Abortion, pro or con?

It's HER FUCKING CHILD TOO. She would be MURDERING her OWN CHILD.

It would be the SAME if you mom would to walk in on you sleeping and cut your head off with a saw. IT'S THE SAME THING.

Everyone thinks about the mother... ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT THE BABY? That is a HUMAN LIFE. HELLO!!! It's mother is the only thing in this world that it has. It has absolutely no say in whether it dies or lives... TALK ABOUT FAIR!?!?!

It is cold blood murder in the worst form.
 
murder is the act of killing another human being.

when a fetus is aborted it is not by any definition a human being yet. At that point it's just an extension of the mothers body.

Is splooging into a girls mouth genocide?
 
There are people who think that the morning after pill is a terrible thing, people like that are fucking stupid.

At the same time, babies aren't tadpoles. When you have a fully formed baby inside, it's the same form it's gonna be when it pops out of her vajayjay.

Also stillborn babies, 6months and farther are issued a death certificate.

Just sayin.
 
lost to this so hard, and i'm very pro choice, if you don't want one don't get one, don't make someone live with a mistake.and also if there is a god, and he didn't want abortions to happen then he wouldn't let them, he's god, he can do whatever the fuck he wants.
 
but the point being you can't get an abortion after 12 weeks or something for this reason exactly. before that time the 'baby' is just a blob of cells that can barely be called life. once it passes the 12 week (I think it's 12) barrier then it's considered to be living.

getting an abortion in early stages of pregnancy is no worse than jerking off or having your period.
 
I know I'm just saying some people push for if it's in my body it's still not a baby I should be able to abort it till the day before it comes out. And then on the other side some people feel that birth control pills are pretty much abortion.

SO either way it's all kind of wut
 
its the most tricky issue in politics, and people shouldn't be so quick to bash the other side. if you view the fetus as a living human, which it is by almost every scientific definition of life, then its infanticide. its literally killing a human being before it even has a chance. and within the first trimester there is blood being pumped to the developing brain, so don't be so quick to assume all pro lifers are religious wackos.

but criminalizing abortions oversteps the governments duties, and limits the freedom of the individual. abortion also lowers crime rates and is a generally stabilizing factor in unstable family units, and thus a stabilizing factor for society.

really its a question of at what point the fetus is a conscious human life. nobody would be in favor of a woman having the right to an abortion two days before delivery because that would be murder. but that means that we leave the state to decide at what point during a pregnancy does the fetus go from a developing blob of cells to a human life, and this is an incredibly difficult (probably impossible) thing to measure. taking plan b the day after sex isn't murder, its just killing a few cells, but killing a fetus a week before the due date is, so where exactly is the line drawn?

i personally am pro choice but i honestly do see the argument that fetuses late in the first trimester could be considered human. so ns, when do you think a fetus become human?
 
solid post. but i'm gonna have to disagree with the argument for abortions as a means of crime reduction.

while there has been shown to be a negative correlation between the allowance of abortions and the crime rate, it's not a reasonable means of achieving the goal.

think about... how do liberals view abortions and the death penalty? while there are exceptions, most liberals would be pro-choice and against the death penalty. while this sounds all neat and dandy, it's quite contradictory if your basis for the viewpoints is a reduction in crime rates.

BOTH the death penalty and abortions have to been shown to lower crime rates. So why would you kill the innocent (fetus/baby) to drive down the crime rate yet let the guilty (proven criminal) live?

that's one thing i've never been able to understand. if you're gonna argue that abortions should be legal to reduce the crime rate, then one would think you'd also support the death penalty.

why kill the innocent fetus/baby in anticipation of their potential crimes yet let the tried and true criminal live?

on a sidenote, i'm pro-life and could go either way on the death penalty. it's a tricky issue for sure...

 
This thread is bound to brew some major drama haha..

Pro choice, hands down. Guys quite frankly shouldn't even have a say in the matter, and shouldn't have control over our uteruses.

1)Separation of church and state=in this and many other issues, religious beliefs are best kept out of the government.

2)A fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for nutrition, oxygen, waste removal, development, etc. It wouldn't survive without the mother-it's essentially a parasite. I can't really justify equating removing a 1st trimester embryo as infanticide...but I suppose that leads to the question of where you draw that line ie when is it too late to abort?

3) If she chooses to keep the pregnancy then that's great, but there are several reasons why I feel that abortion is completely reasonable and a wise idea=a pregnancy occurring from rape, teen or unwanted pregnancy (though I also think it's stupid that not everyone uses a condom or is on the pill or something to prevent this. Seems like common sense), serious health risk to the mother, etc. Besides, I think it's more selfish to bring a child into the world and then not have the means or ability to give it a good life. That's irresponsible, and there are definitely people who shouldn't be parents.
 
"Guys quite frankly shouldn't even have a say in the matter, and shouldn't have control over our uteruses."

Irrelevant point depending on when life begins.

"Separation of church and state=in this and many other issues, religious beliefs are best kept out of the government."

Irrelevant point because if it's considered a child religion or no religion it would be considered a crime.

"A fetus is entirely dependent on the mother for nutrition, oxygen, waste removal, development, etc. It wouldn't survive without the mother-it's essentially a parasite."

Damn, you sound like your going to be quite the loving mother someday.

"teen or unwanted pregnancy" Though I hear you. Understanding why something happens and feeling for the person who commits a crime doesn't make it alright. At some point there needs to be responsibility. I can understand why people do certain things that I don't agree with or are illegal. I'm just saying that because it happens doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.

"Besides, I think it's more selfish to bring a child into the world and then not have the means or ability to give it a good life. "

That's true. Especially with the world population forever rising.

" That's irresponsible, and there are definitely people who shouldn't be parents."

Are you implying that getting pregnant isn't irresponsible?

There are gray areas to the issue. People over simplify and make things black and white when they aren't always that simple.

 
Bahahaha you must be trolling. It's a fucking fetus, not a human life. The only way it would be "cold blood murder" is if you gave birth and THEN aborted your child. I'm sorry, but anyone who is extreme pro-life needs to take their head out of their ass.
 
more like "anybody who think they're definitely correct needs to take their head out of their ass"

oh.. wait... that's you.
 
oh please, a guy shouldn't be able to have a say whether or not his potential child gets a chance at life or not? the last word probably shouldn't belong to him but thats downright disrespectful for him not to have any say.

just because religious people argue it doesn't mean its a strictly religious issue. at some point the fetus is a living human, whose life should be protected along with, but not apposed to, the mothers life (so in a life or death scenario the mother's life takes priority). that has nothing to do with religion, and if you don't accept that premise you could justify having an abortion anytime during the pregnancy. and i for one don't think an 8 month old fetus should be destroyed. there have been premature babies who survived despite being more than a month early.

so when exactly is the fetus a human life that should be protected? what biological characteristics make the fetus a human? the ability to live independently from the mother? a heart? a nervous system or a brain? reaction to stimuli?

this is such a more complicated issue than people give it credit because it touches on the very existential questions that thousands of years of philosophy haven't been able to definitively answer.

 
that's entirely irrelevant to this issue. besides, even pro-lifers are sometimes accepting of abortion in rape situations.

i'm only stating that anyone who believes they're definitively correct on the issue needs to wake up and realize it's impossible for one side to be inherently right or wrong.
 
honestly dude. its nobodies business but your own, and it should stay hat way. you and your partner should talk and come to a decision and share it only with those you care about. asking others for their opinion would only complicate the situation.

but for the sake of the argument, pro choice all the way baby...
 
first i dont think its pro abortion or con abortion. I dont think theres many people out there that are "pro" abortion. the issue often hinges on one of choices.

that said i dont think rationality lends itself to either position in a hardline form. ending a fetus's life the day before birth is straight fucked, anyway you slice it. At the same time jacking off isnt murder.

It really come down to where life starts. i know for me personally its a heartbeat. I dont have any problem with the morning after pill, but as you might have guessed i think late term abortion is murder.

the argument that the mother bares no moral obligation to a fetus close to berth doesnt hold any water in my book. because what separates a newborn from a fetus? the fact its not inside the mother? while thats the line for some people i can respect that, yet at the same time even when the baby is outside the mother its still dependent on another entity for its existence. the argument usually goes that a fetus doesnt hold claim to use the mothers body as a life support device but what allows a 6 month old to claim that right? theres very little difference between a fetus close to birth and a newborn imo

tl:dr
 
Abortions will happen illegal or not. If these pro-lifers want ban it, they'll push it underground. Back to the days of back alleys, coat hangers and corkscrews.

Keep it legal, safe and clean.

Pro choice

 
no. as long as that baby is still attached to and completely dependent on her mother (in womb) the mother has the right to choose what to do with the child because the child is still a part of her. To compare it to a mom cutting her childrens heads off with a saw is fucking ridiculous. There is a HUGE difference between born and unborn children
 
lol the correlation between abortion and crime is gigantic. read "freakonomics" for a more detailed argument, but for now:

the people most likely to get an abortion are in the lower class, and (obviously) since they want to get rid of it, they almost guaranteed either do not have the means to care for this child, or do not want to care for the child, both of which end with the same result. the child is neglected, leading to an (approximately) 70% chance of them turning to crime.

dont know if you are old enough to know this, but in the early 90s, crime was increasing at an insane rate. the predictions from all the experts was that the future would be a world was one of hooligans and drug lords. but mid 90s, there was a gigantic decrease in crime, which was eventually linked to the Wade vs. Roe case around 20 years earlier, which resulted in abortion being legalized.

so, as the years went by, all these mothers with unwanted babies got abortions when they needed it.

twenty years later, the crime rate suffered it's huge drop, because the pool of potential criminals had decreased by an order or two of magnitude.

but some people started complaining that it was other things that had caused the crime rate to decrease.

luckily for "the abortion theory", some cities had been slower to respond to the court order than others. and voila: the cities who had legalized abortions first experienced their crime drop earlier than the cities who had legalized abortions later, regardless of the racial composition, the funding of the police force, or the number of prisons.

ZING!

tl;dr abortion lowers crime.
 
and what exactly is that difference? does being attached to the mother somehow make the baby not have a conscious? does being vitally attached to the mother give the mother the right to assign life or death? then why is it wrong for a mother to stop providing nourishment to a child after birth?
 
ZING? I already understood everything you've posted. And yes, I've read the book.

I wasn't denying that abortions lower the crime rate, but rather arguing that it's an unreasonable means to do so if you're also going to oppose the death penalty... which i'm not saying you do.
 
pro choice unless its just some dumbfuck blonde who doesn't "want" a kid but could care for it.
 
i met idiocy with idiocy.

it was an illustration, saying that just because im controlling my own body i can do anything is an asinine argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top