Abortion
- Thread starter Steamboiz
- Start date
Scaredwhiteboy
Active member
Does life begin at conception or birth? Who knows? Who really give a fuck? Abortion is only a debate because conservatives think it's a free pass for girls to sleep around. Liberals only support abortion because they want to stick it to the conservatives. Almost nobody has a good reason supporting their stance. Here's one: all estimates show the Earth will exceed its carrying capacity (if it hasn't already) in the next 50 years. Abortion is one simple way to slow population growth.
cobra_commander
Active member
12965872:Scaredwhiteboy said:
So is mass starvation, small pox, and nuclear war.
louie.mirags
Active member
12965872:Scaredwhiteboy said:
Find my story in this thread and that is a great reason to be prochoice. Not raising kids in a shitty household is a wonderful reason to put off raising a child. What the fuck are you talking about?
.ZT.
Active member
Absolute worst thing is when religious conservatives are against abortion and at the same time oppose contraception, protection, and sex ed. I think when it comes down to it, no one wants to have an abortion, but sometimes it's the proper decision for a woman or couple to make (medically, financially etc.). The best thing any side of the debate can do is advocate for safe sex and education.
louie.mirags
Active member
12966266:.ZT. said:
Those types like the think sex ed promotes sex. Even though everybody is fucking anyway...
Daph
Active member
Some food for thought: making abortions harder to obtain/illegal would not eliminate abortions. If someone is determined enough to terminate a pregnancy they'll find a way and if they cant get a proper procedure in the proper environment that poses a significant health risk.
I am always intrigued reading predominantly male discussions on this topic. So many women pull the whole "its not the guy's decision" thing, and yes if you want to look at it that way its the woman's body. However in many circumstances the guy will still be significantly affected by the outcome and their opinions are still valid. So keep up the arguing ns, amidst the typical nsg shit there's some interesting stuff in here.
I am always intrigued reading predominantly male discussions on this topic. So many women pull the whole "its not the guy's decision" thing, and yes if you want to look at it that way its the woman's body. However in many circumstances the guy will still be significantly affected by the outcome and their opinions are still valid. So keep up the arguing ns, amidst the typical nsg shit there's some interesting stuff in here.
DaysToCome
Active member
12951509:_steezefiend8 said:
IM going to quote this for emphasis. Life is always valuable but when it is completely dependent on another life it makes it a lot more difficult, in my mind, to argue that it has its own unique rights. Human life is a lot more than than just a functioning brain, and to simplify the argument down to that line in the sand is, IMO, not taking into account a majority of what it means and takes to actually be alive.
papermache
Active member
how many people arguing the sanctity of life in this thread would apply the same logic to the death penalty?
papermache
Active member
12967552:stickski said:
as far as abortion, most people draw their opinions from religion, am I right? yet the bible is pretty fucking specific on this issue.
"Thou shall not kill"
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
if that's the template for everybody's consensus then at least be consistent.
louie.mirags
Active member
12968279:papermache said:
ahhh yes, religious people contradicting themselves... who would have thought?
louie.mirags
Active member
12968383:stickski said:
No I didn't say that. But they base their lives on ideals that are contradictory. It's just easier to form opinions based on a book written a few centuries ago. Think about how dumb people were back then. And they had it all figured it? LoL
El_Barto.
Active member
12968279:papermache said:
Im not religious and im not really for abortions. I think if you have one you should also be sterilized. Louie up there is a good example. He and a whore made a terrible decision and showed a severe lack of maturity and responsibilty. They were given a second chance at leading a normal life at the expense of another humans.
You fucked up, you made a shitty decision. You should not be allowed to make that same mistake twice. We have enough people as it is, we dont need people making bad decisions
stickski
Active member
12968395:louie.mirags said:
People basing their lives on contradictory ideals is not exclusive to religion. As a side note, do you think the constitution is worthless because it was written in the 18th century? What about Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Aquinas? Those guys were better informed than anyone one ns in 2014, myself included.
fghtoffyrdmns
Active member
12961588:Utard said:
it would also be the guys fucking kid coming out of the vagina, so yah he should have a say in the matter.
louie.mirags
Active member
12968400:El_Barto. said:
You're an idiot.
You said we have enough people as it is. So I should I have the baby when we weren't ready, with a girl I didn't love? Get real man. You're trolling hard. Listen to yourself. We didn't bring another human into this world who wasn't going to get the right care. That baby would have never hair a fair chance and you'd be hating on me instead for government assistance. Instead, I'm graduating from college and have a solid job oppurtunity ahead.
Toaster-Tony
Active member
12965859:Madzzb said:
It's even more entertaining hearing a woman think she can get pregnant by herself
fghtoffyrdmns
Active member
12971183:Diabeeto said:
hhaaha
louie.mirags
Active member
12971797:stickski said:
I know chicken is half trolling but having the kid cost way more in the long run for tax payers. Between schooling, and healthcare. Not to mention if the family is on government assistance how much it cost per child. So your not using tax dollars to abort doesn't add up.
Zimmerman
Active member
Okay, here goes.
First of all, using the terms "pro-life" and "Pro-choice" is a mistake.
"Pro-life" assumes the opposition is pro-death or anti life.
"Pro-choice" assumes the other side is just anti choice, and we don't like that here in America.
I'll start by saying that I don't believe a fetus is a person any more than an acorn is an oak tree, but for the argument's sake, I will disregard this.
To clarify what I mean when I say "person," I mean any being with a human DNA sequence that has a right to life. This leads to two questions: 1. Does a fetus have a right to life? 2. When do humans get their right to life?
A "potential person" is just that, not a person yet. Okay to kill.
Therefore saying "life begins at conception" means nothing. Cows lives begin at conception too and it's okay to kill them. What this argument depends on entirely is the right to life.
If the fetus does not have a right to life, it is okay to perform an abortion.
If it does(or will at some point; where we draw the line is pretty much arbitrary) have a right to life, then abortion would equate to murder.
However, that is not the end of the discussion. The fetus's rights do have to be weighed against the mother's.
A right to life is not the right not to be killed, or the right to everything needed to keep you alive. You should all honestly just read Judith Thomson's essay on the topic. It is not perfect, but she makes a lot of good points that actually make sense.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
Note that she is trying to say that in leaving her house, a woman takes a tiny risk, and if she gets raped, she may have played a causal role in the outcome, but that does not mean she has moral responsibility for the outcome. She extends this to using birth control, and says that using birth control lowers the chance of pregnancy enough where lowing it further would require making too great a sacrifice (i.e. no sex). Thus abortion is okay in the case of rape and when people take reasonable precautions to prevent a conception.
To the girl who said it was funny to hear men argue about abortion, you are attacking the people arguing instead of their actual arguments, which don't have a sex. Genetic ad hominem.
To anyone saying women have the right to do what they want with their own body, nobody actually has this right. I don't have the right to punch you, and if the fetus has a right to life,killing it would not be justified.
To the whole "how can you be against abortion and for the death penalty and vice versa" crowd: These are two different cases.For example, it would not be inconsistent to be against abortion because I believe a fetus has a right to life but for the death penalty because I believe the condemned have forfeited theirs. It would also be consistent to be okay with abortion because you don't think the fetus has a right to life, but against the death penalty because you think the condemned still has theirs.
To the "prevent back alley abortions" crowd, if the fetus has the right to life, it would not be okay to kill it to save a woman from this hardship. Plus, fewer back alley abortions occur than fetuses with right to life would be killed in order to prevent them.
To the "serves the population problem" crowd: Sure, it would be great to slow population growth, but if the fetuses have a right to life, killing them to serve overpopulation would be absurd.
I think I addressed at least some of what has been said. Keep in mind everything I said at the top. Especially the acorn part.
First of all, using the terms "pro-life" and "Pro-choice" is a mistake.
"Pro-life" assumes the opposition is pro-death or anti life.
"Pro-choice" assumes the other side is just anti choice, and we don't like that here in America.
I'll start by saying that I don't believe a fetus is a person any more than an acorn is an oak tree, but for the argument's sake, I will disregard this.
To clarify what I mean when I say "person," I mean any being with a human DNA sequence that has a right to life. This leads to two questions: 1. Does a fetus have a right to life? 2. When do humans get their right to life?
A "potential person" is just that, not a person yet. Okay to kill.
Therefore saying "life begins at conception" means nothing. Cows lives begin at conception too and it's okay to kill them. What this argument depends on entirely is the right to life.
If the fetus does not have a right to life, it is okay to perform an abortion.
If it does(or will at some point; where we draw the line is pretty much arbitrary) have a right to life, then abortion would equate to murder.
However, that is not the end of the discussion. The fetus's rights do have to be weighed against the mother's.
A right to life is not the right not to be killed, or the right to everything needed to keep you alive. You should all honestly just read Judith Thomson's essay on the topic. It is not perfect, but she makes a lot of good points that actually make sense.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
Note that she is trying to say that in leaving her house, a woman takes a tiny risk, and if she gets raped, she may have played a causal role in the outcome, but that does not mean she has moral responsibility for the outcome. She extends this to using birth control, and says that using birth control lowers the chance of pregnancy enough where lowing it further would require making too great a sacrifice (i.e. no sex). Thus abortion is okay in the case of rape and when people take reasonable precautions to prevent a conception.
To the girl who said it was funny to hear men argue about abortion, you are attacking the people arguing instead of their actual arguments, which don't have a sex. Genetic ad hominem.
To anyone saying women have the right to do what they want with their own body, nobody actually has this right. I don't have the right to punch you, and if the fetus has a right to life,killing it would not be justified.
To the whole "how can you be against abortion and for the death penalty and vice versa" crowd: These are two different cases.For example, it would not be inconsistent to be against abortion because I believe a fetus has a right to life but for the death penalty because I believe the condemned have forfeited theirs. It would also be consistent to be okay with abortion because you don't think the fetus has a right to life, but against the death penalty because you think the condemned still has theirs.
To the "prevent back alley abortions" crowd, if the fetus has the right to life, it would not be okay to kill it to save a woman from this hardship. Plus, fewer back alley abortions occur than fetuses with right to life would be killed in order to prevent them.
To the "serves the population problem" crowd: Sure, it would be great to slow population growth, but if the fetuses have a right to life, killing them to serve overpopulation would be absurd.
I think I addressed at least some of what has been said. Keep in mind everything I said at the top. Especially the acorn part.
katie.
Active member
I don't even want to launch into this discussion but here's my two cents.
1. I'm glad I live somewhere where abortion is legal because nobody owns the rights to something within someone else's body.
2. If you plant a seed in the ground and then take it out, you have not cut down a tree.
Happy Tuesday folks.
1. I'm glad I live somewhere where abortion is legal because nobody owns the rights to something within someone else's body.
2. If you plant a seed in the ground and then take it out, you have not cut down a tree.
Happy Tuesday folks.
Zimmerman
Active member
So basically, since the right to life is a philosophical construct and where we draw the line will end up being entirely arbitrary anyway, I personally thing that it's up to us to move from thinking and discussing to actually acting, for democracy rests on consent and not philosophical ideals.
Since I personally do not believe a fetus is a person, I think abortions should be available to women. However, lines will have to be drawn when it comes to legislation and action. How late is too late for an abortion? The line is pretty arbitrary, so I think we can leave that up to what people decide. Personally I would not want it to be too early but that is just me.
Since I personally do not believe a fetus is a person, I think abortions should be available to women. However, lines will have to be drawn when it comes to legislation and action. How late is too late for an abortion? The line is pretty arbitrary, so I think we can leave that up to what people decide. Personally I would not want it to be too early but that is just me.
Utard
Active member
12972230:Zimmerman said:
12972501:Zimmerman said:
major problem I'm seeing here
Why would personhood be at all necessitated by having a human DNA sequence? Surely if we discovered an alien species with similar cognitive capacities to ourselves we would say that they were persons. How about if we develop the technology to download my memories and consciousness into a computer? Am I no longer a person because I don't have a human DNA sequence? What if I transfer my memories and consciousness into the body of somebody else? I now have their same DNA sequence and I have the right to life, so am I the same person as whoever's consciousness was in that body before? What does it even mean to have human DNA? Most life on this planet shares a significant portion of our own DNA. Hell, we share 60% of our DNA with bananas. And what about individuals with chromosome abnormalities? Individuals with jacobsen syndrome are missing part of one of their chromosomes. Does that mean they aren't people? Where are we drawing the line here?
Wallisch_pl
Active member
Surprisingly I was basically converted to pro-life by 4chan
I don't know if it was trolling or not but the point that was made was so true and I've just been ignorant before.
There are ways to prevent even getting pregnant, but the best is to keep your legs shut. There is no just reason to get an abortion. Teens? Put it up for adoption. Poor? Put it up for adoption. It's sort of hard to say, but, even if the woman is raped, that baby deserves a chance at life no matter what the father's action's were.
You want to destroy life, the most precious thing in this world, just because you couldn't keep your legs shut? I dare anyone to give me a valid reason for abortion
I don't know if it was trolling or not but the point that was made was so true and I've just been ignorant before.
There are ways to prevent even getting pregnant, but the best is to keep your legs shut. There is no just reason to get an abortion. Teens? Put it up for adoption. Poor? Put it up for adoption. It's sort of hard to say, but, even if the woman is raped, that baby deserves a chance at life no matter what the father's action's were.
You want to destroy life, the most precious thing in this world, just because you couldn't keep your legs shut? I dare anyone to give me a valid reason for abortion
louie.mirags
Active member
12983838:Wallisch_pl said:
Because sex feels good and it's our natural instinct to have it. People make mistakes. We know you're not perfect. I'm not perfect. This earth already has thousands of kids to be adopted. Not to mention adoption cost big bucks. So, stop the life before it starts. The baby isn't necessarily going to get the chance you're referring to. What if the baby gets adopted by an a shittyfamily that ccan't afford it's basic needs?
And you say teens that get pregnant should just keep their legs shut? First of all you sound like a pussy and a nun. Second, we dont even trust teens enough to vote and below 16 we don't trust them enough to drive. But, you expect them not to get pregnant? Sex is a natural instinct and lots of teens have the urge to fuck and they don't know why. Even dumb people can get pregnant. So, no they aren't going to keep their legs shut. If they make a mistake, which tons of teens and people in general do, then end the life right there. No need to add more babies into this world without proper families. Again, adoption is not an easy process and there are already thousands of kids without familes.
Wallisch_pl
Active member
12983885:louie.mirags said:
Yes you made a mistake, make another by destroying some innocent person's life. You don't have the power to fucking do that. It doesn't matter about adoption and whatnot, they will always be a way for these kids to live, foster care too, at least they have a chance at life and not 0% chance. Earth's population ...shut the fuck up that is the stupidest statement whether or not it's rising, it's 1 person, it's no noticeably on a big scale. You are fucking stupid, you even stated adoption costs a lot, which it does, and you say the kids might get adopted by a shit family that can't afford shit...still even this was a slight possibility most of my friends that grew up in the trailer park are already successful in HS.
Pussy and a nun lol. Yes, I'm saying since they ARE pregnant, they need to have that baby, to PREVENT it from happening it's your responsibility not mommy and daddy. At that age they need to realize mistakes, not just kill them off, but learn for the future to make it not happen again. Again, you sounds so fucking stupid right now and you are just winging it...kids that are "up for adoption" live in foster care...these foster cares might have lots of kids, but they have money to support them. Also, you saying there's no need to bring in babies to bad families is like saying we should just nuke 3rd world countries; it's not your fucking decision.
I'm guessing you're going to act tough and say my responses didn't make sense, but honestly think about it. I was just like you, I really was, but think more about the child and how everyone deserves a chance at life no matter what.
louie.mirags
Active member
12984096:Wallisch_pl said:
lol
Wallisch_pl
Active member
12984105:louie.mirags said:
Classic ignorant response, realized he was wrong and had nothing to come back to say. Talk to me when you get out of junior high
