012, 03:09 PM

To be honest, that's up for debate in itself. True, the world is overpopulated, and the only way to fix that is to either decrease birthrates, or increase the mortality rates. With respect to overpopulation, then yes abortion is very useful, but abortion is still a dangerous procedure even if it's in a medically safe environment being performed by experienced medical personnel. With that, we should be more focused on preventing pregnancies rather than glorifying abortion because it's going to solve all of our problems, which is more a discussion for the birth control thread (we have one of those, right?)

Point is it's a rather bittersweet solution, don't you think?

Posted by: Amberfunk May 7 2012, 03:11 AM

No one is glorifying abortion. Yes, birth control should be used but abortion should still be an option when that birth control fails. It's up to the woman to decide if she wants an abortion. Pregnancy is also dangerous in itself. A woman can get gestational diabetes, have high blood pressure, she can tear at birth, can die at birth and the list goes on.

Posted by: Reyo May 7 2012, 10:15 AM

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. My entire point has been that when a pregnancy is due to unprotected sex, then there's very little room to want an abortion to solve a completely avoidable, and predictable pregnancy.

Posted by: Hexxy May 7 2012, 11:36 AM

Reyo, not to say that this is wrong, but it seems you just really hate unprotected sex and want everyone to be punished for not having access to birth control and condoms. :T

Posted by: Reyo May 7 2012, 08:43 PM

That is wrong. That's taking a very specific example of a general event and saying that my opinion is wrong because of it. No, I do not want everyone to be punished for not having access to birth control. That's only vaguely similar to the point, and especially incorrect since I'm an advocate for more easily accessible birth control. What I dislike is when someone does have access to birth control and goes through the act anyway, and then freaks out when the woman gets pregnant. If you don't have access to birth control, then maybe the only surefire way to avoid pregnancy is just just not have sex. That's not "punishment", that's simple cause and effect. If you don't want to effect, then don't make the cause. If you make the cause anyway, then don't be surprised when the effect happens. Having easier access to birth control would curb the issue of pregnancies occurring because a couple literally didn't have any access to any birth control. I don't hate unprotected sex, I just find it stupid when people either conveniently forget what unprotected sex can lead to, or just don't want to acknowledge it.

Also, it's probably better to ask what someone's opinion on a certain example is rather than saying "It seems like this is what you believe" because it's a shot int he dark as to whether or not they really believe that way, and offensive if they don't.

Posted by: Hexxy May 7 2012, 09:05 PM

Yeah I don't care because whatever you say, you're putting your personal beliefs above your actual opinion(I can't word things, don't take that literally.). IT SEEMS like you don't want abortion because you don't approve of sex. IT SEEMS like you'd rather have everyone in the entire world abstain. Sorry, but if birth control can't be gotten without spending a pretty significant amount of money, why should people spend time on it? You say you want birth control to be more available, but it's likely not happening anytime soon. I'm saying no matter what the couple did, birth control or not, they or she can choose to abort the baby. If the husband isn't okay with that, he can have his own fucking babies with someone else. Still woman's choice. If you want to take away that choice to the woman then there is obviously something wrong with your reasoning, considering you go on and on about that civil rights shit and if a husband wants a baby than the woman has no say in it.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven May 7 2012, 10:43 PM

you still haven't responded to my point of if the husband wants the abortion but the woman doesn't; who's say is worth more? the one who follows your beliefs (the woman) or the one who doesn't (the man)? I mean, if the man is to have equal say...


Furthermore, to be fair, condoms are available at the front desk of most dorms for free, but birth control pills do require money yeah

Posted by: Reyo May 8 2012, 02:00 PM

That's because when I say I'm done discussing with someone, I mean it.

Posted by: Hexxy May 8 2012, 02:03 PM

that's also because you can't counter the point

Posted by: Reyo May 8 2012, 02:15 PM

You'll forget that he himself said he was done conversing with me, and that most of his argument consisted of him yelling at me for intentionally twisting all of his arguments. If you're going to do the same, then I'll just do the same with you. This is supposed to be a debate forum, not "team up and insult the opposition until they're annoyed enough to leave." Now, tell me again how I'm clouded by my personal beliefs?



I'm putting my own beliefs over my opinion? I'm not making assumptions about your viewpoint, you are of mine, and what's more is instead of approaching it with the possibility that you may have misconstrued what I was trying to say, you went ahead and responded as though that was what I said. I know that it's just what it seems, but an argument can easily be misinterpreted, I know full well that it's possible for me to miss-word my argument and make it seem like I'm saying something else, which is why I'm more than willing to explain myself if I'm just asked to.

Now, my "personal beliefs" are ones of apathy more than anything. Yes, I'm saying that a couple might need to take responsibility if they end up pregnant from unprotected sex when birth control wasn't even a part of the mix, but I also said that I'd really only go as far as judging the heck out of them as responsible adults. If they wanted to avoid pregnancy, there are a number of contraceptive possibilities out there. "But it's expensive!" Then don't have sex. That's not me punishing them for being poor, or wanting sex, or even me hating sex. If you want to do something, but can't afford it, you don't do it. That's something my Dad taught me. If you do that something anyway, and bad things happen, you should take responsibility. That's something else my Dad taught me.

PS, "If the husband isn't okay with that, he can have his own fucking babies with someone else."
It seems like you're more emotionally invested in this argument than I am. Telling the father that he can go to hell if he doesn't agree with his wife is pretty dire, don't you think? Such a thing tells me the two of them weren't supposed to be together anyway (given that marriage is "'till death do us part", not "'till the first complication in the marriage do us part".)

Posted by: Hexxy May 8 2012, 03:06 PM

i never said he should go to hell
i said he should have babies with someone else
hell yes, i'm emotionally invested in this. if i got fucking preg and someone said i couldn't abort the baby, heads are going to roll, i promise you.
Well, you're implying they were married before they had sex :y

I don't really see how anything else in your post is worth replying to.
sorry bro.

Posted by: Mercenary Raven May 8 2012, 04:33 PM

ps that was most of my argument because most of what you did was twist my words to begin with

lol you cant take criticism in stride when its relevant and called for. you know there are people who have quit this forum because of you, right, and the fact that i took your side when it came to how you expressed yourself? and you know how much the current me would've fucking chewed out the younger me over taking your side?

i'd rather that not happen again. you really seem to be under the impression that my criticisms came out of nowhere, when in reality there is now a point where i'm just sick of hearing you talk. I'm not telling you to leave, I'm telling you to straighten up, because I'm not going to have any degree of friendly tone if I ever have a discussion with you. And I highly doubt I'm alone in this.

Posted by: Reyo May 8 2012, 07:26 PM

No, you never physically said that he could "go to hell", but that's a bit of a nit-picky point to make given I was just paraphrasing what you said. It's still pretty dire to say that the two need to split up just because the husband wants to keep the baby and the wife doesn't. That is what you're saying, correct? I wouldn't want to "twist your words".

And it's not really "you can't have an abortion", it's more "You really shouldn't have an abortion." I've given my reasons for why.



Could you please stop? It's founded in the debate forum rules that anyone's allowed to stop debating with someone at any point they want. I know you're only trying to "make a point", but you're not arguing the point anymore. You're insulting various aspects of my character which I find to be harassment.

EDIT: Tell you what, I'll just completely remove myself from the conversation entirely. I remember when the two of us would be able to converse on this topic without risk of anyone's character being insulted, or anyone's words being "twisted". Not sure what the hell happened in those "two years" that you "evolved" as a person, but seriously, you need to follow your own advice. You two can declare yourselves the "victors" of the conversation if you want, but I'm leaving because I seriously don't have to take any of these shenanigans. Good to know you're as professional as ever.

Posted by: Hexxy May 8 2012, 08:56 PM

that is incredibly hypocritical, since you were nitpicking with people not quoting exactly their points :T
It's dire but it's still kindof reasonable
I wouldn't want to be married to a guy who wouldn't let me do what I wanted with my body

actually, it's exactly "you can't have an abortion"
but you should still have a fucking choice to have an abortion, no matter what

Posted by: Dreams91 May 17 2012, 10:19 AM

On any forum i always end up wandering into an abortion debate because i have strong believes in it.

Right well first of i could never live with myself if i did get an abortion, i could never do it even if i were raped (though if i am in the situation maybe i would go threw with it i wouldn't know unless in the situation.)

I think those women who use abortion as a birth control are idiots, there is a reason for so many contraceptives so you don't end up in this situation.

I think i saw somewhere about if the father wants you to abort and mother doesn't?
my opinion here is if the women cannot physical go threw an abortion i mean it's something tragic, painful, heartache. The mothers who feel they would be able to cope with a child then the father should just be left alone and not included in the child's life, no one should feel they need an abortion. The man is not going threw the abortion they do not feel the pain, heartache, and have to live with it forever because they do not want it anyway.

If the parents cannot afford to have a baby then yes abort or adopt is the way forward why do people want more neglected children in care homes and depressed, yes some can get lucky but half of them are miserable all the way threw childhood.

If you can go threw with an abortion all the suffering after wards, when you have kids in future and think wow that baby i aborted could of been this child ect that is why i couldn't get one, i am only 20 two PLANNED children and i think about the one i miscarried every day that they could of been just like my children here with me now.

People just need to be more careful about having intercourse it isn't all plain sailing, i find the implanon the best thing ive had lasts 3years no messing about, like 0.01% rate of pregnancies.

Posted by: Hexxy May 17 2012, 08:51 PM

Contraceptives fail. Condoms break, birth control is rather pricey.

It's not that the person can't go through(not threw) with abortion, it's just that we're mostly debating on how much of a say the father deserves. If a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get one, and the husband shouldn't be able to have 51+% of the vote.

Posted by: FXLDarkShadowRNR May 17 2012, 10:34 PM

ummmm.......what`?

Posted by: Deadchu May 18 2012, 12:01 AM

Even if someone was to be pro-life or pro-choice, the answer should be the same. If you outlaw abortion, people are going to go off and get ones anyway, in far more dangerous environments like dirty back alleys or in one's bathroom using dangerous, unsafe instruments from someone who has had no professional practice. If you use something like a coat hanger, not only does it simply mutilate the fetus, it puts the would-be mother in danger as well, and people would have a 40 - 50% chance of dying. Which is more important, the mother who is able to support herself and help the society in some way by simply performing her job, or the fetus who will have to wait 18 years until it will be able to sustain itself and will possibly grow up in an even worse economy and world than we are in today?

But oh wait, our orphanages aren't full yet, how foolish of me...

Posted by: Letan May 18 2012, 11:45 AM

DarkShadow, if you don't have anything to contribute to the topic, please don't bother posting. It's considered spam.

Posted by: IcePrincess May 20 2012, 10:26 AM

I completely agree with Deadchu, if you outlaw abortion, you would just fall back a couple of deccenia where women couldn't have a baby anymore because of illegal abortion. Or even worse, they could die because of infection.

I think the woman has nearly 100% of the vote whether or not she should get an abortion, because it is her body that she would put through a lot, and it affects her life probably a bit more, because the man can choose to have nothing to do with the baby.

Posted by: KaseysKountryKreations May 24 2012, 02:05 AM

Abortion should be outlawed except to save the mother’s life or in case of rape or incest.

While we stress the need for a moral and Christian lifestyle, we applaud those women who choose to give life when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Furthermore, we recognize a woman’s right to self-defense. While occurances are rare, a woman should not be forced to carry a rapist’s seed to fruition.

Posted by: Nikki101709 May 24 2012, 09:37 AM

Why is it that a woman can be accepted to have an abortion for only those reasons? It'll be punishing the mother and the baby if she was forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy. I'll be damned if people tell me I can't do what I want with my body.

Not everyone is Christian (and are happy that way). So most of us don't need that "lifestyle".

Posted by: Disgracik Jun 10 2012, 11:59 AM

I'm against it, but, sometimes there is no other way... Especially when mother is badly ill, and this can have really bad influence on child this is good way to solve the problem, 'cause if child will be born with some mental/health problems it'll suffer all its life and mother also... So, there are situations in which there is no other way out...

Posted by: SecondhandLove Oct 28 2012, 05:49 PM

I believe it is 100% the woman's choice. Especially in the case of rape or illness. I am survivor of sexual assault myself, and I did indeed become pregnant. I did not receive an abortion but took matters into my own hands an consequently had a miscarriage and damaged my body quite a bit. Anyways, I don't want anyone to have to go through that. Especially not a scared little girl who just had there entire life and innocence taken away from them. Also if there is a problem with the child and/or mother that can be life threatening, I definitely think it should be allowed.

I personally don't think it is right for abortion to be used in a sense as birth control. That being said, I still believe it is the woman's choice, regardless of the situation or how I feel about it.

Posted by: Sora the Pikachu Oct 28 2012, 06:52 PM

I don't accept abortion, period. I don't care what any of you guys think, that is still a living child from the moment they're pregnant. Enough said.

Posted by: SecondhandLove Oct 28 2012, 07:28 PM

Well, lets all take a minute to be thankful that 14 year olds can't pass laws then.

Posted by: The Winnebago Oct 29 2012, 04:29 AM

If a girl ain't wanna baby, she can abort it.

If the guy ain't wanna baby, he can leave.

Whooooaaaa answers.

Posted by: Amberfunk Nov 1 2012, 12:17 AM

Living actually means being in the world and living life. Being alive and living are not the same thing. Also the heart doesn't start beating until 6 weeks and it's not until later that it's considered a fetus, not a baby. Get your facts straight.

Posted by: Tales Nov 5 2012, 07:37 AM

I don't like Abortion myself, but believe Abortion should be an option to victims of rape, and people with mental/physical issues that could cause too much strain on the mother and/or baby, which could lead to serious illness/health problems and/or death.

If you are able to carry the baby without any issues, I don't see why you should have an Abortion, There are plenty of people out there willing to Adopt if you are unable too, or do not wish to look after the child once it is born.

Posted by: The Winnebago Nov 5 2012, 11:18 AM

How many kids in adoption centres lead happy lives? Most of the ones I've met are pretty depressed.

Posted by: Lord Raven Nov 5 2012, 08:12 PM

It's not a black and white issue that adoption is a simple solution to all of the answers.

Posted by: doped up dolly Nov 5 2012, 10:02 PM

I'm thoroughly pro-choice. I believe that if a woman is not ready to have a baby, be it for financial reasons, social reasons, reasons of maturity, whatever, she should be offered a safe, non-biased alternative.

To anyone who would argue that adoption IS a safe alternative, I can tell you from firsthand experience that it is a faulty, part-blind system that children really, REALLY shouldn't be subjected to (at least in my part of the globe). I can happily say that after 12 years of being buffeted from place to place I was finally adopted by a lovely couple whom I now call mom and dad, but this isn't the case for many kids, especially those who are in their teens.

Does this mean that I'd rather have not existed at all than be where I am today? Definitely not. But if it were my choice (which I know it isn't, sorry ladies), I wouldn't want my child to go through 12 years of grief, and nip it in the bud before that can happen.

Posted by: Tales Nov 5 2012, 10:43 PM

After seeing the posts after mine, I realized that I probably didn't make myself as clear as I could have.

I'm not saying I'm against abortion, because I'm not. I just believe people should at least explore the other options before ending what could have been a wonderful new life, and adoption is an option. I understand that adoption is hard on some kids, but many also live a good life with there adopted parents. And many kids find life quite hard anyway, especially in their teenaged years.

My problem is with the people that abort because it is the 'easier' option or because they can't be bothered looking into the other options.

Sometimes abortion is the best option but the other options should be explored before coming to that conclusion.

I hope I have made myself more clear.

Posted by: The Shadow Nov 6 2012, 06:04 PM

Abortion is wrong.

I am Roman Catholic and abortion is just plain wrong. If I go out on the street, find a baby in a wonan's arms, tear them out and beat them with a baseball bat until they die, this is considered murder. So why isn't abortion? I don't care if the baby is born or not, it is still human life! I can't murder someone, so why should some doctor with a needle be able to?! Honestly the only way I can see abortion is if the mother's life is in danger, that is it! That is the only real way, rape, put it up for adoption, too poor to afford having a baby, put it up for adoption! I mean come on, there are people out there who wish they could have a baby, but they cannot for various reasons, so give them a chance to be a parent! Adoption should always be considered over abortion, and honestly why can these people who just don't want to have the baby just have sex see that they should put it up for adoption. I mean seriously, come on!

Posted by: The Winnebago Nov 6 2012, 06:56 PM

Violently beating a sentient and infant human being is different than removing a clump of cells that has yet to develop anything even reminiscent of a human being. And if you wanna bring up that whole potential human life thing, then we should ban sex in general, because millions of sperm cells die any ways, and I suppose they could also count as "potential human life".

But hey, if filling adoption centres to the bursting point (which will probably raise the rate of clinically depressed orphans by a hell of a lot) is the final solution, then hey, who cares about how those kids feel?

Posted by: The Shadow Nov 6 2012, 07:20 PM

I think living can inspire happier feelings... Also, wait 9 months and those little cells will be a baby... Can I beat it with a bat then?

Posted by: Galahawk Nov 6 2012, 08:54 PM

Sooooooo a woman isn't allowed to have an abortion because somebody she's probably never even met can't have kids? Why can't those parents go adopt one of the thousands of children already born who are in orphanages who desperately need parents? Why bring another life into the world when there's so many already out there that really need parents but aren't getting them?


So you're saying that living your entire life in an overcrowded, likely abusive orphanage with no family for your entire life is something that would inspire happiness in a person? I'm sorry but if you think that you are so many kinds of delusional.
In case you're not aware, many children who spend their entire lives in orphanages are proven to have problems getting by in society because of delays in mental development and behavioral issues.


Why would a person who is seeking an abortion even let it gestate close to nine months unless they didn't know they were pregnant? You missed the point completely that vacuuming a cluster of cells from a uterus is completely different than going up to a newborn baby and beating it with a bat. There's absolutely no comparison.

Posted by: The Winnebago Nov 6 2012, 09:02 PM

Any sperm you release could become a baby in nine months. So by having sex, we are actually causing a mass genocide. That is what I am getting out of the whole cells = baby right now, because how would that be different?

Life isn't always happy, especially for an orphan. I know a few orphans myself. So life instantly being better just because you're alive doesn't exactly work. What's better? Some kid that's likely to have a life of failure unless adopted or lucky, or no kid in an orphanage in the first place at all?

Posted by: The Shadow Nov 6 2012, 10:30 PM

I can see you guy's points, but sometimes the hardships of life can make the best of stories. I mean I would rather have an overpopulation problem then have the death of MILLIONS of children on my head. I am just saying that I cannot determine the difference of having an abortion and killing a child. I can see your points but I cannot really agree with them.

Posted by: Galahawk Nov 7 2012, 01:41 AM

..... You DO realize that overpopulation would result in millions of children AND adults dying anyway due to food shortages, issues with massive amounts of homeless people (even more than we have now), mass deforestation and pollution of resources, diseases that spread in close proximity, and health problems that can't be cared for due to HOW MANY FREAKING PEOPLE THERE ARE.

Now tell me which sounds worse. Seriously look me in the eye and tell me that millions of people of all ages all over the world suffering and dying due to an out-of-control population isn't nearly as bad as removing clumps of cells that will never care to have known life or not from a uterus belonging to an autonomous person who is conscious enough to have made that choice.

Posted by: The Winnebago Nov 7 2012, 02:02 AM

^Not to mention, I'd like to see anyone look an orphan in the eyes and say "Sorry, but we're going to lower your chance of being adopted by a caring family by a whole lot, and you'll likely live your life in this orphanage until you are 18."

Posted by: jellybean chi May 15 2013, 11:26 PM

i honestly can't pick a side in this debate. what sickens me the most is how we ended up in such a culture or society where we are actually being forced to pick between a human's right to live and a woman's right to her own body. no matter how you look at it, no matter if you're "pro-life" or "pro-choice," there's always gonna be something immoral about it (i don't mean that in a sense where people realize it's immoral, mind you). what i mean is, if someone says they're pro life, all they're saying is that they believe the unborn child should be taken into consideration. however, others look at that person as if they don't care about a woman's rights and that she should be forced to go through the pregnancy, or whatever. the same goes for someone who is pro-choice. they believe a woman should have the right to control her own body and make her own decisions, but others may look upon that as if people who are pro choice don't give a care about the fetus and don't have any value of human life.
no one should have to make a decision between a baby and a woman in this way. it's sick and awful and even if a woman is completely and totally pro choice, if she's ever faced with actually having to make the decision, i can only imagine how hard the decision actually is. i honestly can't look at anyone who states so radically where they stand in this debate and believe that they have ever been faced with this decision for themselves. i can't even imagine it, actually. but maybe that's just me and my stupid soft heart. there are too many different situations and circumstances for me to take a side, too.
and, i mean, if you think about the abortion itself, it's really not all that less traumatizing than giving birth. they're both pretty awful sounding. sure, it's a lot less than nine months, but the whole procedure seems totally barbaric (i mean, you know how freaking tight the cervix is during pregnancy?? i ache just thinking about it...). all of them do, even the pills. however, it should be a woman's right to choose that for herself and her own child. i won't say it's right or wrong, because maybe that woman found out her child would be born with some kind of horrible handicap or disability. what if she thought what she was doing was right in the best interest of her unborn child? or what if the mother's life was in danger? my own mother almost died when she gave birth to me, and again when she gave birth to my brother. but everyone is different. so we can't judge. no one can. not on either side. that's just what i think though.
i do think that the unborn baby is a human right from the beginning. there's nothing wrong with thinking that. honestly, i used to be completely pro choice until i studied embryology in my anatomy/physiology class, and now i just won't make myself pick. i do hope that anyone and everyone would at least take the baby himself (or herself) into consideration when making this decision. i respect and understand that this is an incredibly hard decision to make, and it is so unbelievably permanent. that baby...once it's gone, it's never coming back. it will never have a chance to live. that could either be a fortunate thing, or not quite so much. i cant imagine having that on my conscience my whole life, personally, but like i said, i really can't say much about it. im fortunate enough to have never been faced with a decision like this. but imagine, think for a moment. you literally have that baby's life in your own hands. you can choose to not let it live, or to let it live, when unlike a murder victim, the fetus can't actually speak for itself or fight for its life. it's so vulnerable, and completely innocent. how ironic is it now, that one of the most dangerous, deadly places to be now is one's own mother's womb? that is kind of scary, to me. such power over life itself. it just seems a bit...unnatural. well, mankind and our culture is kind of in a rut. there's absolutely no completely right and completely wrong side here. ok i think i'm done ranting.
i hope i made sense though...i mean i was kind of rambling...sorry ^^"

Posted by: Mister Blah May 16 2013, 09:05 AM

Morals are completely subjective and depend upon a person. Pro-life folks act like pro-choice folks are going to abort every child ever sometimes, which is ridiculous. Pro-choice is nice because it gives a person a choice, a choice depending on the situation. Being able to make decisions based on a situation is generally healthy.

Posted by: jellybean chi May 16 2013, 07:14 PM

(oh i'm so relieved, i was hoping no one would misunderstand ^-^ this is probably the first time my point was made clearly, i'm so happy...unless i'm misunderstanding you...) likewise, there are some pro choice people who have this idea that every single pro life person would force everyone to go through pregnancy, which is equally ridiculous. i mean i can totally see where people would generally get that idea, but to argue so radically with that idea still in mind shows a lack of understanding and a crapload of bias on their own part. and likewise again. sigh.

Posted by: Mister Blah May 16 2013, 07:24 PM

Oh, no, I understand your point fine.

I feel like people would think that because pro-life folks in general attempt to make abortion completely illegal. There are many many cases in which abortion doctors were harassed and had their lives threatened in the more religious areas of the country. Pro-life instead of pro-choice feels more like "No, this child has to live. There is no choice."

Posted by: jellybean chi May 16 2013, 07:29 PM

actually, the sperm is useless without the egg cell, and the ratio of sperm cells to eggs is thousands to one. and males produce (and dispose of) sperm cells 24/7, not just by having sex. the sperm itself won't become the baby, but the fertilized egg, so claiming that having sex is mass genocide (by the baby=cells thing you said) is understandable but also sort of an incorrect comparison... because of the fact that a baby can't form without both the sperm cell and the egg. so you're right, any one of those thousands of sperm cells could fertilize the one egg, but the sperm cells dying isn't like the embryo dying, 'cuz there's no chance the sperm will survive anyway without the egg. as living beings, our own original cell was the fertilized egg, not the sperm.
but i do agree, it's hard to say what's right and wrong until every orphanage is empty and every child has a happy home and life. which will likely never happen, and that's a horrible, totally horribly unfair thing.

Posted by: jellybean chi May 16 2013, 07:36 PM

i know, that makes me so sad. so many religious people are so hypocritical. i've heard all these things about "christians" who have bombed abortion clinics, and that's just as sickening as some of the more cunning doctors actually talking their indecisive patients into getting an abortion. i myself am a huge jesus freakl, but i can't pick a side. if someone was truly "religious," though, they would understand that it's wrong to judge others and not let them control their own lives and bodies. most pro choice people i know, though, would do everything in their power to try and counsel someone out of getting an abortion, but i've never actually met anyone who would radically say "you can't have a choice, that baby has to be born."