Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

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


  1. Nobody is denying that it's a self centered choice. As humans we are only concerned for ourselves, but that same time, not everyone even wants to be a parent in the first place. That's a decision that they get to make. Maybe they are young and want to still live their lives, maybe they see some serious personality flaw in themselves that they think will prevent them from being a good parent, maybe they are abusive and don't want to do that to another person.

    While YOU and your girlfriend made the choice that you decided was best for YOU BOTH in your own life, not everyone feels that it's the best decision in their life. As I said, not everyone wants to be a parent to begin with, and that is their choice.

    We have no obligation as individuals to procreate if we don't choose to, that's why we have various birth control methods, your girlfriend was obviously trying to actively prevent pregnancy by being on the pill, I'm sure for a multitude of reasons. As I said, you both chose to deal with the consequences of your actions a certain way, but it's far from the only way.

    Many people believe that young people aren't fit parents, and are they completely wrong? Probably not, the decision making part of your brain isn't even fully developed until you're 25.

    A child is a gift, not a curse, and every child should be brought into this world as a gift, not simply because they have no other choice, and people generally decide when they are ready to raise a child on their own terms.
     
  2. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoLL6Zqc-Qo]YouTube - What Women Deserve[/ame]

    Men shouldn't have a vote on this issue.
     
  3. pro-life
    none of us wouldn't be here unless someone decided to keep us, so...
    i don't think anyone should be 'for taking life'

    that's a little messed up
    but whatever that's the world for you
     

  4. I agree, and I disagree. When consensual sex has occurred I do believe that the man should have some level of say, but in the end, it's the woman's body.

    I frequently take up the 'no uterus, no opinion' stance, and while I haven't backed down from that entirely, I have revised it.

    When it comes to having an abortion because of a pregnancy that resulted in rape, I don't think men should have a say. Unless you've been through that yourself, you have no idea of the mental implications and emotional consequences of said act. You also cannot possibly understand what kind of toll it would take continually having to look at and care for a child that resulted because another forced themselves on you.

    In the end, if the sex was consensual, I think that there does need to be a talk between the two parties involved.

    I also think instead of saying that no men should have a say in this issue, we should realize that this is a medical procedure, and like any medical procedure it's between yourself, the doctor and possibly people directly in your life if you so choose, not anyone else unless you directly involve them.

    Now, I like to say keep your ideology out of my uterus.
     
  5. ...and I'm the one who seems angry?

    You talk about using reason instead of emotion, but post pictures of cute babies in an attempt to gain sympathy. I'm pretty sure we all know what a baby is, no need for pictures.

    And you're getting all butthurt because people are asking you questions about your personal life and making assumptions about you, but you are doing the exact same thing when you generalize women who choose to get abortions. You don't know anything about their lives or how they came to be pregnant.
     

  6. men dont get a say in it is total BULLSHIT! because if she CHOOSES to keep it we are FORCED to pay childsupport......if women have a CHOICE to ABORT it then men should have a choice to want to be the dad...cuz they might want her to abort and her choose not to..... men should not have to pay child support if they CHOOSE they dont want it
     
  7. You may find re-reading my posts helpful. I have made no generalization about the reasons women abort their children. Others may have done that. I have not.

    You may find responding to what people actually say more effective.

    As for the picture of 2 babies, I did so to illustrate a point. Which one would you want to have killed? Which one was conceived via rape and which one was not? You can not tell by looking at them.
     
  8. #88 Sir Elliot, May 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 21, 2010
    Sounding like a jerkface does not help the pro-life position.

    You would be more helpful if you didn't post, then if you posted and acted like a jerkface.

    name calling isn't allowed here.. even jerkface.
     


  9. I think the view of women is very important in this matter. Let's listen to the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's niece, Dr. Alveda King:

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b8ps-KTCQM]YouTube - Black Genocide in Georgia @ personhood.net[/ame]

    I don't understand why so many people are pro-black-genocide. What if we just stopped killing black children?
     
  10. #90 kushmob, May 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2010



    i got an ifraction for name calling so now u need one.....


    im pro choice buddy.....but if women have the choice to be a mom or not, then men should have the choice to be a dad or not


    i have a child and i live with him and his mom so i dont have to pay child support cuz i accept my responsibilites and consequences from my actions(which happens to be more expensive than child support)

    but people still have the choice to choose not to be responsible for their actions(unlike me)

    and i still feel that women who choose to abort are making a bad decision (except in rape and incest or physical complications) and i think its selfish and just them being scared of the responsibility....but they still have the right to choose......... just cuz i dont choose to do the same doesnt mean my choice is right and their choice is wrong
     
  11. Hasn't this already been discussed??? I think all of it boiled down to, people view things differently, hence why we will never live in a 'perfect world.'

    Some view pro-life others pro-choice, does it really matter when you have to make that decision? People here can say that they are pro choice all day long but you don't really know that until you are put in a position where you have to (for men) assist in helping the girl make a decision. Or for the girl, making that decision.

    I would think for the ladies that being pro-life or pro-choice doesn't even matter, they still have to make a very difficult decision and it will still affect her for the rest of her life. Nobody else knows what that's like, even women who've made a choice, don't know, maybe they can relate. Each person is different and will handle situations differently. Some may find it easier than others. Some may not find it so easy.

    I personally I'm not either...If I ever had to help a girl choose one or the other, honestly I really wouldn't know what to say, it's her choice the whole way, she alone has to bare any and all consequences if she decides to go with the abortion. I would stand by her in whatever decision she made.
     
  12. In my view it begins with the Supreme Court. There are supposed to be 3 branches of government empowered with "checks and balances". Only problem is that the Supreme Court can check the legislative and executive branches, but cannot be checked by them in return, or by the people for that matter. The Supreme Court operates as its own mini legislature. They are appointed by the president, not represented by the people, and this system allows for the circumstances we have now where the few control the many on such issues of public perception and precedent as with abortion.

    The Supreme Court consists of political appointees, chosen by the president for their political leanings on abortion and other current issues. They make no secret of their political opinions and seem incapable of judging issues without invariably towing the party line as is only natural based on their particular prejudice.

    Our problem is that with the current abortion laws our honesty regarding what people perceive to be immoral has been irreversibly corrupted, and it has rendered us impotent to make rational judgments on every other issue concerning the well being and ethical handling of issues of public importance.
     
  13. Pro-Choice for sure. Humans are a bunch of conceited animals ass fucking each-other over the stupidest shit. :mad: Fricken humans!
     
  14. EXACTLY! What makes us think that we are so special and so wonderful that to kill an unformed, unconscious potential human is a grave crime when going out with hunting beagles and ripping a fox to shreds or otherwise killing fully formed, conscious animals for fun is perfectly acceptable?

    Sir Elliot, science can't really comment upon when 'life' begins, because the biological milestones of 'life' developing are really just documented physical processes that the reader interprets and attaches significance to.

    For example, let's ask the biggest and boldest question of all - 'When does life begin?' It depends what sense we're talking in. If we want to use the straight up, rawhide scientific definition for 'life' - an agent that is capable of defying normal natural conditions (which are room temperature, normal air pressure/composition etc) and acting autonomously - then life most certainly DOES NOT begin at conception, no more than cancerous growth is 'life'. In both, there is no effort to autonomously regulate or determine what happens to the growth - they both are the same temperature as the host, and indeed they cannot actually do anything to influence their own 'lives' at all. The host manipulates their conditions, they have no autonomous control over them, much like a rock. To further the comparison to cancer, the fertilised zygote, the blastocyst, the embryo - up until the age of about 8 weeks or so, much the same wild cell duplication is going on that goes on in a tumour. Both are simply local units (cells) obeying local rules (DNA) to keep on replicating and blindly obey coded instructions. They are both simply physical and chemical processes. There's nothing 'alive' about it and there's certainly nothing significant about it, it's just any other natural process - one that can be emulated in a laboratory through cloning.

    Anyhow, to continue the question of when life begins, we can see it is biologically nonsensical to declare that it begins 'at conception'. Philosophical issues of 'whether life is LIFE without consciousness' aside, the scientific criteria for something being 'alive' is creating a 'system', where the body is regulating it's own processes outside of natural conditions - the organism must have some kind of control over itself. To briefly explain why, anything that doesn't meet these criteria is essentially indistinguishable from other inactive bodies subject to the whims of nature - things like rocks, dead bodies, water and watches. So, the being must be able to have its own processes, running independantly of its surroundings. At what age does this occur with a foetus? When the heartbeat begins is a good guide, this is when the foetus first begins to take control over its own 'life', it's own 'bodily processes'. Kicking of the feet indicates that the foetus is well and truly 'alive', in the biological sense of the term.

    BUT AHA! Science is a double edged sword! The foetus is technically 'alive' when the heartbeat begins... but no more alive than a rat when its foetal heartbeat begins, or a foetal chimpanzee/giraffe/dugong/horse etc. They are completely indistinguishable, scientifically and biologically speaking. Human foetuses and all other heartbeating, 'living' foetuses are in exactly the same boat - they're all inside a womb, they're all being fed through a placenta/amniotic fluid, they're all incapable of exerting any kind of intelligence/creativity/proper emotion, and they all could die very easily in the womb and come out stillborn. The only biological difference is the species... and so what? Why is SPECIES important when we're talking about 'life'? 'Life' isn't just some kind of exclusively human concept, all species reproduce and make 'life' - 'life', as far as the foetus goes, applies equally to all creatures that bear live young, and arguably to egg laying creatures too.

    So, as we can see, science is a bundle of contradictions that can present data and give us 'technical' insights into the whole affair but can't give us the answers - the answers are nonsensical and irrelevant to the reasons WHY we oppose/support abortion. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the reasons are PURELY philosophical/ethical, and that science doesn't really come into it at all. And there's nothing wrong with this, everyone feels differently and you can't expect to dictate right and wrong when what's 'right' to you is very likely 'wrong' to me. This is why I'm strongly pro-choice - if you are into the whole 'life at conception' thing and choose to keep your baby, good for you! You can breed all you want and keep all your goddam babies! Just don't tell me to do the same, because I don't tell you to abort them because of our enormous overpopulation issue... ;)
     


  15. Thank god you were here to define right and wrong for me. Seriously dude what's with those exceptions. Look... Like these fetuses I wasn't borne yesterday either, and First and foremost if you are contemplating killing your unborn child you probably should not be a parent nor would you make a good one. I know had I not decided to abort 7 years ago I would have 3 (triplets) children right now... Im 24... The bitch that """CLAIMED""" I got her pregnant was wacko and had I followed your rules here not only would my life be destroyed, but so would the lives of the 3 potentials as well...
     
  16. pro-choice.

    I'm going to leave it at that.
     
  17. There you go, there's another definition of 'life'! Certainly, if a cell is undergoing metabolic activity, then it's 'alive' - but it isn't a 'system', it simply absorbs nutrients through the cell wall and passes waste into its surroundings. Not that such a fact makes it less 'biologically alive', but it does make it less of an autonomous and self-regulating form of life that is, for all intents and purposes, not 'alive' in the same sense that something which regulates its own temperature, intake/excretion of food, oxygenation of blood blah blah blah.

    But yes, you're right - when I say 'life begins with the heartbeat', I mean that life as an autonomous, 'closed system' organism begins with the heartbeat. But I'm guilty of biological snobbery... I mean, who says that metabolising ATP is any less of a grand and noble aspiration for an organism than exerting control over ones body! :p
     
  18. I would imagine, ironically, that most of those on the "pro life" agenda also consume meat products. I'll leave it to them to decide whether or not it seems hypocritical to argue that other sentient beings should be treated with less worth than a group of unwanted cells.
     

  19. LOL well duh....babies taste like shit....
     
  20. What's the difference between a woman that has been raped fetus in the embryonic stage, and a woman that has had consensual sex embryonic fetus? Nothing. The only difference might be your personal morals. I don't believe that a person's personal morals should stop women from doing what they want to their body.
     

Share This Page