Abortion.
- Thread starter Cierra
- Start date
I am for the right to have one. Indeed some might consider it against the law of nature or murder but it should be allowed, if the mother agrees on it well then it is her right to do so. Every person should have the right to say whats good for her of him, with that being said I am for abortions.
Joy Division
Reputable
I only think under exceptional circumstances..I've debated this one a heap of times and we all have so many different opinions, but I think it's a shame when we hear of young lads and lasses who couldn't be bothered with contraception and let a pregnancy drag on rather seek the morning after pill...
It's a shame for the wee baby who never asked to ne created and had no say in wether it lives or dies.
I think under exceptional circumstances like a rape or where the baby will have an illness so , so bad that there would be very little if any qaulity of life.
It's a shame for the wee baby who never asked to ne created and had no say in wether it lives or dies.
I think under exceptional circumstances like a rape or where the baby will have an illness so , so bad that there would be very little if any qaulity of life.
ForumSource
Resident
As much as I'm against it, like Joy mentioned, I believe there are certain circumstances that somewhat justify it such as rape.
That being said, I think abortion is wrong.
That being said, I think abortion is wrong.
Someone saying that abortion is murder because it kills potential life is like saying masturbation is murder because it wastes sperm. How we choose to define murder needs to factor in consciousness and awareness.
They should have the right to do what they want; I would just say carry the baby and put it up for adoption, however that does not mean woman should not have the choice for abortion.
It's a twisted debate, everyone keeps twisting in religion into this. We have freedom of religion, which means we do not have to abide by your religion, nor does the country. I could make a religion and say that you cannot have babies, that could easily pass the court system in the freedom of religion amendment.
It's a bunch of hooey to me, everyones making it a bigger deal than it really needs to be.
It's a twisted debate, everyone keeps twisting in religion into this. We have freedom of religion, which means we do not have to abide by your religion, nor does the country. I could make a religion and say that you cannot have babies, that could easily pass the court system in the freedom of religion amendment.
It's a bunch of hooey to me, everyones making it a bigger deal than it really needs to be.
The potential mother should have the choice on what do to with her baby. Whether it's keeping it, or aborting it. To me, I would never have an abortion (if I was a woman). I think everyone does earn a life. That's just my opinion. But like I said; it's the mother's choice on what do to with her baby.
master412160
Seasoned Veteran
People who are against abortion should think really hard on why they are against it. Because I can't see the logic behind it even in a religious context.
Cause if you think hard and long about why you are really against it, beyond a religious reason but a moral or logic one. Can you really back up your argrument? Because for me its just one of the old rusty things left of the 50ties and before. Like being against gays. Its one of those things. An old way of thinking that doesn't fit in our modern world. A way of thinking a woman has no choice of her own.
A woman who does abortion isn't an other type of woman then one who never has done it. In fact it was probably a very hard choice for them and why bring new life in this world if you wouldn't be able to provide for it?
Alot of times woman do abortion because they are not ready, do not have the means to provide, are unstable, etc...
Is it not the choice of them to have a child or not?
Also for all those who say its against nature.
If we look at nature we can see the mother of certain species killing the youngster for survival or when it sees its child so to speak is not going to survive they kill it and eat it sometimes.
if a woman who does drugs is poor, unstable and is an alcoholic gets pregnant what should she do? Would you force her through it all? Give her more crap to deal with in life then she has already?
Its the choice of the woman and it shouldn't be chosen for them. Yet alot of woman can't speak openly about this or share if they did it or support it cause of people who would frown upon it in a bad way.
Just like they would frown if you told them you're gay. However times are changing in a good way for the gay community and I also believe in time people will learn to accept woman should be able to chose to do it or not. :great:
Though not all woman. In certain religions I don't see it happening ever. Which is sad but a harsh reality that woman rights are something we need to fight hard for.
Cause if you think hard and long about why you are really against it, beyond a religious reason but a moral or logic one. Can you really back up your argrument? Because for me its just one of the old rusty things left of the 50ties and before. Like being against gays. Its one of those things. An old way of thinking that doesn't fit in our modern world. A way of thinking a woman has no choice of her own.
A woman who does abortion isn't an other type of woman then one who never has done it. In fact it was probably a very hard choice for them and why bring new life in this world if you wouldn't be able to provide for it?
Alot of times woman do abortion because they are not ready, do not have the means to provide, are unstable, etc...
Is it not the choice of them to have a child or not?
Also for all those who say its against nature.
If we look at nature we can see the mother of certain species killing the youngster for survival or when it sees its child so to speak is not going to survive they kill it and eat it sometimes.
if a woman who does drugs is poor, unstable and is an alcoholic gets pregnant what should she do? Would you force her through it all? Give her more crap to deal with in life then she has already?
Its the choice of the woman and it shouldn't be chosen for them. Yet alot of woman can't speak openly about this or share if they did it or support it cause of people who would frown upon it in a bad way.
Just like they would frown if you told them you're gay. However times are changing in a good way for the gay community and I also believe in time people will learn to accept woman should be able to chose to do it or not. :great:
Though not all woman. In certain religions I don't see it happening ever. Which is sad but a harsh reality that woman rights are something we need to fight hard for.
I'm 100% for abortions. It sucks that a man wanting to keep the child will almost always lose against the mother not wanting to keep it, but it's her body, her right to do as she wants with it. What bothers me the most about abortions are the anti abortion opinions. Everyone needs to understand something, it is not your body, you have zero say and zero rights in the matter. Who are you to try and tell ANYONE what they should and shouldn't do with their own body?
If you're so concerned, why don't you go and get pregnant and have a child instead of crying about someone's right.
If you're so concerned, why don't you go and get pregnant and have a child instead of crying about someone's right.
Bluezone777
Dinner Team Leader
I always figured not supporting the forcible taking of a life was always the moral position to take. When did this change?
If you aren't ready to have a child then you aren't ready to be having sex. It's really that simple yet so many wish to think themselves ready for sex but not ready to deal with the repercussions of their actions. Most would call that irresponsible but since being responsible is considered outdated is why being a fool is all the rage these days and it's always the innocent and the ones trying to be responsible that suffer for the acts of the irresponsible.
The issue is not that the times are changing but good sense has been evaporating and eroding away for decades and this world we live in is the product of the loss of good sense.
Just because you have a right doesn't mean it's wise for you to use it but of course being smart is also outdated hence how people act these days. They consider themselves wise but prove themselves to be fools when they destroy themselves and those around them with their foolishness piece by piece.
If you aren't ready to have a child then you aren't ready to be having sex. It's really that simple yet so many wish to think themselves ready for sex but not ready to deal with the repercussions of their actions. Most would call that irresponsible but since being responsible is considered outdated is why being a fool is all the rage these days and it's always the innocent and the ones trying to be responsible that suffer for the acts of the irresponsible.
The issue is not that the times are changing but good sense has been evaporating and eroding away for decades and this world we live in is the product of the loss of good sense.
Just because you have a right doesn't mean it's wise for you to use it but of course being smart is also outdated hence how people act these days. They consider themselves wise but prove themselves to be fools when they destroy themselves and those around them with their foolishness piece by piece.
Hope all you "my body" people realize if I could do what I want with my body with no restrictions (obeying your thought-terminating cliche) I would be able to go full Vlad the Impaler as long as I did it with my body. Given there is someone else's body inside that is the subject of this, yes, that actually IS applicable. At least you could go with the "doesn't need to raise the kid after it's born" idea where you just let the child leech your nutrients until it's born, but people these days think giving other people vital things to allow their survival is only good if they're grown adults receiving welfare benefits -- you know, people who could kill them or something if they didn't get them. Double-standard, perhaps?
Also, for reference, I pretty much align to BZ777's post, and I also don't believe in contraception. I am also a virgin because I'm not married, and I'm not having a kid until I'm married. You could say this makes me biased, but really, the closer you get to an issue, the greater your bias -- so it's really the reverse.
So I'll start: Why did they choose to have sex if they're now going to destroy another person's body and existence to keep their bills lower, even after (in the vast majority of cases, and in many cases in countries with a rape exception, under pretense) volunteering to create the person explicitly and performing actions meant to bring the new person to life?
I think they waived this argument the minute they had sex, and even then...why does rape justify murder? Does committing even more atrocious wrongdoing, and not even to the proper target of vengeance, make a right?
Also, I didn't know children didn't have bodies, even if they are "cell(s)". Where did they become non-corporeal entities that hover in the atmosphere surrounding the mother and suddenly enter a child the minute it's born? I don't see it anywhere on the scientific info on the subject, so I can only assume it was completely made up.
"when you wouldn't"
"you wouldn't"
"you"
I hope you get the point of these ridiculously emphasized quotes, mate. If this is your complete and utter infallible pro-abortion argument, I recommend you become more open-minded immediately. There's a thing called other potential parents, and they primarily cater to newborns.
Also, unless your other species is a primate, it is not "other species". It's completely irrelevant to the entire human species. Saying "other species" do something is like saying, "There's some deviant out there who has this disgusting fetish!". Why do we care? One guy likes...unspeakable, horrific porn I couldn't even describe here. Does that mean the DSM-V doesn't flag him as a paraphile because his fetish is a literal mental disorder at some point?
Not really agreeing with Appeal to Normality, but you're just regurgitating something from tumblr seemingly.
What about the dad? Is he just a deadbeat asshole by default without your detested patriarchy?
Also, for reference, I pretty much align to BZ777's post, and I also don't believe in contraception. I am also a virgin because I'm not married, and I'm not having a kid until I'm married. You could say this makes me biased, but really, the closer you get to an issue, the greater your bias -- so it's really the reverse.
If you argue against this hard enough, they invariably make a claim that women don't have any idea that they can't consent because of Humanistic Psychology.htb24 said:
So I'll start: Why did they choose to have sex if they're now going to destroy another person's body and existence to keep their bills lower, even after (in the vast majority of cases, and in many cases in countries with a rape exception, under pretense) volunteering to create the person explicitly and performing actions meant to bring the new person to life?
I think they waived this argument the minute they had sex, and even then...why does rape justify murder? Does committing even more atrocious wrongdoing, and not even to the proper target of vengeance, make a right?
I'm sorry but I don't have sex with people whose children I'd abort. I'm not so irresponsible I'd kill to secure my self-centered way of life.jswaby said:
Also, I didn't know children didn't have bodies, even if they are "cell(s)". Where did they become non-corporeal entities that hover in the atmosphere surrounding the mother and suddenly enter a child the minute it's born? I don't see it anywhere on the scientific info on the subject, so I can only assume it was completely made up.
Oh! We're making the Appeal to Modernity argument? Oh, yeah, and I'd like to hear if I've thought hard enough about my illogical views that can't possibly be justified in any way other than "1950s best decade!".master412160 said:
"when you wouldn't be able to provide for it"master412160 said:
"when you wouldn't"
"you wouldn't"
"you"
I hope you get the point of these ridiculously emphasized quotes, mate. If this is your complete and utter infallible pro-abortion argument, I recommend you become more open-minded immediately. There's a thing called other potential parents, and they primarily cater to newborns.
master412160 said:
Just some modern mainstream right excuse for an argument made to appeal to the masses without offending people who have had abortions for democratic elections, really. Also made to convince stupid youngsters. I believed this many years ago (as a stupid youngster) but not now. If you want to make a "nature" argument, it disrupts all of human psychology by completely destroying any notion of cause and effect in the midst of an act which should, for most people, have incredibly strong psychological effects. Therefore it literally breaks the collective psyche of society as a whole over time due to chronic disassociation of cause and effect everywhere else in life spawning from having "safe sex" and not having any sort of consequences. The same also applies to contraception in case you didn't notice, but not to masturbation -- because you're not having sex with anyone in masturbation.master412160 said:
Also, unless your other species is a primate, it is not "other species". It's completely irrelevant to the entire human species. Saying "other species" do something is like saying, "There's some deviant out there who has this disgusting fetish!". Why do we care? One guy likes...unspeakable, horrific porn I couldn't even describe here. Does that mean the DSM-V doesn't flag him as a paraphile because his fetish is a literal mental disorder at some point?
Not really agreeing with Appeal to Normality, but you're just regurgitating something from tumblr seemingly.
I don't care if you chose to do drugs, became poor of your own ineptitude, had sex with the wrong person at the wrong time, or anything of the sort. You're killing someone for absolutely no reason but greed. You're even using the fact they're not born yet to justify it when you could just give the child a life after they're born. I could be justly killing people for committing actual murder or even trying to wage a campaign of violence -- but you're literally advocating killing people for having the wrong family. Women's rights? Are you sure you're not dressing up a coercive form of negative eugenics as a liberation movement?master412160 said:
They had sex. They seriously chose for themselves.master412160 said:
What is "woman rights"? The right to murder people? OK, so can I kick your stomach while you're pregnant (hypothetically with my kid), as my "man rights"? We support equality under the law, right? Or are we just supporting women, unconditionally, with no regard for actual gender equality? This is not under any interpretation of women's rights except perhaps anarcha-Feminism and radical female supremacist varieties of Feminism until the late twentieth century. I would send a man to the death penalty if he forced his GF/wife to get an abortion just as fast as I'd send a woman.master412160 said:
Is it the child's choice to die? If so, do you support legalized suicide, and would you bother to tell me how children are volunteering to go into death by a means other than the social contract subjugating the will of the child to the will of the parents as a minor?Practical said:
What about the dad? Is he just a deadbeat asshole by default without your detested patriarchy?
ForumSource said:
Why is abortion wrong, in your view? I literally see no reason not to support abortion as a whole if you're making the rape exception, but I guess there's people who just support the "She had sex, so she chose to get pregnant." idea, in which case it's still terminating someone's life. Life of the mother is the only exception I support.Joy Division said:
Reverse Flash
Paragon
I'm against abortion. That little baby is still a human. You're depriving it of life, and it had no say in any of it.
Nuke said:
You can do whatever you want with your own body within reason. If you, as a woman, wanted to get an abortion, that is your right. If you wanted to pierce your legs...it's not natural, but it's your right. No one else has any right in saying what you do and don't do with your own body unless you're not mentally competent.
I could go through everything you've said and reply to it, but frankly, I don't feel like it. Some of what you said honestly makes no sense. Who are you actually fighting for? What is the point you want to get across, that abortions are wrong? So it's wrong to force someone to carry a child they may not want?
It's a cruel way to think about it, but abortions help our world in the long run. We are already overpopulated, and every day more and more people become homeless or they lose their jobs because there isn't enough space for them. Abortions are a necessary evil. The argument isn't "should we force abortions", not in the slightest, it's if you agree with them.
Personally, I'd much rather a woman abort a child rather than have it and either
a) neglect it and cause its death
b) Straight up try and kill him/her because the woman doesn't want him/her
c) Raise the child around drugs, sex, etc.
d) Give the baby to someone nasty such as a child molestor, drug dealer, etc.
Ye, I'd much rather the woman legally abort the child than to kill it right after birth and hide his/her body.
>unless you're not mentally competentArariel Fett said:
Well right there you threw out the entire idea it's her body -- who determines mental competence? The State determines this (not so much psychiatrists, due to politics/politicization of science/irrelevant disorders), thus making it essentially equivalent to legislation against abortion.
I see more reason to allow people to commit suicide when not pregnant than to allow them to kill their children. It is not their body -- it is the child's body which is currently inside of the uterus.
Mostly I just don't like irresponsibility or the societal effects. Killing children IS wrong, but it's nowhere near as horrible as ruining society as a whole. They chose to have a child when they had sex. There is no "force" involved. Instead, there is a large movement against any form of morality in society, which depending on how you view it is either destroying civilization or has already eliminated Western civilization.Arariel Fett said:
Also, yeah, it often makes no sense because in the abortion debate I tend to go overboard and rip apart everyone's ways of supporting abortion from every point of view possible. At this point I kinda wonder if I've seen literally every PoV possibly connected to it, but I kinda doubt that, because these things change often.
The overpopulation argument is BS. It's an excuse to not find another solution for almost anyone who uses it. The only viable solution to global overpopulation (which is not yet real) is space colonization. There is no other solution, no matter how much people care about Earth.Arariel Fett said:
"Should we force abortions" I doubt is really ever brought up outside of incredibly poor overpopulated countries like India and China.
The first two are unfortunate realities of life that have little to do with abortion. I'm fairly confident these women who would abort children today would probably (especially if enabled by the State) give their children to organizations or infertile parents who can take care of the children.Arariel Fett said:
C is pretty normal in the US at this point outside of these situations, and has been for awhile if I'm correct -- at least for sex. "Drugs" depends on if you mean "hard drugs", marijuana, or tobacco/alcohol. As for alcohol and probably tobacco, children grow up around them all the time regardless, and it is a cultural issue regarding mass media. As for marijuana, I'd say that's probably like alcohol/tobacco these days or will be soon. As for "hard drugs", I'm not sure. I had a friend whose dad had some ridiculous amount of drugs at one point as a teenager, but it's still rare as far as I know. If you have any stats, I'll be glad to look, but I really don't trust many stats in this area -- if you've ever seen the taken-down "Abstinence-only sex ed isn't as effective at abstinence education as contraceptive sex ed." CDC study, you'll know what I mean by this in detail. There's way too much politically-correct definition play involved, too many "self-reporting" inaccuracies, etc.
D ("child sale") is mostly just bad people general. They aren't covered by the "can't handle kids" argument because they are outright abhorrent from the start, and I'd bet such people wouldn't abort valuable goods, really.
Affiliates
