First of all, I didn't see any thread on abortion in View All Threads, and I think that abortion is a very important issue that deserves discussion on Main~

The controversy regarding abortion (and birth control) is very prominent in politics at the moment; in fact, one could even argue that it's a main defining characteristic of American politics. Politicians and other people often include their stance on abortion as a major part of their political views.

The Supreme Court in the U.S. has taken a fairly moderate stance on abortion at this point:

• In the first trimester of pregnancy, any woman can get an abortion, no questions asked, and the state can not interfere.


• In the second trimester of pregnancy, the decision is made in the interest of the mother's health; i.e. if the abortion procedure would be dangerous to the mother's health, the state can regulate that.


• In the third trimester of pregnancy, the decision is made in the interest of the fetus. The state can regulate or forbid an abortion to protect the fetus, unless delivering the fetus would prove fatal or very dangerous to the mother.

There are some very strong views on this issue. Extremely liberal people may believe that a mother's interest always takes priority, and abortions should be legal up until the child is born. Some extreme conservatives, however, believe that abortions should be illegal no matter how far the pregnancy has progressed; in fact, in multiple Southern states, legislation has been introduced (but not passed) that would give fetuses full protections and rights from the time of conception.

What's your view on this issue? Do you agree with what the Supreme Court has ruled in the U.S., or do you believe it's not radical enough? That it's too radical? Please, share your opinions, as well as why you feel that way. However, I implore you, please don't get into heated religious debates here. Just share your own opinions peacefully.

Logically: I believe that it should be legal until the child has been birthed.

By my genuine beliefs: It doesn't really matter. Whether or not an individual child is born has extremely insignificant odds on how it will affect the existence of humanity as a whole. I'll let the rest of the world fight on their ridiculous morals, but really the topic is not as important as society makes it seem.

I agree with what the Supreme Court has ruled, but I think in the second trimester and third trimester of pregnancy that the woman should still have a choice on whether she wants to keep it or not its just that it would be more about the woman's health. I don't know why you would wait until labor comes around before you decide you want to have an abortion, but I think you should, even still, have the choice for it. I just don't think alot of people that far in would choose it.

>>1 Fuck. *Pro-life. Not pro-live. >.<

I am against it. I won't do it. However, I treat this with he same respect that I treat any other topic, whether it's controversial or not. I would never do it, but if you do it then fine. I keep my feelings to myself and don't comment unless it will effect ME in any way shape or form. If it effects ME, I WILL step in. I highly disagree with >>2 when they say, "Whether or not an individual child is born has extremely insignificant odds on how it will affect the existence of humanity as a whole. " I believe that each person effects EVERYONE. I just find that it's not worth the stress to argue over right and wrong. EVERYONE has a different opinion. I just find it easier to relax and let everyone else do the fighting. After all, it's not like anyone will listen to me once they've made up their minds.

I had to bold the "I" simply because you wouldn't know I'm emphasizing it since "I" is always capitalized.

>>5 Could I ask for you to elaborate on that? I have a few counterpoints, and I see where you're coming from, but I want to hear more before I say anything. I fear I would come across as being aggressive and trying to spark an argument if I simply stated those points without asking to hear more about your perspective.

From where I see it there are two sides. I wouldn't want it done however it is someones body and their choice. I'm still against it cause my uncle should've had a twin but my grandmother tried to have them both aborted. My uncle is one of the coolest people ever though so whenever I think about how lucky he was I'm glad that he is still alive today. So when I think of someone getting an abortion I do think of it as taking a life because of my uncle.

Don't think that is "fairly moderate" seems more Pro Choice

>>8 That's a good point. It depends on how you look at it though. It's actually way more liberalish than I would've expected, considering that the Supreme Court tends toward a more conservative view in general.

Obviously, this makes the most sense to pass.

>>6 Of course I'll elaborate. I usually have MUCH more to say when I pst something, but refrain from doing so because I fear people won't read it because it's too long. So, I'll warn you now. It WILL be a long post.

Have you ever seen "It's a Wonderful Life"? That's kind of when the seed was planted in my head. Basically, a guy is contemplating suicide, and says, "I wish I've never been born!" A guardian angel comes down and shows him what life would be like if he had never been born. He sees that, without him in it, the town he lived in, his friends, and his family were all radically different. His brother was dead because he was never there to save him. Twelve children died because his brother wasn't there to save them.

Then you have the "Sx degrees of separation." Here is what Wikipedia said:

Six degrees of separation refers to the idea that everyone is on average approximately six steps away, by way of introduction, from any other person on Earth, so that a chain of, "a friend of a friend" statements can be made, on average, to connect any two people in six steps or fewer. It was originally set out by Frigyes Karinthy and popularized by a play written by John Guare.

Then you also have the poem, "Smiling is contagious." The poem goes:

Smiling is contagious,
you catch it like the flu,
When someone smiled at
me today, I started smiling too.
I passed around the corner,
and someone saw my grin -
When he smiled I
realized, I'd passed it on to him.

I thought about that smile,
then I realized its worth,
A single smile, just like mine,
could travel round the earth.
So, if you feel a smile begin,
don't leave it undetected -
Let's start an epidemic quick
and get the world infected ! ! !

All of this adds together to show you that, you effect the person next to you, then they effect the next person, and so on. Do you remember when a person cheered you up when you had a bad day? If they hadn't been there to do that, your day would have been terrible. Have you ever had a really good day and then talked to someone with a really bad day? Remember how it ruined your day? If that one person I mentioned earlier hadn't cheered you up on your bad day, you could've been mad all day. You might happen upon a person and then your anger would put them in a bad mood, and so on. That one little thing of just your emotion could end up effecting many people.

Even the small things a person does effect someone else, and their reactions effect someone else. It may not effect someone's life like in "It's a wonderful life, but it could still do a lot of good or bad like in the poem. If you put together all three things I've mentioned above you see that even the small things can change the world. The anger I mentioned in the paragraph before can effect an interviewer for a company. It could put him in a bad mood. His bad mood could cost someone a job. It all rolls downhill from there.

By the way, feel free to counterpoint. I know it's not trying to be aggressive. I don't mind a friendly debate with someone who has different views. I just normally don't do it because some people can be so close minded. Since you asked to here what I have to say, I have a feeling you'll be open to at least listen to what I think.

>>11 Just sayin', that "six degrees of separation" thing is outdated. Lately, because of social networking, it's become closer to about 4.5.

>>11 Eh. You can't base your argument on what ifs. If you want to do so though, I counter with:

What if the baby would cause the next columbine?
What if the baby would grow up into a generally rude person who would not be a constructive members of society?
What if the baby eventually fails art school and goes on a mass murder?

Obviously all of that shouldn't matter, just like the positive what ifs. It's all based on "if". It's all based on the 'if' AFTER it is outside the womb. And it ISN'T.

They way i see it...

If it isn't your body, it's none of your damned business.

It should be the mothers choice and hers alone on whether she wants to get an abortion or not.

>>12 The six degree theory states 6 people OR LESS! It is not exactly six or on average 6.
>>13 You have not read the posts before it. You need to read >>2 >>5 >>6 >>11 . In that order. He stated that one life would not effect humanity as a whole. I was telling him that it I disagreed. He asked me to elaborate. That is where my post in >>11 comes in. As stated in the last three paragraphs, it COULD be negative and it COULD just be the small things.

I know I said you may counterpoint, so let me reword that. Feel free to counterpoint IF you've read the whole thing. The discussion IS NOT about a child doing good in the world. It is about one life being significant in the world.

bump

bump

>>11 you are basing your arguments from a classic movie, a poem, and an outdated sociology theory...?

You have balls.

What if I said, I think abortion should be allowed because what if we start having alien parasite babies like in AVP that pop our of the mom's chest?

I don't find a movie a very good reference when trying to make a point. Movies can be interpreted anyway you want. IMO, it seems like you tried to turn that movie into a type of propaganda for abortion.

Which it isn't

Trust me, I have seen it 18 times (mum makes us watch it every Christmas >-> )

But then again, that's even my interpretation of it.

I am Pro-Choice.

For a few reasons:
1. Think of this scenario: A 14/5 yr old girl is raped, gets pregnant. We reaaallly gonna force her to have a child? Make her go through all of that, because the REST of us think it is wrong.
She can make that fucking choice.
Besides, wouldn't that child's existence be miserable anyway?
He would be a bastard child, and having a kid at 15 wont be healthy for the baby in all, and the mother would probably resent it for the rest of her life, because of the memories it holds.

(yes, I do know that you can give the baby up for adoption)

2. It is harmful to the mother, or it won't survive.
3. It is not our fucking place to interfere in someone else's life. Let them fucking choose what they wish to do. Besides, the only reason that this entire argument exists is because of the catholic church, trying to impose on the government.
WTF happened to separation of church and state?
4. You wanna get real technical? How the hell is abortion any different from Birth Control or spermicide? Sperm are living microbes. and Birth Control keeps an egg from being released...its stopping the process before it even begins.
Same with abortion.
6. Teens who fucking can't keep shit in their pants, get preggers, can't take care of this kid, and now its time for the taxpayers to pay for it.
Fuck no.
I didn't get my dick out, its not my kid.
But in this case however, I think those teens need to fucking take care of that kid, to learn some responsibility.

Pro-choice does conflict with my religion, but I still don't think it is right for us to interfere in other's lives. let them make their own decisions about stuff like this.

I'm Pro-Choice.

Most people view the sides as "Pro-life, they baby lives; Pro-choice, the baby dies". Most people are also stupid.

Pro-Choice means the choice is there. If circumstances occur that leave the child's birth either in danger, or completely unfeasible/absurdly difficult for the parents - Then its better if it was never born.

I know, heartless isn't it? Well your bleeding heart is fine, up until reality sets in and a fairly large portion of the Pro-Lifers legitimately are unable to take the strain - Either of child birth, or child rearing.

Mothers dying during birth, single underage mothers, rape victims who never wanted a child and were in no position financially or mentally to handle one, or idealists who think they can do it - But fall apart once they try and it turns out to be more difficult than they initially imagined.

This isn't to say that these situations never have good outcomes. Some do. There's always a chance, always hope, that the parents can handle these things.

But that's not the point.

Rape enough girls and one of them will be a sterling mother who loves their child and vice-versa, taking care of it beautifully. Statistically, it's bound to happen. Statistically, hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of other similar cases will end badly. The child will be poorly cared for, their lives will be hard.

I don't say hard as a catch phrase. People will read this and say "well Life is hard sometimes" or "If it's just hard, they can still soldier through it. They can make it."

Are you telling me that with a straight face?

A large portion of people find it difficult to make it through life on their own, much less with the strain of caring for a child on their shoulders. They can barely keep themselves financially fed, clothed and sheltered - Especially in this economic environment.

These aren't opinions, these aren't philosophical views on life, these aren't the teachings of a book purportedly transcribed from a higher being and then fed to you weekly. These are solid, scientifically studied, verified, and provable facts.

You can keep hope and faith, and statistically speaking - Some of them will turn out well. However, that hope and faith is primarily ignorant. Willfully blind to the fact that small percentage of people that "pro-life" provide happiness to is far outweighed by the crowds upon crowds of people where were scared, who weren't ready, who didn't want this and were not financially or mentally capable of providing, and were forced into it anyway.

They turn a blind eye to the children who grew up poorly, barely squeezing by. To the children who suffered neglect and abuse from unfit parents who were breaking under the strain - Something, mind you, we can't even fully protect children from with parents who are financially or mentally capable. Somehow we thought it was a good idea to force children onto even less stable individuals.

Pro-choice and Pro-life are an individual's prerogative, and many of you may see it differently than I do. However, I view death before abstract awareness to be preferable to the majority of people - Both parents and children - Who would and are forced to suffer.

But does this mean Pro-choice is Pro-abortion? No. That's just what most people focus on.

In the end, Pro-Choice is just that - A choice. Are you ready for what is coming? Do you believe you can handle it? Do you have the support you need to make it? The choice may not prevent all of these cases. Logically speaking, it won't.

But it will reduce them.

In the end - It is their choice as much as it is your own. Live your own life, make your own choices. If you can't even do that, then you don't need to try and make the choice for someone else.

I'm getting sloppy.

As an addendum: Pro-choice can be abused by people who get pregnant constantly and then just abort it because "lol abortion, no problem".

It does happen, I'm not going to try and bullshit you into thinking it doesn't. I find these people to be hilariously unfit to be a parent, and to be incomprehensibly stupid. However, its better they have access to surgical professionals then attempting the same procedure with a clothes hanger.

Stupid people don't learn. Being Pro-life nationally won't stop these dumb fucks from existing and doing what they do anyway.

>>18 That is not an argument is not to defend my choice of "Pro-life vs Pro-choice". That is an argument based on what >>2 said. They said one person won't make a difference. That argument is why I think one life DOES make a difference. However, my choice on this topic is stated in >>5. It says that I'm against it, and I wouldn't do it, but it takes too much time and effort to argue to the death about every opinion you have. I prefer to just pick one and argue it. As far as anything else goes, if someone will listen to what I have to say without arguing with me about it and saying I'm wrong. I'll be glad to throw in my 2 cents and leave.

Hell, it is kind of pointless for a lot of people to argue about whether or not it's a good thing, or bad thing, or if they are for it, or against it.

Not wrong of them to state their opinions, but pointless in the sense, that, say, it was made illegal. They would still be getting abortions in these dirty, back alley clinics.

Now, wouldn't it be better, to allow it, and have the woman actually safe, and clean when getting the abortions, rather than possibly dying from the alternative?

Because no matter what, the choice will always be theirs in the end. If they want to do it, they will find the way. Illegal, or not. This is the thing a lot of people don't tend to think of. The fact their opinion means nothing to the super-willing, and laws will still be broken.

Another example of people doing what they want, laws against it or not, would be during the time of Prohibition. Where even though alcohol was made illegal, people broke more laws, died, and what-have-you, during prohibition, than when they were actually drinking. Before and after it, less laws were broken, and less people were injured or killed.

Whoa, Forte_Sigma and Ayanavi and reilyx are all posting on a thread that I created? I'm so...happy!

Anyway, I agree with pro-choice as well. Like Ayanavi said, choice≠abortion. Pro-choice give women the freedom to decide what they want to happen to their own bodies. Of course, there is the issue of the life of the fetus to consider.

>>19 When someone has an abortion, she's obviously ending what was almost certainly going to become a human life; there's no getting around that. You completely ignored that aspect of it in your post, only saying that a life wouldn't be worth it in a teen pregnancy or a poor or neglectful family.
However, that greatly depends on how developed the fetus is. If the pregnancy is only a few moths in, that's a very different story from a few weeks before a due date. Some extreme conservatives argue that a fetus is a full person from the very time of conception, but that's really quite ridiculous.
A clump of cells doesn't have a consciousness. It's not really possible to determine exactly when that clump of cells can be defined as being a sentient being, but it's certainly not early in the first trimester. At that point, the embryo doesn't even resemble a baby in the slightest. Later on, it gets kinda fuzzy. When you get to the second and third trimesters of the pregnancy, you really have to consider the fact that you are ending this growing life force.
You did raise an excellent point, though, about the choice bit. It's a woman's right to choose what's going to happen with her own body, and just the fact that it's legal for her to get an abortion doesn't mean she will.

>>23 And Thiamor too. Sorry, didn't see you.

>>23 Not so much ignored that aspect. I personally give little to no fucks if it's a human life or not.

I view death before abstract awareness to be preferable to the majority of people - Both parents and children - Who would and are forced to suffer.

The above little excerpt from my posts give my view on it. Human life, animal life, any life at all - Those are my views on it. Most creatures don't gain true abstract awareness beyond their basic senses until they've legitimately been born - anywhere from germination to the fetal period is just barely hinging on the "oh hey, I'm technically considered alive now" scale.

>>23 Okay, this is WAY off topic from the thread, but those are three people who you want to comment on your threads?

• Reilyx, yea I have to agree with that. That makes sense.


• Forte_Sigma, I can see that. I often agree with his opinions.


• Ayanavi, You posted all of THAT, and you say YOU are getting sloppy? My posts aren't nearly as long. I call my first post on this thread sloppy. If I wrote as much as you did, that'd be a win in my book. My original post here would've been a fail in your book.

I value there opinions, but I have to say only one of those three are on my list. I mean no offense. I just haven't read that many posts by them to know if they are on my list of, "I want them to comment on my threads." That is mostly due to my laziness. I simply just can't read a long post on other threads. The only time I really do read a post fully and several times to make sure I understand, is if it's on my thread. Reading the long posts now, I feel like my post was bad and not thorough enough. I want to write a new one when I have more time.

>>26

I forgot to include my addendum about people abusing the the Pro-Choice aspect, since it's an aspect of the topic that is usually brought up by Pro-Lifers. I had to double post to throw it in real quick, and that's just terrible form - Makes me feel bad.

>>27 Tch. I do that way more times than I should. You were way more thorough than I was in my original post >>5 . All of the other posts after that are pretty much me just saying, "each person makes makes an impact on the world." Yea, it could make a good argument, but it's really not meant to be me answering the OP. Besides, as >>18 said, it's not enough to make a valid argument.

Hmmm... I haven't had to give an opinion on this in months.


I'm pro-choice, on the grounds that until an organism develops a central nervous system, and/or a personality, they aren't really people yet. The abortion before a certain time is nothing more than a more painful form of menstruation, where the egg gets flushed out. Yes, it's been fertilized, but it's no more murder than what I said two sentences ago. In addition to that; What they said. Seriously, a lot of my usual argument for pro-choice has already been made. I don't have a shit-ton to say on the subject,other than that the only difference between legal abortions and illegal abortions is that the legal ones are usually safer. When abortions are illegal, some people just resort to intentional miscarriage, which is 100 times worse.

>>30 lol, makes no sense to me.

Though i wouldn't delete it, cause it made me laugh.
:D

>>30 Mine was a late-night ramble as well. I'm not sure if it worked, but I went with it on the grounds that it makes sense to me. Yours stopped making sense at the part where you mentioned a company. It's more like someone tossing out a fertilized chicken egg because the hen that laid it was unable or unwilling to take care of her young.

>>25 I'm not sure I see your point. You said you give little to no fucks whether it's a human life, implying that, like reilyx, you don't think there's much value in each individual life. However, one main point of your post >>19 was that it's cruel to brin a child into the world when his existence will be filled with suffering, which seems to indicate that you do believe a person's life and pain matter.
I'm not trying to debate what you said, I just don't understand what you mean.

>>26 Why do I care that those members posted their opinions? Because I respect them. I don't always agree with their opinions, and I'm not even necessarily friendly with all of them, but I know that they're intelligent people who will offer a thoughtful and thorough response to the OP, so I appreciate that they took the time to offer their opinions.

>>30 No, it doesn't make sense, because the situation isn't really analogous to abortion. But leave it up--it's entertaining, and if you delete it, >>31 and I will look stupid for replying to nothing.

D: typo! >>33 *bring.

>>33 not really, "I wouldn't delete it" makes people know I was replying to a delete-pending post.

>>33 I think individual life has a great amount of potential in it - Be it human or otherwise. However, if a life would just be brought in to suffer, then I believe a quick death is preferable to a life of suffering - Human, or otherwise.

You could raise various counterpoints to this, like sometimes the suffering is for a greater cause overall, etc... But whether that is true or not on each individual case doesn't mean that I have to like it.

>>36 Okay, I see what you're saying now. But why do you assume that the baby would just be born to suffer? There are many cases in which the reason for the abortion isn't going to cause great suffering in the child's life. For instance, the mother may have some health complication and is concerned that delivering the baby would be very dangerous or even fatal.

>>37 If my mom died on my way out, I'm pretty sure I would have suffered with guilt for a minimum of 10 years.

>>38 This is true. Regardless, guilt/grief isn't nearly on the same level as the sort of suffering Ayanavi was talking about.

>>37 Those are also valid reasons, like I brought up near the top of my post.

Mothers dying during birth, single underage mothers, rape victims who never wanted a child and were in no position financially or mentally to handle one, or idealists who think they can do it - But fall apart once they try and it turns out to be more difficult than they initially imagined.

I focused the majority of my post regarding the children in question because they were the ones being theoretically killed by abortions - But the parents having their own own issues was addressed and brought up as well. Most of that is towards the top of the post, however.

It feels awkward quoting my own post, so I'm just going to stop now.

>>26>>21 you ever read any of my posts at all when we r debating? From what you said it seems like no. Im not trying to discredit your beliefs or "ARGUE" persay. Im attacking it as if you would in a debate...just calm down. You are lucky. Moons who has posted in this thread as of yet isn't a flaming idiot who can't discuss things like this or simply likes to troll. Everyone in here is being mature and simply debating it or sharing their views....
Have you ever seen one our intelligent debate threads get swamped with idiots?
It'd terrible. Lol

Fucking autocorrect.. moons--anyone... lol

abortion...
is...
not my problem.

but its okay for mothers to abort

fucking stupid thread

44 Name: SilVA SpARkS : 2012-03-16 07:07 ID:LsBg4WAF
45 Name: EtZA lA RoBA : 2012-03-16 07:09 ID:LsBg4WAF

Don't start that.

>>46 saw on another thread that etza and silva are supposedly siblings or something sharing a computer or IP, so it's might not be samefagging. regardless >>45 is a stupid comment and does not really help the argument. if it made it on main and stayed even after even a 24 hour period, it's a good thread and it does not matter what you personally think about it.

Well, I guess I'll throw my 2 cents out there on the subject. Personally, I could never see myself ever getting an abortion, but then again, I also plan to not be stupid and have unprotected sex at a time where I can't afford to bring up a kid. For those who don't seem to have a similar mindset as me, and either think it could never happen to them or misuse the condom or something that leads to pregnancy, or if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, i think it should be the choice of the mother on whether or not they go through with abortion. I DO NOT, however, think a woman should be allowed to be frequently using abortion as a means of "birth control", you can't and should not be able to ALWAYS use that as a fall back plan because YOU are irresponsible and don't know how to either a)Close your legs or b)use traditional methods of birth control.

I was going to give my opinion, but then I realized my opinions have already been stated, and it's stupid to repeat points that have already been brought up. I'm pro-choice.

Why?
[insert Ayanavi's posts here]

>>48 GDI how did i not see aya's post earlier? Got caught up in the moment of accusing someone of not adding to the convo and didn't wanna be a hypocrite i suppose :/ . >>19 and >>20 sum it up for me really.

Yah, because women are stupid and are like "lets waste money and use abortion as birth control because it is way more expensive and I want to deal with crazy asses trying to tell me what to do and get ridiculed the rest of my life :D!" SERIOUSLY SHUT HE HELL UP AND LET THE WOMAN CHOOSE WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO!!!!

ALSO Can the person who created this DELETE IT! I came here not to fight. I thought this would be a place where I wouldn't have to deal with this! Seriously, it is a person's personal opinion so seriously GET RID OF IT!

>>50, Chill out, it's just people's opinions, everyone, including you, has a right to them. Yes, some people's are stupid, but that doesn't mean they have to conform to your's.

I personally believe it should be the woman's choice. If she wants to get an abortion then there is a reason. No one should be able to tell her "No, I don't believe abortions are right, so you can't get one." It's her body, her life, her choice.

>>50 how bout shut your face. Its a topic of discussion, it isnt hurting anyone, dont overreact.

>>50

I think you came to the wrong place. Debates and civil conversations are welcome and encouraged here, and if you can't tell the difference between ignorant arguing and an intellectual discussion then I'd say you're fairly ignorant yourself.

Try not to spread it to others.

>>50 This was mentioned on another post. If a thread stays on the top of the Main Board for 24 hours, and it's still not saged, and people are actually still talking on it, then it was in the right place. Actually. The fact that there is not arguing, then I don't see why it upsets you. If you don't like talking about it, then look at the other threads. It is a world wide discussion though. You can't escape it.

Honestly I believe that a woman has a right to choose whether she wants the abortion or not. She is the one that got into the mess, and she is the only one who can make the decision to get out of it. People have no right to force their beliefs on her. This is one of the most free places to live in the world. I would honestly like to keep it that way. Also it isn't like the fetus would be able to choose on its own. I do not believe that it matters if a woman wants to get an abortion.

>>55 i agree completly seiously everyone who care its there choice mybye they have a reason from what i see most of the time its because they cant aford to clothe and feed the kid if they were born so ya but then theres also the girls that do it just because they dont want a kid so ya it depends but in the end who care its there choice not yours leave it alone this arguement has gone on for to long in this world

I'm actually doing something on birth control for class, and this falls quite neatly under that category (please take note that birth control also falls under the said category). I plan on presenting both sides of the debate, but personally, I'm pro-choice.
I believe women have the right to a choice. You can't force your ideals on others.
Another funny thing--in class, we took a vote, pro-choice v. pro-life. And, most of the people on pro-life were men. No offense to anyone, but I just don't think they got what the big deal was, seeing as it couldn't happen to them. It was shallow thinking on their part. I know this is not all men, but it was like that in the vote.
While I can see why people are pro-life, I feel like it was inconsiderate. I believe that most of the the arguments against are either "you're murdering a person" or religion.
Well, for the religion part, I actually have a friend who is Christian. While she doesn't necessarily agree with it, she is pro-choice, and I believe that is big on her part, to go with what is best for others, and not just her ideals.
As for "you're murdering a person", is it really a person? When does it stop being a fetus and start being a baby? That is what I believe the crux of the debate, in my opinon. Because, really, just because it's a fertelized egg doesn't mean that is's a person. Just because it's a mass of cells doesn't mean it's a person. I, unfortunantly, haven't come to a conclusion on what my definition of a human being is. I do ponder this, but haven't come up with anky answers. It's subject to debate, but I don't believe you should just destroy abortion.
And, as for the cycles, I believe first trimester should be mother's choice, second trimester should be a combination of choice and what's best for the mother's help, and third trimester should be purely health. But, that's just my opinion.
Keep this subject open for debate. It's important, it's current, and it needs to be dealt with the right way. If you want to rebut any of my comments, go ahead. I don't care. Just as long as you're not flaming or trolling, just to do so. Be productive.
I think I've said everything I wish to. Debate away.

>>57 Not anky, any. Typing error, my bad.

>>57 I noticed that, as well. We were discussing abortion and contraceptives in health class, and several of the boys ganged up and said that abortion was disgusting and wrong. (Most of them were religious, mind you.) There wasn't a single girl in the class who was against it. I asked them if a girl who was raped should have the baby--as I always do--and they said yes.

"Why should a woman who is raped have her rapists' baby?"

The responses were different among them. Most of them said it was probably her fault she got raped in the first place. The rest of them were mostly like, "What happened, happened, and now she needs to get over it, do what's right, and not kill the baby."

I don't see how that's a valid arguement, but before I could complain, another girl piped up and said men shouldn't have an opinion when they can't have babies. That ended the debate :V

Classroom debates rarely seem to produce results worth listening to.

>>60 I have had more intelligent conversations with 6th graders than I have with HS kids. And his much you wanna bet that those guys are. MOre than willing to have sex with those girls..and if she got pregnant..walk out on her?

>>60 True that.

>>61 Durr :V In the history of our school and its (many) pregnant girls, only one stayed with the guy she had the kid to. Generally, when women have kids at a young age, the man doesn't stay with her/him.

Oh, we talked about child support in health, too. Those guys were all pissed because even underage fathers have to pay child support (albeit, they rarely can/do). This black chick in our class smacked this boy who said guys shouldn't have to pay since they didn't have the baby. Jackasses.

Damnit. Why is my school so sexist. Whatever, point is, you usually can't trust hormonal teenage boys to understand/do much of anything in these regards (no offense to you teenage boys out there).

>>62 lol he deserved it. Hahah. And I am still a virgin so I know I am doing right.
BY CHOICE. VIRGIN BY CHOICE THOUGH. lol

>>62, Well duh they should pay child support. What kind of stupid guys are they? I feel sorry for the stupid stuff you seem to put up with on a daily basis. Stay strong Barabi, stay strong.
>>63, Virgin and proud!

Bumping shit off.

To me, I'm against abortion. My reason is because I believe everybody deserves a chance to live and when abortion comes in then it's like the child is being denied a chance to breathe life into this world. If a woman doesn't want a kid she could easily put the kid up for adoption. Nonetheless I can't stop someone from doing what they believe to be right or what they believe is the better choice.

>>66 so, you're pro choice? I mean, you said you personally think that everyone deserves a chance to live, but that you wouldn't stop people from doing what THEY wanted to do with the kid.

Abortion is wrong! I mean, everyone deserves to live, be it an unwanted pregnancy or an expected one. In all sides it will still look like a murder. Abortion is killing a clueless, helpless, unborn child--and it's human child.

Personally, I'm pro-choice since, even though an unborn child needs a chance, the mother and father (if the father is still with the mother) may not have enough money or resources to care for the child, plus it could be a teen pregnancy and that means the mother would half to possibly endure discrimination..Unless you mean plain old adult, middle class family pregnancy. It's the mother's choice.

It's their fault not the child, why does the child has to suffer the consequences?

>>68 >>70 Do you really believe an embryo is a sentient human child from the very point of conception?

I beleve that pro-choice is the method that works, I dont like abortion infact I hate it but its not the governments/churches decision to keeps an unborn child alive.

>>71 yes, it may be a short-sighted view but yes I do believe.

soul eater + durara? exalent!!! I think it should be alowed if nesesary... like if you found you couldnt take care of the baby properly. of couse Im a chirstn so I think like one.

Bump

>>74 I don't even.
I hope you're just a troll.

For health and safety reasons, or if you seriously believe that you are carrying the anti-christ, I can understand.

But not as a form of birth-control, or if the would be mother just thinks it will get in the way, or doesn't even realize what they are throwing away. There are women who have been in tragic accidents, leaving them barren and empty on the inside, I know a few that would beat the shit out of the girls who have abortions for the latter reason, and I feel for them.

>>77 "as a form of birth-control". I'm not sure why people keep referring to abortion as being used as a form of birth control. Abortion is financially, emotionally, physically, and - in a lot of circumstances - socially taxing. I don't think any woman exists who would say "it's ok, I'll just get an abortion afterwards". There are much cheaper methods and even women who aren't very smart will realise this.

I'm pro-choice. There are many reasons someone may not be able to bear a child to term. Many might not want to deny the fetus a chance to mature and grow and live, but in forcing someone to bear and give birth to a baby you may also be condemning that baby (and it's mother) to death. It's all situational, you can't just make vague, generalised rules and expect them to be right 100% of the time when applied.

^In case it wasn't clear - I know that it is technically a form of birth control, however, I'm referring to the use of 'birth control' when people specifically mean "women using abortion in the way they would use contraception (such as the morning after pill).

>>78 >>80 Unfortunately, there are women who have money and don't care. They assume they won't get pregnant, so they don't bother using any form of contraceptive. When they realize months later that they are pregnant, then they just get an abortion. There are women who have done this countless times because they don't like or want to take a normal contraceptive. It's not unusual. It's part of the big controversy against abortion. People who can afford it don't about how much money it costs.

Those women are pretty much using it as a form of birth-control; it's perfectly fine to word it that way.

>>81 don't care about*

Hmm. I'm not saying it's wrong to word it that way, but that it's somewhat redundant when a very small portion of the world uses it that way. I realise that there are going to be some women who are wealthy enough to get as many abortions as they want in theory, but even so that isn't to say they don't care enough to use any contraception. If they're this wealthy I'm hesitant to believe they're uneducated, but if that IS the case, most people know abortions aren't a walk in the park. If they're not using contraceptives and getting abortions every single time they realise they're pregnant, well, they're probably not very intelligent, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights.

>>83 I think you're the one that really needs to use terms preoprly, by the way. It's not redundant in how it is used, nor are they uneducated. Neither of those words were used properly; I kindly ask you only use words you know how to use before you bash another phrase.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have the same rights; I'm saying that the term is used properly. And whether they're uneducated or not doesn't matter. They choose what they choose, and no amount of school is going to change that. Plenty of women do it; it's not a small portion. It's the minority that get abortions after rape or due to health concerns, not the majority.

Need I remind you, I'm pro-choice, but I'm not going to falsely defend those who have done wrong just to make my own arguement look better, nor would I walk into a debate with that arguement without understanding how invalid it is.

>>85 properly*
God, I can't type today.

>>73 I guess you're entitled to your view..but can you not conceive (heh) of the idea that a clump of cells doesn't have any consciousness yet? Its cells haven't even been specialized yet; it has no neurons or anything. It is incapable of thought or emotion. I don't see any way that it could be considered a human being.

>>74 >>78 :O I thought those were the same people for a second there. Scary~

I feel like everyone has a choice... though the idea of killing a child makes me shiver, i feel like its up to the mother.

>>68 Oh, so are you okay with killing a baby if it's not human? You don't mind if they're stomping puppies to death?

Just curious. It's interesting how you worded that there, so I figured I'd ask despite it being a bit off-topic.

I'm pro-choice, for reasons stated >>19.

>>89 I think that was mostly for effect, Barabi. No point splitting hairs due to word choice.

>>91 I was just curious. I'm allowed to ask, aren't I? Or is there some new rule that says curiosity is forbidden?

Yes.

Bump

Bump.
Any other opinion on the subject?

I believe that abortion isnt the right thing to do, unless the mother risks injury or death, or if she was raped and then became pregnant because of it (then she would have a choice whether or not to keep the baby), but if the mother and feutus are completely healthy and no risk or injury or death and the child was concieved by two consenting adults

I believe the choice should be entirely up to the mother of the child. I don't see it entirely as a right choice but everyone should be able to make their own decision on the case. Everyone does have their own reason for their own choices and actions I suppose.

I'm pro-choice, as on of my teachers say: they arent me, i dont make decisions for other people. he also says that he doesnt care cus they arent effecting him... but atm i dont agree, since this is a current issue.. he also said some other stuff explaining why he's pro-choice, but i dont remember any of it.

Would people mind stating their gender when commenting on this thread? I want to see how that affects people's opinions~

Male, pro-choice. But I still think people who don't want a child (at least not at the moment) should be responsible.

Female: Pro-choice.
I believe that if a girl or couple is not ready to have a child they should be extremely careful when it comes to their sex lives.
I know it's going to make people blush, but there needs to be more Education about teen pregnancy and sex. Also there needs to be acknowledgement that teens are going to go out there and have sex, so we also need to promote safe sex.
Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control, but it is the woman's body and while she is pregnant the fetus is a part of her body.

I'm female
my post was >>96

Pro-choice.
There is no black and white in life. You can't say that something is wrong 100% of the time. There are too many factors that affect what is going on. If a mother wants an abortion, then I can't tell her it is wrong. I don't know why she wants it. I don't know how she would be affected if she didn't have it. Each case should be judged by itself.

I'm female and pro-choice. My opinion is that the choice is up to the woman in question - if she believes abortion is wrong, no one's putting a gun to her head and forcing her to get one. Conversely, the women who have no problem with getting an abortion should be able to do so.

When it comes to the technicalities of it, I don't believe a fetus is a person until it can live outside of the womb. It doesn't matter if it has a brain or can feel pain. If it can't live, it can't be a person. I understand that there are some people who are going to look at me funny for that. I also understand that each fetus is different. So there should, indeed, be a general guideline (x number of months pregnant), but beyond that the fetus's viability should be determined by a trained doctor. If the fetus has a reasonable chance of survival (say in the double digits, 10% or more) then it can't be aborted.

Again, though, this is just my two cents.

[Commenting via friend's user name ;) .. cause he has no say about this topic...]

Female and Pro-choice


being pro-choice does not mean that you are anti-life or anything. Just give life to something/someone you can love... I think..

Pro-choice, sometimes you just know your not ready it could be a health risk, rape, you can't afford it, ect. Its really just up to the women.


Though I'm against women who do it just because they can and then go get knocked up against. Rinse, lather and repeat bullshit is not acceptable.

I mean they already have regulations on the process as it is so there are minimal mishaps persay. So yeah I stand pro- choice.

bump

Shameless self-bump.

bump

Bump

Bump - I'm doing a project on it for Religious Studies :3

Bump

Male, Pro-choice.
Lack of the choice only forces children to be born into homes that do not need or want them. Picture the problems. Also, until the fetus is developed to a certain degree, it's just a growth in the woman's body resulting from an unwanted reaction with some fluids, so getting it removed for the medical and lifestyle costs is at least as justifiable as a whole host of other surgeries that no one has a problem with.

Not sure if this is a good thing...
...or a bad thing..-.

Pro-choice; Female
>>113 not only that but also most kids are abused and neglected, which is when cps is called the kids either are on the street and usually get picked up by gangs which is not only bad for the kid but bad for the society causing problems for other people

Pro-choice; Female
>>113 not only that but also most kids are abused and neglected, which is when cps is called the kids either are on the street and usually get picked up by gangs which is not only bad for the kid but bad for the society causing problems for other people

Were is the choice for the baby? Someone who would murder there own child as it is growing inside them, relying on there mother to nourish and protection them only to be slaughtered by it own protector, how rotten. It was the mothers CHOICE to have sex with out protection, why should the child pay for the mothers actions? If she does not want the child in the end she should just give it up for adoption. Only in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother would die if she gave birth should abortion be considered. I could of had a older brother if my mother had not been so selfish...

117 holds a quite classical naive point of view. As stated before, the problem not only lies (for the child) in the abortion itself. An unwa nted child can, and in most cases will, be a burden. He or she will not get loved. Will not get a proper education. In the end, it can become the reason for the break up of a couple. 117 said he/she would have a brother. That is not true at all. Most likely, 117 would never have been born at all, had rhe brother existed.

>>118 >>117 Also, most statistics cite that the majority of abortions are by people who are married and used protection, but the protection fails. Also, it's really cool that this argument has gone on so calmly without a major flame war. The real issue though is when does the fetus count as a baby and when is it just a growth? Obviously once it's born, it's murder, but is it a baby at conception, a baby once it gains the ability to respond to stimuli, or a baby only after birth? Perhaps when brainwaves begin? This is the philosophical/scientific battle that has always stumped this debate. This is also the reason for the current staged system by trimester. I think that the issue would resolve for good if people would conclusively solve this component.

>>118 not only that but sometimes a couple with a heathly relationship, just can't have the baby at the time because maybe it would be to much for them. For example maybe the wouldn't have time for a child or they couldn't afford a baby at the time

Personally, I believe abortion should be legal. People have their own reasons, and although I don't think anyone has the right to take an unborn child's life, it's their choice whether or not we like it. Abortion is indeed terrible. It can cause many problems if an abortion goes wrong and all in all, it's considered murder. But again, people have their reasons. I think it really only depends on /why/ abortion should be caused. An overused excuse is because a condom broke or something, which is honestly a stupid reason to take a child's life. It's probably because of that or other dumb reasons that it's become such a controversial topic.

But just to end my stupid theory and whatever, here is the conclusion:

People have their own choices, wrong or right, and it depends on them whether they act on them or not. If a person decides to abort a child, it's because of a reason and most likely not because they would do it for fun. Even if we don't support, we can't do anything about it, really. We can persuade them into other choices, for example, if they don't want the child, they can give birth to it and put the child up for adoption? I think it's much better than abortion. So yeah, that's my say on this.

I don't think abortion should be illegal, but I do believe that people who would need to resort to an abortion should pregnancy occur have even more of a responsibility to use birth control and protection.

How would the child be a burden if its put up for adoption? As soon as the mother gave birth the new parents would be caring for it, newborns are the easiest to adopt out. Most of the time you meet with people who would like to adopt your baby once its born and you pick one of the couples to have it and then they help you out with things that deal with the baby till its born and they can take it home.

Adoption is definitely an alternative to abortion that could be considered by a couple who would have a hard time raising a child. It is important to keep in mind, however, that pregnancy itself can place quite a burden on a mother. Medical bills, missed days of work, decreased physical fitness, emotional stress, and sometimes outright health concerns are all factors that are can be overlooked.

>>124 Except, the adoption system is currently allegedly pretty flawed with abusive foster parents, lack of funding, and whatnot. (http://voices.yahoo.com/10-things-wrong-american-adoption-system-8406651.html?cat=25) There are some Sure, if it was perfectly reformed, this would be invalid, and the government does try to help people much of the time, but that won't happen in the short run. Straight out laws move faster than long term system reform, especially in this economy. While the concept of adoption may be relevant, it's currently a debate in its own right. Regardless, the child is likely to lead a miserable life if the parents aren't ready to have it, whether or not they're put up for adoption.

Agreed to >>125. Just that i'm not from America, so I don't know much about the system there. The main reason I didn't take adoption into account is that 9 months is a long time, and anything can happen awhile. Also, "giving to adoption" is not something as easy to accept as you make it look like. Once you have put up with it for a so long time, it may not be easy to just let it go.

>>103>>29>>20>>19>>18>>14
These

But since I never got around to giving my proper opinion, and there are some things those posts don't cover, I'll just put this here.

I don't care about the kid until it's born. Not to be harsh or anything, but it's just a concept until then, whether it can think and feel or not. If it's in my body, it's a part of me, and it's up to me what I do with it. I am eternally pro-choice and think it is up to the mother to do what she wishes with her body.

One another thing: even if abortion is illegal, they will still be done, just like they used to be done. All it takes is a hanger to give yourself an abortion. Of course... that has been done more than once despite it's danger, I'd be lying if I said all the women (mostly teenage girls) survived after doing so.

It's just like prostitution in that way: just because it's illegal doesn't mean the demand is any less.

One other*

^

I'm Pro Choice as well. I don't think that a politician especially *MALE* politicians should have any say about whether a woman should have an abortion.Besides there are things to consider besides the immediate health of the mother. A lot of abortions are done because the family cant support the child. However, with current laws, if the Mother isn't able to make a decision on the mater till the 2nd or 3rd Trimester, then ,Oh well, the Religious Zealots say its already a child so you have to support it or your a murderer.

Just to clear things up: I have no problem with Christianity or any other Religion. I'm quite a devout man myself. However Unless the country is Theocratic, I.E. Iran, or Saudi Arabia, Religion should play no roll in politics. Its fine if you believe something, but in the Government you act for the good of the COUNTRY which means you need to think with something besides your Bible (or Torah, Qur'an, etc.). If you have a moral problem with Abortion that is your right, but it shouldn't be because your priest told you to.

And I would like to Clear something up. I don't know if anyone has said this so I'm going to. Roe v. Wade DIDN'T legalize Abortion, it brought it under Doctor Patient Confidentiality, which means even the Government cant ask who has and hasn't had one.

I totally agree with what >>130 said.
I'm pro-choice. If you can't afford the child, aren't emotionally balanced enough to raise it, was raped, or there are health issues, I vote on abortion. Or adoption.

But if someone uses abortion as their version of birth control, I hope Karma kicks their @$$.

That's just my view, though. I think that it is life, but if the mother isn't happy about it or stable (money or emotional) then the child will suffer in life.

I also think those against abortion shouldn't have to pay taxes going to it. If they think it's morally wrong they shouldn't have to support it with their money. At least I think you pay taxes on it, if not correct me if I'm wrong.

>>131 I don't think they do, but either way, we pay taxes for a ton of shit that we find morally wrong... Your personal morals don't affect what taxes you pay.

I'm still not sure where I stand on this one. I think, if not dangerous to the mother's health, she should not get an abortion, rather have the kid and put it up for adoption.

>>133 And what do you think of that in relation to women who are raped? They should go through nine months of bullshit and hours/days of labor to deliver a child they never wanted just so it can be given up, possibly to someone who wants it even less?

-

I think people underestimate how tough pregnancy is. It's not a walk in the park. Having a child is a huge deal, and when people say you should have it just to give it away, it's like a slap in the face. Its saying the mother is so utterly worthless that her life and job and mental health are nothing compared to the child. She's a piece of useless shit who shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place.

The physical torment of morning sickness and general pregnancy is nothing. The emotional torment of giving the child away and forever wondering what happened to it is nothing. The economic torment of an unpaid leave (not all companies give proper, paid maternity leave) is nothing. Being forbidden from doing 3/4 of the active things they love or eating/drinking 3/4 of what love is nothing. Getting more and more distant from those they love is nothing. (You think a dedicated boyfriend will stay attached to a woman who's giving up her baby? No sex. You're no keeping the child, so there's no bonding. That relationship is usually gone by the end of it.) The stress of losing your self-image, being covered in stretch marks, and the general pressure of fad dieting after the pregnancy to lose all that weight is nothing; who cares what the mom thinks of herself so long as the child lives? Right?

If it were a child she loved and was going to raise, it would all be worth it. But just to give it up? You don't do something like that to yourself just to hand the result off to someone else.

bumping up good threads

^

nani sori

^

^

^

^

^

^

true?!

So, since there's a debate going on on the News board, I figured we could bump this up and have an actual debate on Main like we used to.

So, what are your opinions on abortion? I am pro-choice. Most of the children that are aborted would have been born to teenage, poor, and/or unmarried. These are not good environments to raise children in. I do not believe in dooming a child to a horrible life being raised by an unsuportive family or worse, in the foster care system.

i'm anti abortion. if you don't want your child to have a bad life put them up for adoption. They shouldn't be killed cause you can't handle them.

I'm personally pro-choice. There are tons of reasons for it but a huge thing that people don't consider is that no matter what, women will continue to have abortions. Getting rid of clinics will only make women go to unsafe environments, or risk their lives by doing things like using the hanger and sitting on lead. It is true, and it has been proven that getting rid of clinics would only lose more lives in the process.

Of course I wish every child could be born and every one could just be happy, safe, and alive with loving families and no worry about paying the medical bill; but the world doesn't work that way.

No creo que sea un tema en el que se pueda estar a favor o en contra sin estar dentro del problema del embarazo, por ejemplo, si dices que estas en contra, lo estas mientras no tienes un problema como el embarazo no planeado, aun asi creo que la vida de el niño, o el nuevo ser, vale mucho, pero siempre debes ser egoista con tu futuro ¿No? En mi opinion, es mejor dar a luz a un hijo, rodeado de un ambiente amoroso, a una situacion en la que el padre sea obligado a casarse, eso es lo que creo .3.

I am against abortion. It doesn't matter if the baby isn't born yet, he's still a baby. 'Abortion' is just a nice word for 'murder'.

Me too I'm against this. I have a batchmate who recently got pregnant but she's willing for abortion. I don't know what to say about it. What I do know is that aborting the baby is breaking the fifth commandment... :(

>>149 No, premature mandatory life completion is a nice way of saying murder; abortion is completely different. Surprisingly few people seem to understand that a 6 week old foetus does not look like a baby, it looks more like a globbish, vaguely ~might be humanoid~ style lump. A baby in that stage is barely life at all, removing it has the same consequences as masturbating. Also, nice gender selective with the "he" by the way, glad to know all babies are males.

>>151 It doean't matter if she/he doesn't look like a baby yet. Even if the baby is barely life, he/she is still alive.

>>152 Just going to pop in while I'm on this board, but that's the same as not eating meat. It was a living thing too. So are plants.
So unless you don't eat any organic matter at all, then you're pretty much going against your own rules.
Not everyone (or everything) gets a chance to live a full life. That's just how things work.
Unless you propose I get pregnant every time I'm on my period because I shouldn't let that life go to waste, then that's bullshit. Excuse my language but it really is.
>>151 Abortion at six weeks is basically the same as masturbating and not donating to a sperm bank is the newest weapon in my arsenal. Thank you for saying that.

I think we should all agree to disagree. We all have our opinions on the matter, lets not argue amongst each other over it. Can we at least all agree on that?

>>154 This isn't arguing: This is a discussion.

>>154 You do realise this is a thread for debating right?... What the fuck are we going to do if not argue?

>>146 Do you know how many children are put up for adoption every year? Because it's way higher than the amount of people who want to adopt a child. The foster care system in America is a horrible horrible place for a child, the orphanages in other countries are even worse. Don't tell me "you can just put s/he up for adoption" until you've been to an orphanage crawling with little kids who have about one adult to every 20 kids, not enough toys, depending on the kindness of strangers to get new clothing, and not getting nearly enough attention. And that's just in Japan. Have you ever met a kid adopted late in life from the Ukraine? I have. He was absolutely miserable until he got out. And he's just one out of thousands of children in orphanages around the globe. Yeah, we could just give every child aborted up for adoption instead. We can just doom them to horrible lives until they get old enough to be kicked out onto the street. Giving a child up for adoption may seem like a good alternative, but it's not.

>>145 Whoah whoa woa waaaaaaiiiiiit a second there.

Being raised by a single parent is "not a good environment to raise a child in"? That's absolute and utter bullshit, Anu.

maybe if said parent doesnt know what the fuck their doing yea, but if they do then its really no different

I think that abortion should be that persons choice. Its not like they are making you have an abortion, so don't make them not have one. If you don't like it then don't do it, its as simple as that. It has nothing to do with you. Its an option and it should be left that way.
And for people who think that a fetus is the same this as a baby and should be treated as such, think of it this way. If I had a fetus in a bowl in one hand (that's right, its in a bowl, because its blood basically) and a baby in the other and you could save one from dying, which would it be? If you truly believed that the fetus is just like a baby, it would be hard for you to choose, however any normal person would choose the baby.
Also, sixteen year olds aren't able to adopt a child because they aren't as mature or capable to have a child. Nobody in their right mind would give a baby over to a sixteen year old, right? So why make them have one when they are pregnant?
And when people say that child can go into a foster home, really? Foster homes are horrible and a lot of abuse goes on in them.
And as for Christians who believe god gave that person the child because its apart of their plan, god also gave them right to abortion, so that was in his plan too. So if they choose to have an abortion, that was in gods plan. (im a Christian too by the way)
Im not going to try to bring up every topic and try to speak against it, but its their life, let them do what they want with it. If they want to have an abortion, let them, that's them, you have no right to try and control that because it has and it shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with you.
So I don't think abortions should be made illegal because really the people voting to make it legal can just choose not to use it, don't take it away from everyone else. Its the same with gay rights, alcohol, guns, etc. If you don't like it then don't do it, it has nothing to do with you so just don't make a big deal about it. Let other people make their choice and you make yours, there's no reason to go and take it away from everyone when you can just choice not to do it.

>>158 Most unmarried girls who find themselves in this situation barely have a way to support themselves, much less a child. Plus, who is giving that child support while the parent is working? Unless the girl is getting support from her parents or close friends, she's leaving that child in a cheap daycare while she works. That is not a good environment to raise a child in. If the girl does have some way to take care of a child and work without handing the kid over to strangers all day, then I wouldn't say it's bad. I do have respect for women who can raise a child well in that environment, but they're probably running themselves into the ground while they do it. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's incredibly hard and places more of a burden on the mother. Being a single mother alone isn't necessarily bad, but most single mothers are also poor and young.

>>161 What you're talking about isn't single parents - you're talking about bad parents, young or old, married or unmarried. There are plenty of couples who work all day and hand their kids off to other people and still can't make ends meet. There is absolutely no reason to single out single parents--especially single mothers--as being the most likely to be bad parents.

>>162 Working long hours to support your child doesn't necessarily make you bad, it just makes you poor. I'm not saying that single parents are inherently bad. I'm just saying that when you work for eight plus hours a day for minimum wage to pay for food, clothes, and bills, do you really think that you can afford quality child care? If you have two people, at least you can move your hours so the kid can be with a parent a majority of the time, it's just harder when you're alone. Being a single parent in itself is not a problem, but it can compound the other problems. Single moms can be the best parents in the world, I know several who have raised great kids.

>>163 By saying that, you're implying that there aren't poor couples. You're also assuming that both parties are either working or one party is dedicated to watching the children. There are a lot of assumptions going on here, Anu. Beyond that, you're also assuming that all single parents are working maximum hours for minimum wage, which is extremely insulting; there are plenty of single mothers and fathers who are successfully working in high-paying jobs, just like there are plenty of couples who are collecting unemployment.

^

>>164 Like I said before, being single isn't a problem itself, but it can compound the problem of being poor and young. Yes, there are poor couples, but if they work together (not saying all will), they can at least divide and conquer and spend more time with the kid. I'm not talking about the single parents who have successful jobs. I'm only talking about the would be single mothers who get abortions. Most of the girls who get abortions that are single don't have successful jobs, these are the girls that will be working minimum wage for maximum hours. I'm not saying a single mother can't raise a child. I'm not saying a single mother could not raise a child well. I'm saying that as far as abortions go, the single girls who get them would most of the time not be good mothers, at least at that point in their lives.

This is kind of an undecidable part of the argument because it all completely depends on the specific single mother, and her living conditions in the scenario. It is more inclined to make it tougher for her to be a good parent though. Not saying it's impossible, I know quite a few good, single mothers but the odds certainly aren't in her favour.

>>167 Pretty much this.
Children raised by single parents DO sometimes have more trouble than children with married/coupled parents, but that isn't the only deciding factor. Some single parents have great, well-paying jobs and others don't. Some married parents are unable to work and don't get a lot of money.
It also depends on if the single mother/father is getting payment from their ex, or if said ex is not in contact for one reason or another. I know a girl who never knew her father and she turned out just fine - her mother holds a well-paying job.
If we're talking about a single parent who is unable to work, or is working an underpaid or generally crappy job, that's another story. Chances are they might not always be well-fed and hey might live in a stressful environment, but some kids handle it better than others.
All in all, it depends on the individual. Some people can get jobs easily and others can't; some people don't ask for much. Neither I nor my single mother are able to work and, though we don't always have two meals a day, we're fine. We've got our problems and sometimes we don't have enough cash to pay the bills, but we keep going. Because we've adapted to live like that; it's what we're used to.
>>166 When my father was still around, before my mother got her disability, I barely even saw my parents. They'd both work all day - we'd only them when my mother dropped my brother and I off at school, and my father only at dinner. So no, not all couples can work together on it and spend time with their children. I think we were worse off then than we are now.
(Wow we've kind of gone off topic, sorry)

I have not read much of this thread or much on the laws around this in general, but i'll share my opinion. In my eyes, it really depends on the situation. If the person raped, i think it should be their choice no matter what stage the pregnency is in. If the parents are not capable of taking care of the child and it would only be put up for adoption, i would say it's the parents choice(the adoption system can be flawed and the child has a decent chance of having a horrible life). If the parents are fully capable of taking care of the child, i say they should have the option for the first stage of pregnancy then after that they have to go threw with it unless there is a significant health threatening risk to the mother. Over all, i guess i side with pro-choice. That's my opinion(I apologize for any spelling or grammar errors in advance).

they have right to life too,
but if the abbortion is necessary for mother life,it dependent on their(family) choice,either both die or the child get aborted or the mother died,because of this I am neutral...(sorry,my english is not good)

^

^

^

Bump.

Don't think I mentioned it yet, but I'm fine with abortion.

When it comes to abortion, im definitely against it, but i do feel that a person has the right to do whatever they want concerning their own body. Its okay to have your beliefs and all but, you should never push them onto somebody else, we have the right to make our own choices in life.

Le bump,

I am against abortion, not because I am church's dog, but I believe that when people say that they have their right to do whatever things they want to do to their body, think also for that tiny innocent living inside your body: if you think that you dont want them to be there, they even more do not like you to be their parents. Basically, it is your choice to make that happen, not the child's, so dont blame the child for the stupidity of yours. :))

In cases of rape and incest, it would be better for the child to be aborted. otherwise, they may grow up being unlove,abused, raped, or killed. which would you want

Bump.

^

^

^

^

I would choice pro-choice manly because the Republican party wants to make Legal Rape and that if the women could abort the baby the rapist could sue the women, plus look at the book at Freakonics which actually deals with abortions and how it benefited america with the crime rate which was on the rise then dropped down mainly because the future criminals were never born.
Plus it is the women's decision on weather or not to keep the baby.
And im 17 and I know all this stuff so let other and younger people learn.

I believe that pro-choice is the best.If the republicans don't allow women to have the choice of an abortion, then we don't have the freedom that men do.

^

Bump.

^

Bump

^

----

>>178 This has been brought up before. When does the 'tiny thing' living inside become life worth protecting? When it is a cell? Two cells? Do we need a cell count? When it starts 'looking human'? When is the organism growing inside a woman considered a child? You absolutely have to make up some arbitrary thing to define it. I, personally, might say when they can think and have any form of brain activity, but that is entirely arbitrary.

And, if you want to talk about ending lives that never were, consider the following: by not having sex right now, you are ending any possibility many people had at ever being conceived and born. These people could have grown up to be doctors, lawyers, people that could have helped humanity. But, by not conceiving all these theoretical people, you have ended those lives.

Obviously you can just go on forever with that argument. It gets ridiculous, of course. But that's what I am saying. Saying anything like "That fetus could have grown into an important person," is just silly. Every day millions, no billions of 'theoretical lives' are ended each day by simple choices people make. That is just life. We never considered it murder then, why now?

And, of course, I have to say it: how could the government possibly know what to do with your body better than you? It doesn't make sense, especially when the 'baby' is essentially a part of the mother rather than a standalone organism that can survive on its own. When the government dictates how you can use your body, that right there is a slippery slope my friend.

well its not really "mudering(?)" the fetus. and that is true
if there were no abortions, then there would be alot of unhappy people in the world. because some women have abortions because they are not ready to bear a child, or the environment is not right for it.

>>194 Exactly. I feel like people put life above living. You can have life, if you are breathing and getting food enough to live. However, living a life where you get barely enough food every day for your entire childhood and are never ever happy just because living is great doesn't make sense to me.

I disagree making abortion a law. It has a life and that is the responsibility of the parent. killing an innocent kid is just a cruel thing

>>194 I agree, but I want to put this out there once again: There's no such thing as no abortions. No matter how illegal anyone makes it, it's still going to happen. Whether it's done with an acid pill or a hanger, women are still going to get abortions no matter what the law says. It could be declared a crime worthy of execution, and women would still get them. Either that or they'll just dump the baby when they have it, like the girls that used to leave their babies in toilet at proms or who toss them in dumpsters after they're born.

My biggest concern is the lives of those women and their children. Many women used to die from dark alley abortions; the hangar will kill the baby, but the chances of the mother bleeding out afterwards were fairly high. Even legal pills that you can take to clear out your system (TMA pill) are somewhat dangerous, nevermind the illegal replicas that will be made if abortion itself is made illegal.

Personally, I'd rather see a fertilized egg properly aborted within the first trimester of pregnancy rather than see an actual baby killed later on with illegal methodology.

^

>>197 This.

^

^

^

Well depends at the age of the mom. I mean, in my country a 12 years old girl was raped and she got pregnant. And the problem was she didn't grew up. Her body wasn't prepared for having a child. But she still had it. She was under medical surveillance all the time and had a healthy baby.
It's up to a mother to decide to have the baby or not. But I'm against abortion.
>>197 I agree with you

I think that as long as the decision is one that the woman reached on her own, abortion should be completely legal.

I know so many people who say that "abortion is immoral, it's disgusting! Abortions should be illegal!" yet when I ask them if a woman who was raped can get an obortion, or someone who has a high chance of death if they continue with the pregnancy can have an abortion, they say yes. The double standard kills me.

They say they see eveyone in the same light, that everyone is equal in their eyes. Yet they will try their hardest to keep someone from doing something they have chosen to do, completely knowledgeable of the reprocussions and effects it may have.

If someone has made the decision to do something, I think they should have the right to do so (and I know that my lack of proper wording of this phrase will get me attacked by people wailing "so if someone made the decision to rape someone, they should be able to?" Those people are just arguing to argue and they know it so shut your little face and try to have an intelligent conversation for once).

----

Bump

Anyone from Puerto Rico?
Hello, is anyone in here from Puerto Rico or puertorrican? If so, email me at: janai735@gmail.com and we should talk! :D and even if not, email me anyways, I'm up for meeting new people here.

It depends on the situation and the person, doesn't it? But if the baby was made because of carelessness, like teenagers not using protection, shouldn't they be held responsible?

....Do people who are pro-life.....
.....eat eggs for breakfast?....
(can't post the velociraptor meme here)

>>208 What do you mean be 'held responsible'? Do you think they should carry the baby as a punishment? I can't say I agree with that. I would be disappointed if I knew the only reason I was born is to punish my mother.

As I said before, there is no defined point when an egg turns into a human. Most people just think when it has eyes or looks human it is. Well, I have an argument here. Consider a full grown chimpanzee. It has more intelligence than a baby in pretty much everything it does. However, we don't consider it a huge crime to kill a chimpanzee, compared to a baby anyway. So, if we don't consider it a crime to kill a non-human that is more intelligent and advanced than a baby, I can hardly believe we can consider it a bad thing to kill a non-human that is less intelligent and advanced than a baby.

The whole problem people have is ending an innocent human life. But what makes an unborn child human? Why is it worse to kill a fetus than an animal? What defines a human, anyway?

My opinion: mother's choice. Maybe they don't know best, but I can safely say the government doesn't know better.

^

^

^

Bump

^

bump for discussion

I think abortion is just. Creating life is beautiful (or so I am told) and should be done by someone who chooses to. I don't exactly agree that if one gets pregnant they should just give up responsibility. But I myself being a woman cannot think about the idea of being raped and forced to have the mans baby grow inside you, that wonderous amazing process of creating life, becomes a distrusting fungi that constantly reminds you of the dreadful way you got it, not the baby(as a human being) of course I mean the egg, it isn't a baby yet. What if you were raped (and impregnated) by a family member, for example, your father, I couldnt live with myself in the disgust

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=abortion&FORM=HDRSC2

Take a look. This is abortion. Once the baby has finished creation of the main body (sorry, gonna go religious...sort of) it has a soul. When abortion happens, the soul is forcefully torn from the body, but it never gets to take a real, physical form on earth. It can never prove itself.

(Sorry if this was odd.)

I haven't looked at the picture yet (my apologies) but in the early stages of pregnancy can a fetus not be removed before developed?

^

bump for order

asd

I believe in the right of choice. If you can choice not to do it, and someone else choosing to do It wont affect you at all, I believe that we should be able to have the option. The same with same sex marriage, it doesn't affect you and you can choice not to do it, so whats so wrong with it?
Its not your baby and its not even a baby yet, its a fetus. If you truly believed that a baby and a fetus are the same thing, then if I had a baby in one hand and a fetus in the other then which one would you save if you could only save one. If you honestly believed that they were alike then this decision would be hard, but most people would choose the baby over a fetus.
Im sorry if I sound rude, it was not intentional. I don't plan on ever getting an abortion or letting my partner get one that is, but I believe that everyone has the right to choose whether or not they want to do it.
And before you say its easy for me to say this because im obviously atheist, then you are wrong. I am a Christian, a proud one at that. I just believe in the right of choice.

And for those who say that a fetus should live and that we are taking away a life my abortion, that is both true and untrue. A fetus, is a bunch of blood, its not alive yet. But it could potentially be a life. We are just preventing it from being a life, kind of like using a condom, but not.
Also, for those who say that if you don't want a baby then just put it in foster care. Maybe they don't want to go through the painful experience of giving birth. But also, foster homes are usually terrible. To be put in a home and made fun of for being a foster child and being not wanted. To go through rejection and live in a strangers home and pretending they are your family. That is no way to live, and most kids would rather die then go through some of the abuse that goes on there.

>>224
Not counting the fact that they are just putting another child in our broken system, where money is harder and harder to come by. If they have a child it hurts the economy more, if they put it in Foster care, the same thing as above, happens.

Oh, and just because I like humans, it doesn't mean that I like you personally

boop

Pro-choice.
Because everyone is entitled to choose what happens to her body and that whatever one may say: pregnancy is not a cakewalk. I think it is better to legalize abortion rather than children are abused, unloved by their parents. It is easy to say that everyone should "assume its mistakes," but those who suffer most from the ban would be the children .. unwanted lifetime.
It should also be said that the abortion ban would pose new problems: it would only make this illegal act. It does not stop the abortions, it would make them more dangerous because just performed an unsafe manner.

That is a rather silly excuse for making a morally wrong act acceptable in today's society. If you can show me one person that truly regrets living, maybe then I'll agree with you.

While I can understand some reasons why someone would be Pro-Life, what I can't understand is that it's being debated whether or not a woman should have the right to choose if she wants to give birth. Let's be realistic: Abortions happen in, like, the first 2 months of being pregnant, so it's debatable whether or not it's a baby already. Yes, it's a loss, but trust me, even if there are some sick people out there, no woman has an abortion 'just like that'. No sane woman, at least.
Just mah two cents.

bump

^

^

asdf

^

<>

I am pro-choice.

There are tons of reasons for it; but a huge thing that people don't consider is that, no matter what, women will continue to have abortions anyway. Getting rid of clinics will only make women go to unsafe environments (like 3rd party, unlicensed, dirty hospitals/doctors), or by doing things like using the hanger and sitting on lead. Either way, it's a HUGE risk of that person's life. These people are desperate (for good reason). And it's true; it has been proven that getting rid of clinics would only lose more lives in the process than "save" any.

Of course I wish every child could be born and everyone could just be happy, safe, and alive with loving families and not worry about paying the medical bill; but the world doesn't work that way. Life doesn't work that way. And if you think it does then I'm not sorry but you're a fucking idiot.

If you're young, aren't emotionally/financially balanced enough to raise the child, was raped, there are health issues, etc, I vote on abortion. Or adoption. But, that brings me to another topic on how people think women can just "give it up for adoption." You think it's that fucking easy? No. You're very misinformed.

Pregnancy is 9-10 fucking months of pain, paying for hospital visits/better fitting clothes, cravings, your body changing in WAY more ways than just your stomach growing huge which is bad enough in itself, etc.; and then the actual birth is painful. Yes, it all depends on the woman, but no, going through a pregnancy/birth is not fucking easy. And then what happens after the birth? A lot of the time, a woman will decide "Hey, I went through all this pain and emotional connection with the child, I'm just going to keep it!" even though they still aren't ready for raising a child or already signed it off for adoption. So, no, never fucking say women can just use adoption as an alternative to abortion.

Also not to mention the life for the adopted child after birth, depending on where it ends up, but I won't get into that because hopefully you get the idea now.

But I will say this against abortion: if someone uses abortion as their version of birth control instead of at least trying to be safe, I hope Karma kicks their ass.

And my last point: This is a women's body rights issue (I hope I worded that right because I can't think of the right words to use). Literally, having more laws that will govern a woman's body will make them have less rights than a fucking dead person. That's right; dead people have rights concerning their body. If someone in their life says they do not want anyone to use their body parts in anyway after death, then it would be illegal to use them. Yes, even if to save a life.

So even after taking out the "it's murder!" issue, it's also a body rights issue and I don't fucking want more laws governing my body and I could give a crap less what you fucking think.

Usually I am very acceptable of people with different views, especially on government issues, but this is one of the things that literally the most uninformed people have to not be on a certain side of the argument on ("pro-life", as in, lots of pregnant women AND their children die and more kids get put into horrible lives. "pro-life" my fucking ass that's a horrible, misleading name for something that's supposed to be so "morally correct"). You may want all children to be born, but are you seriously going to put a fucking fetus over the lives, safety, and rights of millions of women?

>>236 I meant the "" to say "Updated version of my previous statements in this thread" but it messed up.

>>229 You're a complete idiot. "One person that truly regrets living"? Seriously? Have you never heard of the term "suicide" before? Have you never fucking watched your friends, family, or any loved ones spiral into a depression so bad they wanted to kills themselves? Or knew anyone at fucking all that actually killed themselves? Or hurt themselves? But I guess those people don't "truly regret living", because taking their own fucking life isn't enough proof that some people have it freakin' hard in this world. What the fuck do you even think in that head? That everyone is happy? That we all live in a joyous world where people DON'T regret living? Wake up and go outside, kid.

+1 HAM

i'm pro-choice for abortion. honestly, if a person effs up and got pregnant because they didn't use protection or wtvr, that's really their own fault. that baby doesn't deserve to die because of a person's dumb mistakes. however, if that person does choose to get an abortion, i think it should be done within the first few days/weeks? (like, before the fetus becomes a fetus. i can't remember the word for it). but if like three months into the pregnancy, the person chooses to back out because they can't 'deal' with morning sickness, etcetc, then i don't think that should be allowed. they need to own up to their mistakes/take responsibility.
but, if a woman gets raped and gets pregnant, i think she should be allowed to get an abortion. i get that a lot of people say that if someone gets raped, they could always give the baby up for adoption, but i don't think the mother should have to go through like, nine months of morning sickness, aches, and pains from carrying a child and then go through the pain of child labor because of circumstances out of her control.

asdf

I say abortions should only ever happen if it was rape, it would be detrimental to the mother's health for it to be brought into the world, and I don't mean in a stress way, I mean in an actual medical way, or if the baby would die during birth anyway. If they were stupid enough to have sex and have a baby without wanting one, they need to own up to their mistake and actually raise it.

I think that up untill the second trimester abortion should be leagal, no question asked. Bringing another human into the world is a big thing, and people should be allowed to not take this kind of responsibility. Mistakes are made, that happans. If the parents are 16 or 14 or sometimes even if they are 20 , not having children is as basic a right as having them.

but another important thing I think sould be discussed is the father. (please read the next part knowing that I'm female)
pragnency is not just the woman's. I think that unless the father is not around or unknown , he should have a saying, and abortion should either be a shared decision or the parent who want the child should be legaly unable to demand -anything- brom the other parent once the child is born.

all that if there is no risk for the mother obviously

Its not my place to say being a boy but i think people should really think about it before getting an abortion its just time is like a web people affect every one one way pr another i mean there are tons of couple that cant have babes that would like them.My sister and her husban be two of them but the parent need to think over it if it will affect her life how i mean if its just gonna stop you from parting thats a really crapy reason ya know or heath wise will it kill her.It's not my desion but personally i hate people who think there right is to judge over one another but if there is another person who should have a say the father should well there should be a very talk between a very understood person of the stiuation apointed by a state to tell them or her all the other options before abortion and then let them make an eduacated choice in what they want to do.I mean your not them and you hadn't walked in there path to see from there total perspected so god forbide you think you have thats what i say to fashest sorry if i spelled that wrong any way well thats it have a good holiday and a happy new year because as far as i know every one looks foward to that

>>242 Because pregnancy doesn't happen on accident...??

Like, using a condom, birth control, AND pulling out still isn't 100% risk free of getting pregnant. Just because someone gets pregnant doesn't make them "stupid". It also doesn't mean they should have to go through the emotional and physical trauma of a pregnancy just for a mistake. And I also disagree with you on the emotional thing; a mother being emotionally incapable to deal with pregnancy, birth and raise a child is a totally valid reason to not have to go through one.

Also, if every mother were to raise a child they would otherwise abort, whose to say they would be a good mother? Or financially/emotionally capable? The child may suffer a lot in life. Raising a child is a serious thing; it shouldn't be taken lightly or forced upon.

----

^

----

Why bump these old threads, you?

>>249 They're discussion threads. We're bumping them in the hopes that someone with an ounce of intelligence will decide to join the debate.

Plus, threads like these are a really great example of what's actually supposed to be on Main. It kind of sucks that there have been so few good threads on this board lately.

^

----

----

^

----

----

im sorry,but i dont know what you're talking about...sorry...

this isn't a bump or reply but...

>>258 what exactly are you confused about?
the thread topic is literally in the title: 'abortion: pro-life vs pro-choice'
like, are you for abortion or are you against it?

62756D70

----

I think choose is the best idea for the subject but i think that women should have tolook through all the other options before getting the abourtian to make a fully educated dission that she made not any one else there are tons of couples that want kids that cant have them so why not if it doesnt affect your health have the kid and give it up but then again its your choose not any one else not in cluding rape ithink if your raped you have a right to a abortian if wanted but thats my opion and that all onthe matter.

Everyone who is for abortion hasn't been aborted, just saying. In my own opinion I'm against abortion.

^

AGAINST!!! Abortion is killing a baby before he was born, KILLING is wrong!!! And I hate people who said that stupid thing about it her body.... IT IS NOT!!! The baby has its own body, just inside another body, but it is still a different body!!!
IF YOU WENT BACK IN TIME WHEN YOU WERENT BORN YET AND YOUR MOTHER DECIDED TO ABORT YOU, WOULD YOU AGREE??!!
Think about it

Death is a simple key in life. We will all die. Abortion is just a death sooner then a later one. You see everyone has a point in life they were ment to die. What if the childs family was poor as well and couldnt get the right food or home conditions it would die then too. Abortion is not truely murder. You didnd shoot it, stab it, smash its head in. Its not exactly human until like 5-6 months into a pregnancy.

Also concider this, does it even have a so called soul yet? Does it have a mind of its own? It may have a heart but so do animals. Life is a balance and death is needed for new life. Once an abotrion takes place a baby is born anyways. Silly that this is still contraversy. It makes me laugh.

I usually try not to argue these issues with people, but meh, I'm in a good mood...

>>263 >>265 As opposed to those who have been aborted who are against it? You both speak as if aborted fetuses were alive and kicking.

To a certain point in the pregancy, it kinda is generally considered to be her body, >>265, and consider this scenario - what if giving birth were to endanger the lives of the mother AND her child? What then?

If you're gonna be against abortion, try using a more personal approach to the argument, because logically, there's little wrong with abortion. I'm generally for it as the law is stated in the OP; having an abortion for non-health reasons after the third, perhaps even second trimester, is, in my opinion, wrong.

See, if a mother isn't willing to take care of a child, it's probably better if she doesn't have it - in such situations, the child will likely grow up either unloved or in a bad environment. Or both.

Not that life isn't important, but I'm gonna say that quality of life is more important than life itself. Take that as you will.

62756D70

asdf

----

asdf

^

^

^

It's like killing a person, it should be illegal, people should wear protection.

>>275 Protection is never 100%. Accidents happen. Rape happens.

It's very controversial, I don't have a clear answer but I'm shifting towards abortion should be illegal, it's similar to killing a person, I find that highly unethical

I personally don't agree with it since I feel like its killing a human being who had a chance at this world just like all of us, and should be treated as a human being. Let's say I knock someone up I wouldn't just get an abortion just because its the easiest way out no I would suck it up and take responsibility for what I did. Or if a mother doesn't want her child or a father doesn't want it then you can bring the child to the local fire department turn them in there and no questions will be asked.

>>276 So that justifies ending a life? I see what you mean, but I don't think that justifies abortion. Also, by life, I don't mean "alive" as in the brain pattern scientific definition, but that you are ending a "life" as in the experiences the child would have experienced had they ever lived. It's like killing before they even live, but that's just my opinion.

Abortions are disgusting, ofcourse there are certain reason you may have one such as pregnancy from rape or if the mother or child may die from the delivery but to just 'acidently' get fucking pregnant and kill the baby for your mistake is wrong, if you dont want to get pregnant take all precaustions neccesary and you wony get pregnant.

If you get an abortion you should go to fucking hell.

>>279

Unfortunately, potential lives being ended as a reason to keep unborn children alive is unreasonable. Every time you don't have sex, you are preventing hundreds of millions of people to be born. Think of the possibilities! The chemistry in your nether-regions changes over time! That means having sex two minutes from now will produce totally different children than having sex right now! In this sense, you already kill hundreds of people before they are born, even if you already have children. Or, consider the following: not getting an abortion prevents a child you could have conceived after that fact from being born. Or, even better, having that child could make that child prevent other people from having children, by not having sex with them, and then they could kill hundreds of people each minute! The cycle continues!

I really don't like this argument that hinges on experiences never being experienced. You do this every day, and not just by withholding your dick! Each time you make a decision, you change the entire world. Have you ever heard of the butterfly effect? Would you charge that butterfly with manslaughter after a hurricane rampages through North America? What if you convince your friend they should walk home with you instead of taking the bus, and they don't ever meet their partner, with whom they would have traveled the world and achieved internal harmony with themselves? Does that sound ridiculous and purely hypothetical? So is assuming a child would have been a doctor or scientist, if only they had never been aborted. Even assuming a child would have had a good life and good experiences is far-fetched, especially when considering that most mothers that want to abort their child are not going to give their child a great life. It's being the child of someone who just tried to kill you. Why is that a good idea?

TL;DR - Potential life experiences are ended each day according to Chaos Theory and by people who are not conceiving children. This doesn't have any more meaning when applied to a fetus.

>>282 I see what you are saying, and I admit you are right, the argument does not hold up to scale, I will keep that in mind. However,at the same time, by the time it is a fetus the potential for life is much greater, do you see what I mean by this? An argument using potential for life using contraceptives would be stupid for the reasons you just said, but by the time the fetus stage has been reached genetics are solidified to the best of my understanding(correct me if i'm wrong). My point is, that by the time there is a fetus, the child is its own entity, not requiring the mother for anything more than life support. Before that, the conception is a matter of choice on the mothers part, so I disagree. Abortion to me is different than deciding not to conceive, as by that point the child's identity isn't in flux.

I'm pro-choice. It's really none of anyone's business what I do with MY body.

>>283

You are arguing that by aborting a fetus, you are ending all possible experiences that fetus could have. I see why you say a fetus is much closer to having those experiences; a strong wind is closer to a hurricane than a butterfly. However, I ask you this: what possible experiences could a child have being born to a mother that wanted to kill it? If the parents were too irresponsible and had a baby by accident, how could they have enough responsibility to raise a child? What kind of life will that child have? Why is that life worth saving, over the potential lives of the parents?

Also, how can you define a point at which a fetus is worthy of being treated as a separate entity? Genetics being solidified is not good enough for me, since by that time a fetus is not even thinking or perceiving anything around it. Given how little we know about our own perception of the universe around us, I would say it would be fairly difficult to tell when a fetus has developed consciousness. The true test would be when it has developed the unique characteristic that makes us human, but we don't really know exactly what that is. My personal belief is since there is no good way to choose a period of time before the fetus is important, we should just choose an arbitrary point, which has already been done.

A child is not its own entity. A child will die without its mother or caregiver for a long time into its life. If an organism relies entirely on another organism for its life, I don't consider that a separate entity. A fetus doesn't even know what life is, let alone what death means. It is not independent enough to simply discard the life of the mother from the decision to keep the baby. A mother's life is changed completely (in some cases essentially ended) when they have a baby. It is a huge impact on their lives, their already existing lives and experiences. I would hold that over an unborn child's potential experiences any day.

>>284 If the fetus is considered a separate human entity, then it is not your choice, and it is the government's business.

>>285 As to your first point, I can answer very personally. My father was born to a mother at 17, who immediately abandoned him. This was when abortion was illegal (in the state he was born in), and while I cannot conclusively say he would have been, it is very likely that he would have been aborted were this not the case. After only 2 days my father was adopted by a family who couldn't have children, and to this day lives a happy life. Just as I cannot use the what if argument in support of pro-life, it cannot be used for pro-choice. You have successfully nullified that point however, so I would say that is a draw.

Secondly, I am not speaking of consciousnesses, or awareness, but the fact that the fetus has become who they will be if they were to live. I think this hinges on personal opinion, is a person defined by genetics, or experiences? If the first case, abortion is murder, if the second, 0 experience means not alive, therefore not murder. I would say "we don't know, better safe than sorry!" on the matter of self awareness, but all the data I can find indicates no significant brain activity until 2nd trimester, hence the law restrictions at that point.

Lastly, and this is where I strongly disagree, you are equating knowing what life is with being an entity, as well as non dependence on others. I don't believe this is the case at all. Someone in intensive care isn't an entity by this definition, nor an elderly person who needs a nurse, nor a person with a mental disorder who fails to grasp their existence. By this reasoning, since all animals are non-sentient, we don't need hunting seasons or animal cruelty laws, after all, they don't know they are alive.

Pro-live

A child is innocent, no one has the right to give a child's death---for the one who bears the child is on faulty, why did you even decide to have one if you regret having one anyway. If you're reason is raped, do not kill the child, for it did not do anything wrong.

>>286 Unfortunately, adoption does not always result in a happy life. This isn't entirely 'what if', because it has already happened many, many times, whereas speculating on an child that never was born is purely hypothetical. However, it can't stand on its own, because at a certain point it does become entirely hypothetical.

We don't know what a person is defined by. Electricity running through nerves is what most people consider the point at which a fetus becomes human, rather than a collection of cells. I still find that to be to arbitrary. As we discover more about humans we'll likely update that definition, but the current law as it stands seems fair. And, while it is true we don't know, we do know the mother has a life that will be severely impacted by a child.

What makes something an entity with regards to life? Why isn't every cell in your body considered its own entity? Why is a person considered an entity, but not a simple egg cell? By what I've gathered from your previous posts, an entity could be anything that only requires energy to survive. You said a fetus only needs the mother for life support, and at that point it is a separate entity. However, your lungs also follow this rule, as well as the individual cells themselves. Basically, I'm trying to say defining something as an entity is meaningless, since there are many other entities that are not very important (unless I botched entities again).

It seems like we only disagree on when a fetus is important enough to keep alive. You think we should consider the future as a reason to keep it alive, while I do not. I think we can agree on one thing, though: if we discovered a point at which fetuses became humans, they should be kept alive. Unfortunately, we don't have a good way of telling that. Brain activity is the closest we've come, hence the laws that protect the fetus at that point. At the very least, however, the government has no business protecting people that aren't even people yet. It's only if it is considered human that it is their responsibility to keep alive.

Pro-choice if a mother can't provide the proper love and environment to raise a child that's only only going to harm the child in the long run. The fetus is alive but you can't remember anything from being a fetus, so can you say the fetus is actually experiencing life? And remember child birth changes the female body massively some women might not be ready to face that change. And if you are raped that trauma will be forever connected with that child. Just to clear it up even though I'm pro-choice I would probably never terminate personally. P.S This should not be on the main page since it doesn't fit and it may upset some people who have had to terminate due to health issues.

>>288 I agree that adoption doesn't always result in a happy life. My point was that you can not predetermine such things, therefore the point is moot.

I think the 2nd and 3rd trimester laws are fair, based on our current understanding. It is just the "no questions asked" part of the first that gets me.

I see your point, however, I am not saying anything that requires energy to survive. I am saying that the fetus has become an entity because I believe that it's genetics are in place, and therefore it is it's own entity. While cells and lungs are "alive" and unaware of their existence, they are a part of you, they are your genetics. They are not only dependent on you for their energy, but are literally a part of you.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that summary. However, when it comes to government intervention, remember that my tax dollars are going to programs that can pay for abortion, in cases that I may not support. I don't want to go into detail on that though, this topic is controversial enough as is.

>>289 I think this qualifies as an actual topic of discussion, hence the main board. Some things are upsetting, but if we don't discuss them, how do we even know our own stance on them?

^

>>289 This absolutely does fit the Main board. The whole point of Main is to have in-depth discussions that affect all Dollars and people outside us. This is a pertinent issue worthy of debate and discussion. If you find discussions such as these upsetting, then you might want to think about flat out cancelling your internet services.

For people who are pro-choice, do you believe that abortion should be allowed during any part of the pregnancy or that there should be a limit?

Personally, I am completely satisfied with the current standards in the United States (>>1). What are the laws in some other countries?

>>289
If it doesn't fit on Main, it'd not have gotten 292 posts and not a single person yelling about how it doesn't belong. Don't be stupid and use common sense.

294 I meant.

>>293 The Supreme Courts' standards don't apply to all states and towns, unfortunately.

And I believe it should be available through the second trimester, but there would be exceptions for the third, such as if the mother's life is physically or mentally in danger or if the child is positively going to be born with a severe physical or mental defect.

Well i read in freakonomics that crime has gon down after roe vs wade so im kinda ok with abortian i mean if the pro life people are willing to take the kid than i guess its ok but that is what it comes down too that is my opion if your willing to take the kids than ok if not

Abortion In my dire opinion, Seems acceptable for medical purposes only. So to in basic, If the mother is in a dire life situation where either her or her future baby is at possible risk, abortion should be a necessary option. However outside of this "Risk" Boundary, I don't believe it should be applied for careless acts and reasons made by future parents.

I believe abortion should never be legal. No matter what.
And why? I believe whatever they call it - it is pre-meditated murder. It is a someone, and you a killing it. Intentionally.

I agree with Alekzander that is murder, why don´t have control over myself? why the people is so irresponsable?

>>300 So you believe in killing women who are physically unable to go through a pregnancy without dying themselves? Or is that excused because, every now and again, the child might survive in that situation?

I believe that forcing a woman who is physically or mentally unable to do so is the same as killing her. Physically, if the pregnancy kills her. Mentally, if she goes on to kill herself. People who support and enforce laws forcing women to go through with unsafe pregnancies are the same as murderers. You're killing someone who has a family, friends, a lover, and maybe even other children for the sake of an initially shapeless thing - an idea often left unnamed and thrown aside after its birth.

What about women who don't want the child and, because of your personal morals, are forced to go through with it? What about when they don't want it and in turn drink and do drugs? When the baby turns out mentally retarded from this, whose fault is it - the woman who had to drink a bottle of wine a day to have the strength to wake up the next morning, or the people who decided she was worthless compared to the parasite eating away inside her? It's not justice to destroy one person for another.

We are humans. I just can't get the point why others are trying to throw their humanity by committing such a taboo act?
Conceiving a child is a gift from God, why are others throwing this ability away?
Like in the Philippines, the RH bill. Poverty is not by over population, poverty is cause by corruption.

Whoa.. what a strong issue. Well, this 'bout my opinion :

I'm against the abortion. I'm on pro-live. In my religion that is forbidden. Well, I'm not very a very religious person, but since I was born from a mother who most religious in our family, then I'm against it. I mean, why they want to kill their own flesh and blood? Are they still have a heart beneath their bones? Then why they still do "that" if they don't wanna any babies?

Well but as a women, I'm sure I don't want to asking those question to the sexual victims. Victims and the person who really want to do some sex is completely different. The victims mostly have a trauma after that accident. I know it clearly, I've learned some psychological education and it did help me,even I've got so little information. Most of them thinking about their future and what society reacts after that (because giving a birth before married is taboo in Indonesia). So no wonder, many of them stressed out even got insane because they can't bear it. But some of them, they take care their babies no matter what all people say, so I highly respect them for fight in the name of their children. But some of them too take the middle way, giving a birth then leave the child at the hospital, orphanage, even in the bus and graveyard(well,these last one is very extreme).

But for the prostitutes is their responsible. They know the risk for being a prostitute before. But I'm also agree what Imitatia said.

I'm not mean to lecturing , but I have some advice for all girls over there : If you don't ready for being a mom, then don't do it. Save you future.

Note : I'm really sorry if my English wasn't good.

>>303 Or is it? How do you know that poverty is solely due to corruption? Poverty is the base state of all life. If we didn't have societies, cultures, and representative order, we would all be living in commerce-free poverty, but we would still be living. We could still make our own food and manage our own life. So are 'poverty' and 'corruption' really at fault for people dying en-mass in countries plagued by it? Isn't the problem not that you don't have enough money but that you don't have enough food or shelter? Can you blame this on a lack of money? Sure, getting food and shelter would be easy if everyone had money, but you know what else would make it easier?

A much smaller population. When you have so many people that they're living on top of each other, it's a fight for space and survival. You can't build a house for your own shelter or a farm for your food because there are a hundred other people sleeping where you would build these things. You can't do what you need to do to survive as an individual when there are so many people around you, leading people to rely on gov'ts to distribute money to buy food or own land.

If there weren't so many people, perhaps relying on the gov't wouldn't be necessary, and the gov't not properly distributing money (this 'corruption') would not be so much of an issue? Over-population is absolutely a major contributor of poor conditions in poverty-stricken countries and areas.

Regardless, this is not a religious topic, guys. God should not be brought into it. This is a legal issue regarding a person's right to bodily autonomy. By saying that the court can tell a woman she cannot have control over her body, you are reducing women to mere slaves. You don't like a woman? All you have to do is get her pregnant. Rape her? Sure! Now she has to spend nine months having her body and life dramatically altered. Ha! Serves her right! Stupid woman, she should just get her tubes tied and lock herself in her house if she doesn't want a child!

Or maybe it's not that dramatic. Maybe you just don't want her to leave you, so you poke a hole in the condom and promise to take care of it with her. She's not allowed to get an abortion, so it's not like she can escape it, right? The woman no longer has any control over what her body will be faced with. She's worthless now. For all we know, they then might ban surgeries to tie your tubes. After all, you're denying the KIND GIFTS of THE HOLY SUPREME GOD!!!! How DARE you choose to not mutilate your body for the rest of your life! HOW DARE YOU CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH YOUR BODY ! THAT'S GOD'S DECISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*cough* Er, sorry about that. Composure. Right.

Anyways, I feel as though religion shouldn't be brought into the topic, even though that's most people's reasoning for being pro-life.

>>301>>300
You both are retarded.

Nya!

Nya!

Bump read >>307

People say that “God should not be brought into this”, however in the United States, there is such a thing as religious rights; if a facility (e.x. a hospital) run by a person who is devoted to a religious group that is against abortion is forced to provide abortion services, doesn’t that trample religious rites? Unfortunately, this entire thing becomes a conflict between religious rights and women’s rights, which are both equally important.

In the case of rape, this can be a tough topic (especially if the pregnancy is dangerous to the mother). However, I often hear of many women who get an abortion after WILLINGLY having intercourse with someone. For some reason, many people seem to ignore the fact that BABIES COME FROM SEX. So, if a person doesn’t want a baby, or isn’t at least open to the idea that they’ll become pregnant, then they shouldn’t have sex, it’s not that hard. If they want to practice “safe sex” (Which obviously isn’t safe 100% of the time), then they must be prepared for the consequences.

It also comes down to a definition of life, and at what point people consider an unborn baby alive. I, personally, think a baby is alive the moment it is conceived, but I understand that others think differently. But, if someone killing a pregnant woman is convicted of double homicide, that implies that killing the potential-child was taking of a human life. In my opinion, murdering an unborn child is just as bad as murdering a 2 year old, or 10 year old, or 50 year old.

Lastly (sorry for the long rant ^^” ), being a woman (aka being able to have children) shouldn’t make us a “slave to society”. I think it’s one of the many things to be celebrated! The idea that we have the beautiful gift of creating life sounds pretty cool, if you ask me~ :) (As long as one is being responsible).

Alas, both the Pro-Life and the Pro-Choice sides have very real and very valid points, so I’m glad this was brought up. Though I doubt this string of posts will change the laws or anything like that (though the Dollars are capable of some awesome things when given a cellphone, lol), I believe it’s good that people can go and talk about these issues with people of similar and conflicting viewpoints.

I think abortion should be illegal only to a certain point. For instace if you get raped evey time you look at that baby it will remind you of the raper.

>>312 I disagree that all life of all ages is equal in value. If that were true, then why isn't an egg cell considered equal in value to a fetus?

You say killing a child in the womb is just as bad as killing anyone else. You also say a baby is alive the moment it is conceived. Unfortunately, the egg cell is alive far before conception ever happens, so the question is not one of life, but of what makes that cell human, and at what point it becomes human. There is no logically definitive way to say what that point is, so you just have to choose some point. That is what the current law does. Personally, I don't even consider babies human, but that's another topic entirely.

Religious rights really shouldn't have anything to do with this. You should have a right to believe what you want, practice whatever you want in your own home, etc. However, refusing to give someone medical treatment because your religion doesn't like that person is bullshit. Just because you believe something really deeply doesn't mean you can do whatever the fuck you want, in my opinion. Here's my question: if you are against abortion, why do you run a hospital that can provide it? There's a certain level of reasonableness that seems to be missed here.

I think we should place more value on a real, live person than a collection of cells that will one day become a person.

I would say couples need to take their ability to conceive life way more seriously over-all, but I still think it's ridiculous to treat an egg cell as a human. There's a reasonable limit to when it is human, and the moment of conception is not it, in my opinion.

People make choices.
Whether they make choices based on their religious rights, or their health interest is entirely up to themselves.

But, a regulation exist to regulate. So it doesn't become too chaotic. We don't want a plastic bag containing a fetus/baby just some-months old to drift in the river. We don't want a pregnant woman to risk her own life to give birth her third child when clearly her other two child still needs her to be around. Regulation exist to set a line for us to follow.
But it isn't a must.

People are free to choose their own choices.
But think of the risk first. Will it worth it?

But from my personal point of view. I am pro-life. Life of the mother who bear the child and the life of the unborn baby.

>>314
I can see your reasoning for every one of those points; but out of curiosity: why don’t you see babies as human?

If killing a child in the womb isn’t wrong, is it fair that someone can be convicted of double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman? Are babies (born and unborn) only considered humans under certain laws, but objects under other laws?

Also, the last point about a Pro-Life person running a hospital: I didn’t mean that they already had the means to do an abortion, I meant having them be required to get the means and provide abortion services.

>>315
I think I could agree with your concept of regulation. Though I am very Pro-Choice, it’s hard to see a mother (especially rape victims) with pregnancies that could be potentially dangerous to them as well as the families, and not think that perhaps an abortion was a good option.

>>316 Well, that's a little different. It's because the mother has a lot more fair say over the fate of the child she is carrying, so if she decides to abort, it isn't automatically considered murder because it's still part of her. However, someone else does not have those kinds of rights, and therefore it is murder. It's not to do with whether they are human or not. I think you're right when you say that's a little odd, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

As for babies, I get kind of annoyed when we objectively place value on innocence in our culture. We care more about a person who was abusing puppies (we care more about the puppies) than someone raping and beating the shit out of a prostitute. I think this ties in with an unborn child, because it's very innocent, maybe the most innocent you can get.

I don't consider babies human because they exhibit few, if any human characteristics. Some monkeys are more human-like than babies. That doesn't mean it's okay to kill them, they are still creatures, but I personally would put less value on them than the mother.

If you don't believe in abortion, why would you run a medical facility that can possibly provide that? Refusing medical treatment to someone based on your beliefs is just scummy. That should not be protected under the law.

>>312 Religious rights are about YOU, not anyone else. You can NOT refuse to provide a medical service to someone because it's infringing on your religious rights, because you still have 100% of your rights to practice your own religion ON YOUR SELF. Not on anyone else. You still have the right to choose not to get an abortion if it's against your religious beliefs to have an abortion, but you can not force someone else to have a child because your religion says you personally have to. That's where the fine line lies. If you run a facility where you have to take care of people from all different religions, then you need to accommodate THEIR beliefs so that THEIR religious rights are not trampled upon. If you are providing a life saving service, you are expected to bend to their beliefs, not your own. If you don't like it, then down own a damn hospital. Mind your own business. You have the RIGHT to leave that hospital because you don't want to give an abortion, but you do NOT have the right to force someone to have a child or vice-versa because of your beliefs because you are then infringing on their rights and bodily autonomy.

It's like when people say that gay marriage is infringing on their religious rights. No, you still have the right to have a straight marriage, but getting married in a church where two people of the same gender were married is not infringing on your damn rights. You can NOT impose your rights onto others. That is bullshit and is why these situations need to be looked at from a strictly legal standpoint instead of a religious one.

>>312 And yes, that does make women a slave to society. It won't go that far because women will still get abortions either way, but if there was no access to aborting a baby, women could easily be forced into positions where they have to have a child that is not safe.

You seem to be thinking lightly of pregnancy. Do you know some of the things that happen when you get pregnant, especially if you do so young? Did you know that some women have their breasts dramatically darkened from the rest of their body? Or that they get lines coming down their stomach that look like they were whipped right in the middle of themselves? Did you know that those stretch marks and excess skin may never go away on some women? Did you know that morning sickness can get so bad that women can get life threatening infections and have the same physical effects heavy-duty bulimics face? Did you know that there are many medications that you can not take if you are pregnant, forcing women to choose between their own health and the baby, even when they showed no signs of those medical issues before hand? Did you know that you have to dramatically alter all the foods and liquids you take in to accommodate for a child and ensure they will not be born mentally damaged? Did you know that most employers only provide a few weeks of leave for pregnancy, forcing women to go on unemployment, which isn't available for everyone? Did you know that not all women can afford the necessary testing, medication, and hospital visits for those nine months? Or that not getting those early tests to look for warning signs can cost both the mother and the child their lives? Did you understand how many risks are involved with pregnancy and how physically strenuous it is? DO you understand that many of the side effects of pregnancy never go away for some women?

It isn't just a happy-go-lucky, "Oh wow, look, I have a baby now! I'm gonna make a person :D YAYYYY!!!!!" It isn't always a good thing. It's not always something "cool" or to celebrate. There are so many unknowns. How can you blame a woman for deciding to get an abortion after consensual sex when there's a chance it could kill both her and something that could become another person? To kill two people or one, which do you think most people will choose?

I agree that people should be prepared to have a child if they're actively having sex, but there are often circumstances out of their control where they realize they cannot afford having this child. And affording it isn't just AFTER it's born - affording it is right from the start. Buying healthy foods, medications, and paying for frequent hospital visits is a lot more expensive than people like to pretend, especially if you can't work during that time thanks to your physical condition. It's not just, "well she can't afford it, so she should put it up for adoption." It's fucking never just that. Being pregnant itself can be a very expensive and very difficult thing depending on the individual.

The way I see it, if you can call a fetus a living thing solely because it has the potential for life even if it is just a tumor in the mother's stomach, then sperm and eggs should be called living things. Men should be prosecuted for masturbating, and women should be prosecuted for menstruating. It's no fair to those poor, innocent lives inside of them that are just being wasted. That egg that she is just letting tear apart and bleed to death inside of her is the same as that fetus. Menstruating is literally abortion before the sperm gets there. The egg could probably survive longer, but the body likes to keep them fresh and makes an excess, dumping out the old eggs. That's terrible. The eggs should be kept until they're fertilized, or at least the women should fertilize them earlier so they don't get murdered by their own bodies. It's the same argument, which is why it's ridiculous.

>?<

>>312 Seeing as I’m not a 10 year old, I am well aware of those, and many more of the life-changing (and in some cases life damaging) effects a birth, especially a risky birth, has on a woman-psychologically, physically, and emotionally. Not to mention economically, as well as her relationships with those around here. It would be dumb of me to even comment here if I didn’t. (Funny coincidence, though, because they day before you posted that, we just happened to watch the dreaded birthing video in science class~). I am in no way thinking of pregnancy lightly; I wasn’t touching on all aspects of pregnancy in my previous post, I admit, but there’s no way to get the full scope of this in 1 or 2 posts.

In cases like rape (whether it’s of a young girl or adult), serious injury and health issues for the baby or mother, or financial issues, I can easily see why abortion would be considered (I’d be lying to say that it wouldn’t at least cross my mind if I were in that position). What bothers me isn’t necessarily that people support abortion, since many supporters have good intentions (like you, for example). What DOES bug me, are the people who simply push for it, because they feel restriction on anything by the government is wrong. Requesting things simply for the sake of feeling empowered, in my opinion, is a bad idea.

Also, deviating from the topic slightly, how do you feel about the father’s role in the choice? (Just asking out of curiosity). Do you think he has a say, because it is his child, or not because he is not the one devoting the next 9 months of his life carrying the child?

*Sorry, I meant >>319 not >>312 xD

>>321 Where do the restrictions stop?

Do you think the government should be able to regulate the size of your family? What about deciding if you should be able to get a body piercing? I'd say getting a piercing is not as life changing as having a child, but it's a very personal thing the government just shouldn't have a place in deciding.

The legal system is based on precedent, and whether you want it to or not, the boundaries will keep getting pushed.

>>321 It doesn't sound like you have, to be quite frank. Otherwise, you wouldn't be using how 'cool' pregnancy is as part of your argument on why it's a good thing to force women to go through nine months with a parasite in her stomach.

He has no say in the decision specifically because of what I said before. First of all, this is about her bodily autonomy, and he does not have anything living in him or his bodily dramatically altered for nine months. Unless we started requiring all fathers are subjected to mandatory physical and emotional torture in specialized pregnancy simulation chambers with strict laws regarding their diets and life and put them out of work during that period of time, or unless we start putting children into men's bodies and having them push them out their penises, the answer is no.

Secondly, it is just too damn easy to force a woman into sex or to trick her with an old condom for a man to have the ability to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion afterwards. Sex doesn't always have to be involved, either, but I'm not going to get into the gross details of that. The only reason I'm wary of using this argument is because there are a few shades of gray with similar topics. Thus, I still considering bodily autonomy the #1 reason that it should be solely up to a woman to decide whether or not she has a child.

Do you believe in plan B pills? They're taken the morning after sex.

Oh, forgot something in >>324. I see abortion as somewhat of an equality thing as well. Men can abandon a child with no initial repercussions through a nine month pregnancy. They are not required to help pay the woman's medical or food bills, etc., even though the pregnancy is exceedingly expensive. It is only after the child is born that the law systems of the US consider the man responsible for the child and start ordering him to pay child support (and vice-versa if the woman chooses to hand the child over to him, though it's due to this inequality that some states do not require women to pay child support). I see the option of abortion as filling in that gap of rights that women lack.

They have no way of escaping that child without an abortion, so why should men be able to leave whenever they want? You obviously can't oblige men to stay or to pay; it might just make the situation worse emotionally.

And this ties back to men not being allowed to say whether a woman can or can not get an abortion. Because the law does not consider him responsible for the child until its birth, he has no rights over whether that child is kept or not in the first place.

Bump

^

Bump

Nya!

----

I think a fetal transfer would really assist in this issue. It could even allow men a choice if the woman doesn't want to give birth, which in reality is fair because it DOES take two to make a baby, even with sperm donors, someone who isn't the mother, who had to be male as per the fact, sperm only comes from men, was involved in 50% of the fetus' DNA. Of course, like the ultimate showdown, the fight will rage on for a century and many lives will be claimed, etc. etc.

♪

♫

♪♫

bump <3

To keep it terse, I'm pro-choice.

When you start giving rights to cells that have yet to develop a mind or humanity you create many ridiculous scientific and moralistic issues.

For the latter, I'll reference the hilarious phrase "if abortion is murder, a blowjob is cannibalism". I'll leave that in your mind and on the breath of your laughter.

The former however, I care much more about, so I will take a degree of seriousness with my response. Humans DO NOT have spirits. At least, there is no proof for such a thing. You might as well evoke the psuedo-fact that Santa exists, for both ideas the evidence is equally poor. You would be pushing a spiritual ideal onto the public, disregarding both decency and the boundaries of the establishment clause of your US first amendment.


If we take the approach, in the name of your spiritual-definitions, that this non-life, this un-developed husk inside a woman's bodily apparatus is a human, then we will have to immediately cut all research into the cultivation of embryonic stem cells, as we would be breeding humans to kill via your definition. A science in which we may one day find the answer for cancer and other deadly ailments. You will be killing unfathomable amounts of people I assure you.

Additionally, such a dangerous approach would cause untold misery to those who are actually living, who are actually human. Women who are brutally raped would have to give birth to and raise the genetic offspring of their attacker, even in cases of incest. Additionally, a pregant-woman whose life is in mortal danger, would have to die with this 'human' inside of her, for murder to save another would not be right under these definitions.

I understand that those with certain beliefs, those who are preached to from the pulpits that life "beings at conception, are uncomfortable. However, show a degree of awareness, both towards the damage that you can cause with your position, both potentially to science's ability to save lives and to the secular, all-encompassing founding document that I, as a British person, admire so considerably.

Nya!

I think it's mercy, you don't know how some mothers treat bastard borns.

I think that if you don't want a baby, you shouldn't have sex in the first place. People don't realize that if you get an abortion your killing a child, it has a heart, soul, and mind. Try saying to a 5 year old i don't want you, you should have died but the abortion didn't work. That's why your an orphan who's family doesn't even want you.

♪

>>336 Also, this.

bump

It's ridiculous that this is even a debatable issue. Everyone is entitled to their own choices and beliefs. There should only be Pro-Choice. As it's stated in the name...it's your choice. Also, there are times when an abortion is medically necessary, as well as psychologically. There are occasions when a person may take every precaution and will some how end up pregnant. Not to mention pedophiles that have impregnated very young girls through rape. Either way I'd like to think that we are all here on the Dollars boards because we believed in the sentiment of Durarara. No matter what differences we may have...no matter how different our struggles are...we are here and we are flawed and we all have our own journey to make...as long as you're here on this earth we should all try to keep to not oppress others and not let others be oppressed. So for me...and thusly everyone...it should be Pro-Choice....it's the only way everyone get's their way.

Alternatively, for those hard-core Pro-lifers, rather than be abrasive with inconsiderate words, attack medical professionals that may or may not be involved...instead..make the commitment to adopt those children that were to be aborted.

Im prolife unless the womans life is in danger or she was raped.
You cant take away the right to life of a child just because the mother is irresponsible.

So if you're pro-life with special circumstances (as I've found many pro-lifers) then why not just Pro-Choice. I've had close religious friends who were pro-life most of their life and have had abortions...the sad thing is that they did it by themselves b/c they were ashamed.

>>344 Why do a collection of cells have rights? A fertilized egg is not a child and should not be treated as such.

Just throwing this out here, but I think that if a woman gets raped or if the condom broke during sex or something then they should be able to get an abortion if they really cannot or do not want a child. But, they shouldnt have to wait until the kid is already like halfway into the second stage or onto the third stage or whatever. If the woman wants an abortion she should at least do it when the baby is still a little clump of cells and not a whole form already.

>>346
Because if left alone, it will develop into a functional human being. The process of life has already started. Interrupting this process willingly is murder, whether it concerns a human INSIDE the womb or outside of it.

>>348 How far does that argument go?
Is a male masturbating, which is wasting sperm that could have developed an egg into a human, also murder?
Is not having sex, which is wasting eggs that could have developed into a human, also murder?
Is using a condom, which blocks the possible development of eggs into a human, also murder?

Maybe you think when it is actually fertilized, it's now murder. When it is on the road to becoming human, it has rights. Stopping that process in any way is murder.

Is drinking alcohol (or other substances toxic to an egg) early in pregnancy, which could stop the egg from developing, murder? What if they didn't even know they were pregnant?
Is taking medication which interferes with the egg and ultimately kills it murder?

Human beings have rights. If it may become a human being, it clearly isn't one, and so it doesn't have the same rights as humans.

>>349 i freaking love your POV

>>349
>Is a male masturbating, which is wasting sperm that could have developed an egg into a human, also murder?
No. If you splooge over your own hand, it aint turning into a human. Cumming inside someone however, is a different case.
>Is not having sex, which is wasting eggs that could have developed into a human, also murder?
No. Again, if you practice celibacy, the possibility of conception is not there. As opposed to an already fertilized egg, which WILL produce life. No other possibilities there.
>Is using a condom, which blocks the possible development of eggs into a human, also murder?
Not really, since it is also used to protect from STDs and such. Also, you're preemptively preventing ANY sort of life, instead of creating it and then killing it.

>Is drinking alcohol (or other substances toxic to an egg) early in pregnancy, which could stop the egg from developing, murder?
Yes. Again, willingly damaging your child is inherently evil and selfish. Also, FAS is a terrible thing to have lol.

>What if they didn't even know they were pregnant?
Then it's a different case. However, you generally notice that you're pregnant.

>Is taking medication which interferes with the egg and ultimately kills it murder?
Yes.

>>351 If tests have already shown that a fetus is going to be born so mentally and/or physically handicapped that they cannot function in life, is it murder to get an abortion in that circumstance?

>>351 >>352 And in the case of a mother dying if a child is born, is it murder to get an abortion? Because equal arguments could say forcing a mother to die for a baby that may or may not survive to be borne is murder just as well.

Considering you believe causing a child to be born defective due to the mother's alcoholic and medical consumption to be legally her fault, do you believe 1) a mother should have to stop taking medications, even if it means she will die or become mentally unstable, so that the child can survive? And

2) if you believe the mother should be forced by the gov't to change the way she lives her life during the time this child is birthed, do you support movements to force fathers to take sobriety tests and be removed from their medication during pregnancy to force gender equality, seeing as men cannot physically have a child yet are given the ability to force a woman to have one? Or that major monetary compensation should be given to women during pregnancy in its place for equality purpose as men will never have to go through the physical effects of pregnancy? Or do you believe that women solely should take the responsibility of both participants and be forced to potentially kill themselves and change their lifestyles for a being borne of two people?

>>352
Thats a difficult question and I don't think it can really be answered. However, if it's confirmed that the kid is going to be a vegetable for the rest of it's life then I suppose it's a different matter than "lol I dont feel like having a kid so lets abort it".

>>354
>And in the case of a mother dying if a child is born, is it murder to get an abortion?
Yeah, we don't live in 1455 anymore, this isn't really a problem. We have these things called cesareans you know.

> 1) a mother should have to stop taking medications, even if it means she will die or become mentally unstable, so that the child can survive?

She shouldn't have a child in the first place. It's unethical to pass on defective genes that require constant medication. At any rate, Im fairly certain anti-depressants dont affect a fetus, so it only really boils down to alcohol or recreational drug use. In that case, if you cant put down the bottle for the safety of your child you shouldn't have a kid at all.

>do you support movements to force fathers to take sobriety tests and be removed from their medication during pregnancy to force gender equality, seeing as men cannot physically have a child yet are given the ability to force a woman to have one?

We're going of on a tangent here. Anyway, if a man "forces" a woman to get pregnant it counts as rape, really, and in my original post I already stated that in those cases abortion should be possible.

>major monetary compensation should be given to women during pregnancy in its place for equality purpose as men will never have to go through the physical effects of pregnancy?
Its called insurance. Anyway there's a certain level of personal responsibility here. If you decide to fuck without a rubber, taking anti conception pills or the like, then dont expect taxpayers to fund your unwanted pregnancy.
Again we're going of on a tangent.

>>355 From the WHO:
"Every day, approximately 800 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. "

"The maternal mortality ratio in 2013 is 16 per 100 000 live births in developed countries."

>>351 You think it's murder to interfere with the development of the egg?

Do you think it's assault to cause any damage to the egg during pregnancy?
Do you think it's a crime to not eat healthily causing possible malnourishment?
What if you going on a roller coaster 1 week into pregnancy happens to kill the egg? That's murder?
What if you needed that medication for a surgery that would cause a lot of pain? That's still murder?
What if you needed that medication to live?

You're treating the egg, which will eventually turn into a human, like a human. Murder is killing another human, and as you have said yourself, an egg will later become a human and is not a human being. It is not murder in any way to abort the egg. Whether or not it is wrong or should be disallowed is up for argument.

Also, if you leave a fertilized egg, it will not turn into a human. The mother must continue to eat and drink (healthily), the mother cannot induce deadly force onto the egg (eg, force on the stomach), etc. The mother must make a relatively active effort to make sure that egg becomes a human being. Are you going to charge her with other crimes if her effort is not 100%? Why does she now hold total responsibility for making sure the child survives?

>>355
1. Women die from childbirth frequently, and there are diseases and physical defects that can make childbirth much more dangerous.

2. There are many conditions which are not genetic that require constant medication, which even extends to surgery. Not all anti-depressants are the same, and I'm not just talking about depression, as there are many mental illnesses that have the potential to end in suicide due to various reasons.

3. 4. That's not a tangent; it's a legitimate concern. Force doesn't just mean rape - it also refers to the law being able to force women to not have an abortion. You don't necessarily have to force a woman into rape to have a child, either way, as there are many ways to trick and impregnate girls, and there are many incidences of unintentional pregnancy (even when using protection, and even when your tubes are tied, mind you) where only the women are left to suffer.

Why is it that women should be the only ones forced to face the physical consequences of not being abstinent? The legalization of abortion is a major part of the gender equality movement.

Why is it that you believe only women should have to face that responsibility? What if it's the man who pokes a hole in the rubber or switches out her pills? It's not always a decision on her part to have unsafe sex. And oh no, I'm not just saying tax payers. I'm saying the FATHER, not the taxpayers. Why not make it an equal risk on both parts? Why can men walk away during pregnancy with absolutely no problem, but the women are forced to completely change their lifestyle and put all of the money and effort they have into making a child be born without any defects?

(By the way, Insurance doesn't work that way, hun; you're lucky if you get a quarter of your hospital bills during pregnancy paid for by your insurance provider in the US unless you have some really great stuff.)

>>358 The last part. A fertilized egg has no potential to turn into a human if it's left alone; it's no different than a fertilized egg. The only way it can become a human is if the mother takes care of it, which means all of Inu's questions at >>349 are still valid. There's no way for a fertilized egg to survive naturally on its own in a human and has no potential to become a child with the mother's active care and participation, which could be considered just as important in the potential process as a mother's active intention to get it fertilized in the first place, could it not?

▲

Not saying all abortions should be illegal tho. As I stated before, I just really dont think a person should be able to just go " lol i dont want this baby".
Anyway yeah you guys made some good arguements i cant really counter.

>>347 Jessi, I too, have once thought the same way. However, there are also many cases where women don't even realize that they're pregnant until the second or third trimester of their pregnancy. So I think that if they did want to get an abortion, they would have done so earlier, if only they had realized it sooner.

I'm pro-choice.

In all honesty, I don’t see any problems with abortions. In my opinion, it’s completely up to the mother’s own choice whether she wants to do it or not. Since she should know the best on whether she's willing and capable enough to take up the responsibility that comes with having a baby. It’s none of anyone else’s business. There are several plausible reasons why a woman would want to get an abortion. But I won't be getting into that, or else this post would become an essay. (Plus a lot of the reasons are already stated in the previous posts of this thread)

>>361 People should take more responsibility with regards to bearing a child. Most younger people don't really grasp the scale of what they can do. Bringing a child into the world is not some fun romantic fantasy, it requires planning and intelligence. They aren't taking what they can do seriously enough, and they, for the most part, don't realize what they are doing in full.

I completely agree with you on this. It's really frustrating to see this happen. It's even more frustrating knowing that if things went the way I wanted, they would essentially get what they want. I want to make them see how serious it is, just like you do, but unfortunately I don't think forcing them to have the child is the right way to do that.

>>362 thats true but in my opinion, if a woman has sex and the semen gets inside of her, she should be expecting pregnancy. I mean come on if you have sex you have a very high chance of getting pregnant, so if she really doesn't want to be pregnant and that happens, she should conduct regular pregnancy tests. Its her responsibility. You can buy those pregnancy things at the dollar store so its not like its a big deal either

>>365 Well yeah, that applies to couples that have sex without protection or any form of birth control. But if they didn't want a baby in the first place, they should've just used protection.

When a man uses protection during sex, the chances for the woman to get pregnant is very low. HOWEVER, the chances of getting pregnant is still there (and the odds are higher when there's some sort of mistake with the condoms or use of the condoms). Accidents happen. But since the chances of getting pregnant is so low, they wouldn't think to get pregnancy tests. Even if they'd experienced a few of the symptoms of pregnancy earlier on, many of them would go into denial thinking, "Psh, no way. We used protection!" So they go on with their lives without realizing until later on. :/

>>365 Jessi, there have been cases of even women who have there tubes tied or were assumed sterile got pregnant. There are also cases of women getting pregnant without a man actually ejaculating (pre-cum) or after pulling out. It's not so simple as, "use protection."

Then what's the man's responsibility?

I'm pro-choice for one reason- because it's a woman's body, not the government's, and she should decide.

>>366 Then it's their fault it was allowed to continue. One simple test would have confirmed their theory, and if they do not take that test, that is a choice they made.

I completely agree with Pondgirl. But there are some circumstances in which a mother will choose abortion because they think they are "not ready". This happens more often than believed. A fetus is a human and they have rights too.

Pro-Life, though I used to be all for abortion. I just feel like, while it is the woman's decision, it's wrong in a way. That doesn't mean that I'm entirely opposed to it. I do believe that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, incest, birth defect, or it pregnancy poses a danger to the mother, or if it's in the first trimester. I also have no problem with birth control.

I guess that reflects the current legislation on it?

>>370
I really don't think you understand what "rights" are. Rights are determined by law, and by law you can get an abortion up to a certain date. No matter what rights you think a fetus has, by law you're wrong.

I'm pro-choice. You can't force your ideals on others.

I also support what >>307 and >> 351 have stated

Who cares, they're going to die either way throughout their lives anyway so why should killing them early have any difference to them dying from an accident or not?

Well, >>377
These fetuses never had a chance at life.
Are you saying that a new born baby, something that just stopped being a fetus, can be murdered because it will die anyways? If those are the kind of ideals that the world is coming to, shoot me now and I'll be happy to die young without having any real experiences.

A fetus may be living, but is its choice more important than the woman carrying it? Fetuses cannot think for themselves. A woman, however, can. If she doesn't want kids, let her abort. If it's going to kill/harm her or the fetus, let her abort. If she was raped, let her abort. You are taking away a mother's voice by thinking of a bundle of cells that doesn't have one.

A woman's voice, not a mother's. In this case we're assuming she doesn't want to be a mother.

To be honest I'm very against abortion. If the mother doesnt want the baby then she put it up for adoption and let the have a changes to live.

I still don't understand how people can say that a fetus has rights because it's fertilized but menstruating isn't wrong.

This little egg that I throw away every single month. I COULD go out and have sex and fertilize it so that it can grow up into a child, but I choose not to and instead let it rip itself apart layer by layer, its blood gushing out of my vagina.

"But it's just an egg; it's not fertilized." No, but it could be a human too. If I only had sex, it could blossom into a beautiful, amazing person. But I choose to kill it. How is that not wrong from the perspective of people saying abortion from any stage is wrong?

Isn't neglecting a child and letting it die naturally just as bad as killing it by choice? "But it has no potential to become a child unless you have sex!" That fetus has just as little potential to become a child unless you take care of it. How is that any different? If you can say that it's murder to stop a fetus from growing by not eating the right foods, then how can you say it's not murder to stop a fetus from growing by not having sex?

I legitimately don't understand the thought process. It makes it sound like a half-ass'd argument when the reason is just, "Well it isn't a baby yet!" because that fetus before sex isn't a baby anymore than it is the next day, especially not if the mother ignores it and falls on her stomach or doesn't change her less healthy habits.

>>382 The difference is that menstruating is a natural thing. With a abortions, they literally kill the thing inside. If someone gets and abortion when they fetus has a head and everything, the head is broken and the body is sucked out like liquid.
Having a period doesn't kill the thing inside. Periods regulate the eggs. if you never had a period, you'd be full of unfertilized eggs. there's a reason it happens once a month and only lasts a little while. Regulation. I'm not trying to fight anyone or anything, but you've got to think of all of the points, not just your own.

>>383 I specifically quoted other's points and used more from this thread as reference for that post, no worries :3

Actually, you wouldn't be full of extra eggs if you fertilized and had each one before it reached menstruation. The reason we menstruate is because the egg didn't get fertilized, so the body kills it and brings in a fresh one. It's not that it gets dumped solely because another one was made; it's just so there's always a fresh one until one finally gets the d, which is why you don't get your period during pregnancy nor immediately after birth (unless there is a mix up in your body in which you fertilized the egg after another was prepared, at which point you will have one extra menstruation immediately after becoming pregnant).

Also, abortion is absolutely a natural thing. Less than half of fertilized eggs actually result in children; the body often aborts it due to natural causes before the woman even realizes she's pregnant, sometimes even before the next period. Some women have full-on miscarriages without even knowing they were fertilized in the first place (which sometimes results in dire medical attention being needed).

I don't see how it's any more wrong for us to abort it when the body does it all the time at all different stages of pregnancy. The only differences are that the woman had a choice in the matter, a doctor is doing it, and the remains are removed instead of you having a surprise in your toilet one day?

>>381
Implying adoption is a totally safe, respectable system.

More times than not children placed up for adoption are tossed into home after home, and are put through much issues. It's better to abort something that isn't conscious at all than to place it up for adoption.

>>381 The mother still gives up 9 months of her life where she is unable to do many things such as drink or preform heavy exercise. She also then must go through the pain of childbirth and possible complications that occur afterwards.

Plus there's this thing called bodily autonomy. It means that even if someone will die if I don't give an organ, you can't force me to. This applies even if I am dead. So no, I don't have to give my uterus so someone else can live. That is my choice.

I'm pro-choice because another person's choice isn't any of my fucking business

Thiamor like I dont know that, i was adopted tossed into home after home but as time went on i learned how to survive on my own then years went by and then i finally got adopted.

>>383 I'm not sure what you mean by natural.
Humans developed through nature (eg, physically), in this sense, humans are natural.

Human behavior is developed through interactions with our environment over the years, interactions with other things you might call natural. Even behavior that takes our own behavior into account (eg. knowing that humans feel pain from sharp objects and circumventing that with medicine) is still a human (natural) considering a human's behavior (natural) and acting on it; in this sense, all human behavior is natural.

If you meant to define natural as without human intervention, the creation of the egg, continued raising of the egg, or government laws against aborting the egg are all through human intervention, and by this definition are not natural. So, in this sense, disallowing abortion is unnatural.

>>386 Also did not remember to bring this up. Why should a mother be forced to give her living, breathing life for a child when a corpse isn't even expected to do the same?

^

Personally, I am pro choice. It depends on the mother and her choice. Foster care has a habit of being rather messed up (from what I have heard, not experience)and leaving a child with a mother who cannot or will not properly care for it is cruel. Yet, if the abortion process will harm the mother more than necessary...I am still pro choice honestly. The state has no right in saying what is right for its' citizens. The government does it's job in keeping the general public safe(ish) and I believe that citizens deserve their right in this choice. As for "slut shaming" (standing in front of abortion clinics with signs, calling them whores, etc.), WTF. To put it bluntly...quit being asses. Some girls made a bad choice. Some didn't have a choice. Some did and just don't want a child yet. Put yourself in their position. If I was a girl who got pregnant in high school, I wouldn't keep the child nor would I put it in foster care. That's my opinion on this topic. Hate me.

Please read the whole messige b4 you judge.
Really im pro choice not because i dont think people should live and pay for there mistakes but because of the facked that children who are born to an unwanted house usally end up doing more harmto socity then good.The year before the roe v. Wayed desion there was an expected crime wave to happen after that year but after it didnt happen.But to be honst im not tottaly for it etheir i think the whole abortion thing should be a last desion and if you protest and are against it maby you should take the children inn and rase them correctly if your not there to solve the problem then please stained out of the way and not force your views on some one else.

Im a bit on both sides I think the people having the baby should chose to have it or abort it but at the same time you could have the baby and give the baby up for adoption. and at least someone who loves him or her can have a child or be unable to have children and have a child who they will love as there own.

♪

^

asdf

^

√

>>393 Do you not realize that there are countless children in the adoption system that don't have homes? We don't need anymore in there.

√

asdf

Well if it's a single mother or doesn't have a supporting husband/mother yes they should allow abortion. A child in someone life is a big responsibility if they feel like they're in capable of it. Abortion might be a choice b/c some people want to be parents for their child but if they aren't ready they don't want to give away their child. I hope this is an understanding b/c I know some ppl who had this problem.

The people who support abortion doesn't think about what is going to happen to those kids, what if the mother is a addicted to some drugs? what if the father is an alcoholic? what if they grow up in a inappropriate environment? we need to raise awareness about this issue and think about the future of all those kids.

It's up to them

its nothing but wrong in most of the times,beside some extreme cases such as when given birth threatens both lifes of the child and the mother ,or something like that. i can only think of it as a crime.

I personally believe that it is the woman's choice on the matter. In most cases, you could think, that it has to be a crime, but honestly, if you're not going to allow abortion, you're just going to end up with women using hangers or destroying themselves in the worse possible way imaginable to try to get rid of the 'child.'
Maybe, we shouldn't be thinking about 'abortion' maybe we should try to look a little far back and realize where our real problem lies. Unsafe sex and the lack of sex education. You need to use a condom and you need to use birth control if you don't want children. It's fairly simple to understand. Now, pro-lifers, are going to call you a 'murderer' and 'repuslive'. Well, it's none of their business if a woman get's an abortion or not. And anyways, do you really want a child living in this world? Hell no. You talk about adoption and foster homes? You clearly have not realized that those Pro-lifers in office are not going to be funding in those directions. They're not going to care for that child's education either. Also, those places suck, big time. I would know about foster homes. Don't bring a child into the world if you're not going to take care of it. Period. That's where it's morally wrong. I can also bring up other reasons why we should just shut up about this matter. It's not your business what that woman or girl does. Also, stop shaming them for their choice. Don't be putting them down, they've probably went through hell when they saw it change to positive on that stick, and they're probably getting enough crap already. Hell, I shouldn't even be stating an opinion on this! Because it's really not my business!

Nikoru that's why I said that comment. Ppl that are addicted and/or have bad habits wanted to try to take care of those kids to make it possible. They might raised them correctly but they definitely weren't treated correctly growing up. If anything they got hurt emotionally, mentally and physically, it can be any type and they won't realize what they're doing is wrong. Humans makes mistakes and don't know how to make up for it even if they say "sorry" but we know it's not going to be enough, for causing so much pain within someone life. Sometimes people want to care for their kids but it's just not possible, even if they tried. I also wanted to say BarabiSama also made a good point on message (59) most woman that were raped don't want to hurt the child for what that person did to them. Instead they feel they can have the child to raise a better person than that and anger shouldn't control them to just kill that child. If that's a way for coping it's not a bad thing, even if some feel its still part of him people need to remember it's a different person. That's how you know someone can't live on happy if they keep on with the past. They always said you must move on ahead and don't look back, no one can stop you. So yeah if anyone doesn't agree or feel uncomfortable about it sorry but this is a conversation that most people are concern about. I'm hoping to be a doctor one day. So I'm enjoying this conversation.

bamp =w=

¿

√

abortion should be completely up to the mother, nobody should be able to force a child upon someone else, its almost like rape, and the state will most likely delay the overview and by the time they get to it it could be a different trimester then when you wanted it to be

No matter what the circumstances are I think the choice of getting an abortion should be up to the mother. Unless it is a teen pregnancy and it would interfere with the teens education and living. If a your daughter told you she was pregnant and she wants you to take care of the child , would you say yes or no? I personally would advise to get an abortion, especially if the child would be a burden.

I believe both sides have a point. Now before anyone jumps at me let me explain. i believe the mother should have the choice reguardless but think deeply upon about what she is about to do. that child is in your stomach. its your baby. its a life end of story. BUT if its fatal or if its a forced pregnancy (rape ect.) then i believe i would be pro abortion. its up to the mom i guess.

^

lump

^

It's a hard question to answer. I tend to be very neutral when it comes to controversial topics.

My biology teacher told us his opinion on this and he's pro-life. He says that if you're ready to play the game of life then you should be ready for any consequences. Not saying that children are bad consequences. I see where he's coming from, though. He says that if people want to have sex then they should not consider abortion as birth control.

But then some people bring up the argument about rape victims. Do they really want to keep a big reminder of what traumatic events happened to them? I don't know. But I'm sure almost everyone thinks, no.

Then there's yet another opinion. Although many might not be as extreme as my brother, he believes that abortion should be completely legal. Why? He thinks that the earth is overpopulated and that we can't keep, and I quote, "having people pop suckers out every second of the day." He strongly believes in what China is doing to control their population.

A friend of mine somewhat agrees with him, but she also thinks that there are too many orphans in the world. She believes that people should be more open to adoption, understanding that it can be a lengthy and difficult process.

My mother is two sided. She thinks that sometimes it may be the better decision to abort then to let a child be born to parents who are not responsible enough to handle a baby. She says she would rather someone abort a fetus than have it live and suffer.

A lot of different opinions from everyone.

Now my own opinion. I'm still neutral. I'm not very religious. If I ever had to deal with this situation personally, I'll deal with it in a calm manner and make MY own decision, by MYSELF, WITHOUT the influence of others. I'll let people live there OWN lives.

Now a message from my friend, who absolutely insisted...
"Don't be silly, wrap that willy." ;)

√2

^

^

No

Too lazy to read this entire thread, but, more abortions = less people. Yay.

I don't think we should have Abortion I don't care how much you don't want the kid I think its stupid to have them because you're killing lives, people who could've done something in life you don't know who they would come out to be. Who are we to choose who dies at such a young age? If you really don't want the kid then you can drop it off at your local fire department no questions asked. They aren't going to ask you for anything you can just drop them off there. In that way you aren't killing anyone and your child gets a "fair" chance at life. Sure people will argue rape and stuff like that and it still gets a shot at life doesn't it? The child didn't choose to be the result of a rape. So why are you going to just end it for them? Those are my thoughts.

bump

>>424
There's far too many people, let alone children in this world for you to start dropping them off and putting them up for adoption.

We're losing resources more and more each year because of it.

>>424
So what is more important? Letting cells live that aren't even human yet, or waiting and fucking up the planet and it's people even more because some dick-wad with a personal agenda wants to force you to have your kid?

^

It really depends on the situation.
I do agree that it should be the mother's choice since she is the one that will carry it for nine months and might raise it after the child is born. If abortion does become illegal then people will just fine ways to do it like they do with everything else. When someone wants something they go and get it no matter what most of the time. No matter how dangerous or life threatening it could be.
I am neutral on abortion but if something happen to me then I wouldn't let anyone talk me into doing something I don't want to do. Everyone should be able to make their own choices on any matter since it will be them who is directly affected.

Agreeing with Echo on this one. Personally, even if it was because of a stupid decision, an accident or any other reason, I'd want to keep the kid. However, that is MY standing on it. One shoukd never force their beliefs on another person and each persob should be able to do what they want with their body.

bump

^