Grasscity - Cyber Week Sale - up to 50% Discount

Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lynchings, May 19, 2010.

  1. #1 Lynchings, May 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2010
    Which side do you fall on? Could you elaborate?

    I'm personally Pro-Life, and I highly agree with sex-education being taught in high-school, as well as cheap and/or very easy to get condoms and contraceptives. Of course, Abortion should also be illegal at ALL stages of pregnancy; UNLESS the lady has been raped or is 15 or younger, and only during embryonic stage.

    EDIT: I forgot to include that if the doctor foresee's complications due to pregnancy or childbirth, the mother may choose to abort during the embryonic stage.

    Sex is fun. Making babies is not. We know the potential consequences of unprotected sex, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let a life be denied the chance to live because some hussy thinks abortion is the same as whiting-out a typo.
     

  2. I'm pro-choice, because I am against the government forcing young women and even older women into having a child. Maybe if you could be forced to endure labor, you may feel differently.

    Condoms can break, and there is potential for other contraceptives to fail as well, and if that occurs, I don't think a woman or a young girl should be forced to then go through pregnancy (especially when we already have more kids that need loving homes than we can handle). Furthermore, pregnancies can have complications, and I find it scary that you don't think that abortion is appropriate if the mothers life is in danger.

    I'm pro-choice up until the end of the first trimester. I find it kind of weird that people can be pro-death penalty but pro-life when it comes to something that isn't even half as developed as a tadpole. I think, scarily enough, that if the mothers life is in danger, abortion should be considered even past then.

    Pro-choice people don't, in the vast majority of cases, want abortion to be abused, but it is an option that every woman should have.
     
  3. Pro-Choice. I don't give a shit about abortion, and I don't feel like playing God.
     
  4. I'm pro choice, but think it should be left up to the states to decide.

    Either way I think it's a non-issue because it really comes down to personal responsibility.

    Do you support the government forcing people to pay for infanticide?
     

  5. Personally, I would support it if the world was made up of likeminded individuals such as myself (since I don't really consider an embryo in the first trimester to really be infanticide), but I understand that it is inappropriate to do so when so much of the population is opposed to it, so I would never vote for the government to pay for abortions, no. Birth control, yes.
     
  6. Pro choice..1st semester only unless medical complications..

    But im not from the US so what i think is irrelevant.
    [​IMG]
     
  7. Neither. I'm pro-abortion. There's no such thing as pro-choice. You either want dead babies or you don't. :D
     
  8. #8 Lynchings, May 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2010
    The government isn't forcing women to have children. They would be forcing them to not murder their child. They're not busting into their houses and having couples have sex at gunpoint.

    Yes, a very small percentage of condoms break. However, there are numerous different contraceptives, such as "the pill" or "the ring" or "the patch" or "the shot" that aid in preventing pregnancy. Not to mention emergency contraception, which is highly effective, as well as IUD's. There is such a wide variety of options and choices and combinations, it would be stupid to not utilize them. Honestly, I'd rather have the government help pay for an IUD than the death of someone's grandchild.

    The problem is the lack of education on sex and the somewhat strict control of contraceptives. By making these easy to get, abortions illegal, and better education on sex, I speculate that we would cut down slightly on the number of unwanted babies born, and thus the number of children in orphanages. But that's just my speculation =/ I'm sure you all speculate a different scenario.

    EDIT: Also, the problem is whores. =/
     
  9. This thread is going to get ugly quick.

    There was one going in the Sex Relationships forums for a while and people got nasty and we're saying things that didn't even make sense.

    Touchy subject but I am pro-choice.
     
  10. prochoice. I don't believe the government has the right to tell me what I can do with my own body. I probably will never have an abortion but I'm not going to sit back and judge someone else for having one. I believe that comprehensive sex education will help to cut down on the number of abortions. knowledge=power
     

  11. I believe it is quite common for some animals to consume their young..

    Mice are pro-choice..
     
  12. Too bad Dane Cook's mother wasn't pro-choice.
     
  13. #13 sopostmodernn, May 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2010
    Nice attempt at twisting semantics to fit your argument, but 'if a woman is pregnant and the government bans abortion, it is forcing her to have that child'. That sentence is true, and twisting it by saying 'it won't allow her to murder' doesn't change the validity of it.

    How would making abortions illegal 'cut down the number of unwanted babies born'? Making abortions illegal doesn't make women instantly want these children, and can only lead to more unwanted children (and more children in general, as abortion is legal in many places). You're retarded, dumb ass (and I only say this because you called somebody else that in the socialism thread). The fact is that contraceptives don't always work, and, oh my god, guess what? Some parents won't GIVE their children contraceptives and preach ABSTINENCE ONLY. And if they get pregnant, oh well, you have to have that kid?

    My mother had a lot of complications with my birth. If she was a teenager, it could have been a lot worse. I'd much rather save the life of somebody who is already living and a full human being that already has a life than some embryo that isn't even sentient or even completely developed.

    Again, before the first trimester, that embryo is less developed than a tadpole.

    Honestly, you're a man, and so am I, we shouldn't have any say over this.

    Name-calling isn't cool here. Let's keep this thread civil, folks. -JD
     

  14. Tell me about it :(
     
  15. Pro-Happiness

    If you don't get it, well I'm sorry.
     
  16. Pro-happiness in that you want every human being to have the opportunity to experience happiness,

    or pro-happiness in that you want the baby-daddy to be happy that he doesn't have to raise a child?
     
  17. Thanks. I wasn't hoping you wouldn't notice? lol See, you have to add extra elaboration on that sentence in order to make it true, so it's technically not true, whereas mine was. So it's not really twisting the semantics as it was... being more strict with it.


    I know I didn't say this, but this goes along with the concept of "making condoms and contraceptives cheap and/or very easy to get". If a highschooler wants to fuck she is going to fuck, and I don't think she should need her parent's permission to prevent pregnancy.

    In my mind, making abortions illegal to cut down on orphans works the same way making drugs illegal cuts down on overall drug addicts or drug-related deaths. By giving women easier access to less expensive contraceptives and by making abortions illegal, women would hypothetically be more careful about sex because they are aware they no longer have that "last resort" option, and have access to the options before it.

    That's cool. In case you didn't notice, earlier I added on a piece to my opening argument that goes something along the lines of "If the doctor foresees complications during pregnancy or birth, the woman can opt to abort during embryonic stage".
     
  18. One major problem is that simply legislating that abortions are illegal does not mean abortions will still not occur.

    I'm not talking about doctors performing them, I'm talking about the women who are willing/undergo the mutilation of rudimentary abortions because medical services are not available to them. This future complicates the system, raises costs due to the lack of preventative procedures and medicines that could have been available and hurts all of us, though not as much as the woman.

    But I do not believe there is a clear moment as to when life occurs. I believe that when a fetus can leave the womb and survive on it's own it is now alive and unfortunately this is too circumstantial to set a defined time limit. (ergo, every child cannot be born 3 months premature and survive, however some do therefore we cannot say at 6 months all fetuses can be born and therefore are alive.)

    I don't believe that I have a right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Just as I don't believe a woman has a right to tell me if I can or cannot masturbate - mentionable because some religions consider the loss of semen to be the same as an abortion.
     

  19. This. Even if I wasn't Pro-Choice (which I am) we all know how effective prohibition is at stopping people doing things...
     
  20. Pro-choice, very strongly. Prohibition doesn't work (as Mirvs has said), and the matter of how and if you raise a family is your inidividual, private choice, not the choice of any authorative body...
     

Share This Page