Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#751 Posted by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-Choice, but I definitely would prefer no one get an abortion. We need better birth control, but conservatives think casual sex is icky and sinful so they do all they can to hinder advancement :/

More and more conservatives aren't even Christian, and even still - the vast majority aren't when we aren't talking about American conservatives (the majority of european conservatives aren't religious already)... Much less the idea that casual sex is icky. I feel that is a strawman a bit. This is from a pro-choice conservative (but not in mid second trimester, and definitely not third trimester abortions though).

Avatar image for sc
#752 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio

@zr0c00l:Welcome back! I figured as much. Mind you I only recently came back to CV myself too!

Ah okay, your wording seems strange regarding talking about a real example, vs a fantasy example. I assumed it was real sentiment originally, so I am not sure why you would need to emphasis with language modifiers (actually and not), to me specifically. Do you see how that can be confusing? Thank you for clarifying.

Also if you don't mind, I'd like to try something different than addressing each of your points. In your earlier post, a large portion of your text seemed to hinge on an assumption you were making, about the "standards of responsibility we" hold men and woman to, and some other assumptions you held, around that. It was fairly simple to address those points, because of the role of contraception methods available and how they differ between men and woman generally, and then affirming, actually, woman should still also be responsible and careful and how/why there are different specific concerns and risks for all manner of combinations of sexual/romantic partners. Talking about one doesn't mean, not acknowledging all of them. Are you and I saying that infertile men and woman shouldn't be responsible or caring when it comes to sex? See I am just assuming, you implicitly think that already. Maybe I am wrong to assume that though?

So I am going to try and address points where clarifications would help, and where their seem to be incorrect assumptions. Then later on, if I missed anything you thought was relevant, I can address that later. Cool?

My question regarding males forced to have sex was not rhetorical. If you want to answer with rape, thats fine, my answer would be that such a situation takes on its own unique legal and ethical consequences different than consensual sex. We can talk about those if you'd like and no, I am not saying that male rape victims don't exist. Also, I ask because, you don't actually seem to focus on mens ability to choose in many of these scenarios. You acknowledge it, but undermine the choice, by claiming its the only 'legitimate' choice, or you start to place emphasis on "society's standards for woman" the abstract, or start questioning why we don't ask woman to be 'responsible' we do, and you seem to overlook the nature of contraceptives available to both parties.

I 'fixate' on such scenarios, to demonstrate, its not a "gender war" issue, its medically, and legally, factually to do with the specific individual who is burdened the most by such an outcome. Traditionally that happens to be woman sure, but thats not why greater rights fall in their favor. If two people go to an Accident and Medical Emergency Clinic, and one has a gash on their arm, thats considered a low priority, and another has deep lacerations on their arms, neck, and abdomen, and considered a high priority, I assume, you would agree, the latter individual should be seen first right? Do their genders matter? Or is their different treatment based on the severity of injury, and potential loss of life determined by urgency?

I don't find talking about different gender combinations for parents, surrogate pregnancy, even if potentially rare, silly, if it helps demonstrate, this isn't mens vs womens rights. Rather, specifically, its about the rights of the individual, who carries the child within their body vs the rights of others. Medically, legally, its those such specifics that are more important. If someone wants to argue vague generalizations about how society treats men and woman when it comes to safe and responsible sex behaviors, sure! Thats an interesting conversation to have, but not as relevant to why "woman" who get pregnant have greater rights than those who aren't pregnant.

In the situation of assessing a fathers mental and emotional burden, when it comes to pregnancy, we can actually apply everything a father has to deal with, and then apply it to the mother, but with extra immediate burdens, including health. The only we can't apply, is the relative lack of choice they may suffer in comparison to the pregnant individual.

Remember my scenario about the two individuals in the emergency room? Well what if the guy, with the minor injury, has it on his face instead? It turns into a bigger scar because he wasn't seen first. What if his new scar causes him to feel shunned by society, and so he starts living in isolation, where he finds a magic diamond that grants him unimaginable powers, and kills and rapes (sexual rape) and then kills 30 billion people!! Yeah see... those stupid biased medical professionals should have seen him first right? I mean obviously I would feel sympathy for anyone in jail, but is this a serious argument? Do you literally need me, to go, step by step, explaining the difference in burdens for a pregnant person and a non pregnant person?

Also, are you sure you aren't just personally putting more emphasis on "mens" struggles/burden around pregnancy versus pregnant womans struggles/burden? Also, is it because you think the law/health professionals think "men" have zero struggles or burdens?

Haha, yeah, I assumed your quote was factual, from the beginning. When a person starts to emphasize on how true or factual something is, using language traditionally meant to convey information that is true, against preconceived notions or assumptions, like 'actually' it can get a tad confusing. No apology necessary though, I appreciate the clarification.

I see differences between the two examples, yes, like most things though, there are differences and there are similarities. The similarities are what I think are contextually important. Also in my scenario, importantly, its not about the woman in hindsight, thinking she shouldn't have dated the man... its about choices in the present, and what choices she can make. If she is unhappy with the situation, she can leave. I mean... if she thinks she can change his mind, then thats an option too, just legally, she has no ability to enforce that he stays. If a guy thinks he can persuade a woman, to agreeing with him, about either keeping or aborting a child, his child, if he has sex with her, then he can take that risk too if he wants... as long as he realizes she may not be persuaded and may have greater legal/medical rights than him. Also the woman's choice can be made before a relationship is started. Also sex doesn't have to be a variable in the scenario at all either.

You acknowledge that the man in the pregnancy scenario, gets a choice, but its nor a shared choice with the woman in scenario 1. Its just a choice. A very important choice that limits his future choices and options. Some choices are unfortunately like that. In the woman's scenario, she could potentially choose to be unhappy for 20 years, and full of regret. Lots of little/big choices involved in that one, presumably, but in hindsight, she could have saved herself a whole lot of trouble based on her first choice. A man in the pregnancy situation, doesn't get so many choices or opportunities and yeah, thats really unfortunate for some men who aren't educated, or informed, but thats just how the current system is set up. As far as the future? The rights and choices of the non pregnant individual are probably going to get less and less, but... the sex education of individuals, and their ability to make better, safer and more informed decisions will rise as well.

Also the scenario? No, its not a heavy burden on woman thats the whole point, if a guy wants to travel overseas to serve his country, she shouldn't force him to stay, it would be unhealthy for both of them. She'd either have to compromise, or move on to another potential partner.

Ahh okay, we are making progress. I agree its inhumane, and so your greater issue is specifically men who don't want a child being legally and financially responsible for a child they do not want? You also don't want the Government to step in and support the mother in lieu of the father? Also no, I think this is important and potentially the crux of all this discussion, I am okay with addressing this primarily if you are?

So correct me if I am wrong, you believe this would have a deterring effect on people abusing well fare and child support systems? Right? Okay, assuming I am right... how would this be different from say education systems that enforce abstinence only programs? Also, lets say the number of welfare and child support 'abusers' do drop... but we still have individuals with children, without additional support from the fathers side, and Government... are they and their children barred from emergency medical services? If a child turns up to school and faints, and needs medical care, who will pay for that? If children start turning up on doorsteps abandoned... who will look after them?

No analogy is intended to be perfect, but you also got some of the details of the analogy incorrect anyway, and if you'd like, feel free to come up with any analogy, where choice is the relevant aspect. I mean, to be clear, I know you acknowledge the mans choice, but you seem hung up on how unfair it is for men, after that choice... to use your own language and phrasing, shouldn't that mean that men should take that choice really seriously?

Peoples understandings, interpretations and competence around what is "fair, just and blind" will differ though. This is why some people have more authority than others, to interpret and enforce as such. Is the system perfect? I think far from it, I am personally critical, of a few processes, I get the sense you are too. Do you consider yourself enough of an expert to motivate change to such processes to reflect your views? Luckily for me, I don't really have to be, patterns in law and society are generally and slowly moving to where I think they should be.

Well if you don't believe I agree, even when I say I agree, then whats the point of conversation? Well fine then, I don't actually believe you are a human. You are actually a robotic lizard person who feeds on human babies, and thats the only reason why you are against abortion. You need those sweet sweet newborn babies to eat. Right? Then you start talking in broad generalizations again, which, honestly, to me, just sounds like making excuses for men over their inability to make better decisions. Rhetoric about woman having more options and control and so those harlots can enjoy promiscuity more! Sluts! Aw shucks, teehee, etc etc right. Your right. Lil Johnny was responsible boy all his life and made all the best decisions, except for one night, when that slut Sue tricked him, and Johnny made one small choice, and now Johnny is put in prison where he is physically abused every day (sexually abused as well... ) and where is Sue? Slutting it up for more boys around the neighborhood, even though she has 12 kids, to 10 different fathers. This is what society does!! Woman eh?

So do you think men should legally be able to inject pregnant woman with chemicals that will kill his sperm, up until fertilization? Do you know much about male contraceptive skin gel? Or is that 'unfair' because you still have to apply that presex? Is your argument, ultimately, really just reduced to envy about lack of post sex contraceptives?

Except I haven't been saying that men should keep it in their pants... that rhetoric has been coming from you. I don't reduce men to what they keep in their pants, unless they are wearing their pants as hats, because its all about agency, autonomy and choices (and education, consent and information to guide those other variables) I know they are phrases, that you didn't invent, but I choose not to use them, because I don't have a low opinion or men, nor do I want to victimize them.

I have no problem telling myself to abstain from sex with woman I think are of a dubious ethical and untrustworthy nature. If somehow that means I must abstain from sex?!?! Since all the woman around me are shady people? Then I guess no sex... or I can move somewhere normal... then do I feel bad about suggesting other men and woman follow similar practices? No, I don't. Also I am not saying that men "deserve" the consequences, why do you do this so much? I mean this isn't a question you are asking me, that I am confusing for rhetoric, you are just straight up assigning views to me, that I do not hold. Why? Consequences and consequences deserved are two separate components/issues. Similarly with woman and no negative consequences? Thats not what I am personally saying.

With how we are discussing, I do have to make such weird flexes, otherwise i run the risk of you doing above with assigning views to myself that I don't actually hold. That being said, no worries, I appreciate the offer of apology, but its unnecessary. The main issue that occurs when we our assumptions about each other are wrong, is that we have to use more energy and time to clarify our stances. i have been guilty of this with you as well, here and there, but I try and limit that. I get the impression you have had similar arguments and discussions with some people who are "pro choice" and or side more with the rights of woman in this situation, but I am not those people. Just like I know your own arguments may have more nuance and reason that many "pro life" peoples.

I think woman should be held responsible for their actions, just from a factual, biological, perspective, pregnant woman, specifically, they naturally have more options and choices that men who impregnate woman, don't. Are you saying that we should remove/ban all post sex contraceptives from existing so that woman must have the same standard of responsibility that men have, as far as consequences? Or are you just annoyed that science hasn't invented a kill switch for sperm that a man can activate within 72 hours?

I can clarify, that bit I said about feeling horny and feeling entitled to sex, isn't just for guys, its for woman too. Its for people in general. Its why I followed up the example with two parents, who could be man and woman, looking for a surrogate. They have to be responsible and aware of unfavorable consequences as well. The risks per scenarios will change based on variables, but yeah.

I don't think its a higher standard, its more of a obvious factual reality. Athletic cups, are primarily created for, and used by men. Some woman wear them, but its predominantly for men, as far as an industry and usage. Is this unfair? Getting in in the groin for a female still hurts.. why does society shun the risks our woman must suffer? I mean, she gets the choice to wear one... but our attitude about such... favors the men, why do we let this continue? Shouldn't this be made fair? Or... is it because mens external genitalia are much, much, more vulnerable than womans, and serious injury there, carries more inherent medical complications, so it just makes sense that athletic cups are primarily designed for and marketed towards men. It more sound like you are having trouble separating the abstract from the practical. Abstract being societal pressures and attitudes and practical being the fact one individual is literally carrying the child, eggs and sperm within it. There is overlap and lots of different issues to address, but we shouldn't ignore practical decisions under the idea/guise of addressing broader societal abstracts.

The other people who aren't the surrogate don't have to be men. Do you think the egg donor gets more rights than the sperm donor when it comes to surrogate parenthood?

Steel man in reference to my own argument, not yours. In the context of acknowledging my satire, in the sense, that I acknowledge you aren't calling woman femoids, so don't take the satire as a legitimate argument - look at my actual serious arguments elsewhere. So just a misunderstanding here. My apologies if it seemed like I was actually implying that you think woman are femoids (or anything like that). My point is, I do think there are legal injustices being perpetrated against men, in practice. I don't think mens issues when it comes to pregnancy, is necessarily legal, rather a problem with education, because I do think there are a lot of men, who aren't make informed and educated decisions when they have sex. Woman too, just unlike men, they do get more choices and options after sex, and men don't (we actually agree there I think) but I view that existing for practical reasons. Not broader abstract societal standards/pressures. You also seem to lean more towards the financial repercussions for men that do not want a child... as opposed to men who want to force a woman to be pregnant, so while i agree that does then loop around to be a legal matter and one that can be improved, and talked about, my only realistic alternative would be for the Government to step in (or better yet, improve sex education to be proactive to the problem, and not reactive) but we can talk about that separately.

Moderator
Avatar image for rabumalal
#753 Posted by RabumAlal (5145 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-life people = idiots.

Avatar image for sc
#754 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio

sex is icky

Sex is icky though... first you have to hire an exorcist, then you gotta buy a dozen eggs, and glow in the dark red and green paint. Like liters of the stuff, then you gotta get greased up and put on the ritual paints. Braid all the hair, put on all the jewelry and then kill the goat and hang it upside down... and what if no one shows up? You made enough snacks and refreshments for 20 people, but sometimes people don't RSVP, and then you'll be embarrassed in front of your parents...

Moderator
Avatar image for sc
#755 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-life people = idiots.

Eh, lets try not and overgeneralize people too negatively please. Not good for healthy conversation.

Moderator
Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#756 Posted by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio
@sc said:
@rabumalal said:

Pro-life people = idiots.

Eh, lets try not and overgeneralize people too negatively please. Not good for healthy conversation.

Not to mention about people who live in glass houses, on these sweeping accusations.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#757 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

Also, does limited abortion mean pro-choice or pro-life? I want restrictions to the choice to make any late term abortions that can be a live child if taken out immediately (which is anything really after the second trimester, final vital organs are formed and working, the third just really gains mass and strength, and increases survival chances), and maybe a few restrictions on the hows for parts of the second, especially as it gets close to that.

But largely swallow the bullet as the first trim abortions, etc - as a necessary evil.

Which camp this puts me in, I guess depends on who you ask.

Avatar image for iron_tiger
#758 Posted by Iron_Tiger (438 posts) - - Show Bio

I actually voted for "no abortion," but that was based on the law trying to be passed that had reasonable details as to why it should be allowed under certain situations: if the mother's health is terribly at risk, if the woman was raped, and/or if the pregnancy was due to incest. Otherwise, it should be illegal.

Avatar image for tourneymaster
#759 Posted by TourneyMaster (1731 posts) - - Show Bio

Didnt New York, and 7 other states from what I read, just pass a law that you can give birth to a healthy baby, no issues, already born, and decide screw this kill it?

If true, wow, Pro Life idiots looking better than Pro Choice murders. I mean... damn.

Avatar image for bump1010
#760 Posted by bump1010 (1043 posts) - - Show Bio

Didnt New York, and 7 other states from what I read, just pass a law that you can give birth to a healthy baby, no issues, already born, and decide screw this kill it?

If true, wow, Pro Life idiots looking better than Pro Choice murders. I mean... damn.

Do you have a source? That sounds incorrect.

Avatar image for tourneymaster
#761 Edited by TourneyMaster (1731 posts) - - Show Bio

@bump1010:

https://www.lifenews.com/2019/02/04/8-states-now-allow-killing-babies-up-to-birth-after-new-york-legalized-all-abortions/

https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/ob-gyn-rejects-ny-abortion-law-absolutely-no-reason-to-kill-a-baby-in-third-trimester

https://www.politifact.com/vermont/statements/2019/feb/15/christopher-coyne/would-proposed-vermont-law-allow-abortions-right-m/

Seems like killing after its born is not possible, but legal now to kill the baby even days before due date is legal for any reason rather than extreme exceptions like before.

From what I heard on various radio shows on the subject, the worst part is the baby is euthanize if it accidentally survives the abortion. So if the abortion fails, or goes wrong, baby is delivered alive still, the doctors have to kill it. I dont have links to that since it was on my Tampa Bay talk stations.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#762 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

@tourneymaster:

Third trimester abortions in general make me sick, and even second trimester ones in many cases, especially the methods some of them use. This is from a person who is pro-choice and finds abortions at all (like in first semester fetal stage, etc) - to be a necessary evil (that should be avoided if possible).

Just to give people an understanding on why third trimester is especially wrong: the baby develops all critical life organs in the second trimester, like heart, lungs, etc. A baby by the time the start of the third happens has everything it needs to to live outside the mother in a hospital to grow, it has a chance. Granted, the earlier it is in the third trimester, the lower the chances. What happens in the womb during that period is it really just grows in size and strength, it doesn't get anything that is vital to live, it already has that.

If you really don't want a baby at that point, dear god people, just do a cesarean and try and keep the baby alive, and grow him up to be a fully healthy, functioning adult. And for also dear god: at this point, if the mother went with this decision, she should have voided any parental rights at all to this child. There is no reason to have an abortion at this point, NONE.

The very idea of it to me is completely inexcusable. How 8 states already have it, is sickening.

Avatar image for tourneymaster
#763 Edited by TourneyMaster (1731 posts) - - Show Bio

@theonewhopullsthestrings said:

@tourneymaster:

Third trimester abortions in general make me sick, and even second trimester ones in many cases, especially the methods some of them use. This is from a person who is pro-choice and finds abortions at all (like in first semester fetal stage, etc) - to be a necessary evil (that should be avoided if possible).

Just to give people an understanding on why third trimester is especially wrong: the baby develops all critical life organs in the second trimester, like heart, lungs, etc. A baby by the time the start of the third happens has everything it needs to to live outside the mother in a hospital to grow, it has a chance. Granted, the earlier it is in the third trimester, the lower the chances. What happens in the womb during that period is it really just grows in size and strength, it doesn't get anything that is vital to live, it already has that.

If you really don't want a baby at that point, dear god people, just do a cesarean and try and keep the baby alive, and grow him up to be a fully healthy, functioning adult. And for also dear god: at this point, if the mother went with this decision, she should have voided any parental rights at all to this child. There is no reason to have an abortion at this point, NONE.

The very idea of it to me is completely inexcusable. How 8 states already have it, is sickening.

I think too many people bitch about this silly wall and silly Black Face democrats, and real issues like this where real human life is at stake are swept under the table. Blows my mind how petty both parties concerns are.

Avatar image for echostarlord117
#764 Posted by echostarlord117 (5616 posts) - - Show Bio

It's an awful practice that should be reserved for last resort type scenarios. Wanton abortion spells doom for society at large imo.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#765 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6249 posts) - - Show Bio

@echostarlord117:

I thought you were talking about magical abortion spells for a second there

Avatar image for streak619
#766 Posted by Streak619 (7735 posts) - - Show Bio

It's objectively murder.

Objectively.

Avatar image for yassassin
#767 Posted by Yassassin (7701 posts) - - Show Bio

Evil, pure evil.

Avatar image for zachary_stomps
#768 Posted by Zachary_Stomps (23 posts) - - Show Bio

Just say yes to the prevention by producing more than 20 billion condoms each year.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#769 Posted by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

Just say yes to the prevention by producing more than 20 billion condoms each year.

Lack of availability of condoms is hardly an issue in most of the western nations, or at least the US where I live. It would have a negligible effect.

Avatar image for hittheassasin
#770 Posted by HitTheAssasin (8218 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm leaning pro-life as of now as opposed to pro-choice, from what I've seen, it's practically murder.

Avatar image for worldofruin6
#771 Posted by WorldofRuin6 (3490 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm against abortion after a certain period. Killing nearly formed babies is just wrong. It's pretty much legal murder.

Online
Avatar image for buckwheat
#772 Posted by Buckwheat (2298 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:
@buttersdaman000 said:

sex is icky

Sex is icky though... first you have to hire an exorcist, then you gotta buy a dozen eggs, and glow in the dark red and green paint. Like liters of the stuff, then you gotta get greased up and put on the ritual paints. Braid all the hair, put on all the jewelry and then kill the goat and hang it upside down... and what if no one shows up? You made enough snacks and refreshments for 20 people, but sometimes people don't RSVP, and then you'll be embarrassed in front of your parents...

Hahaha... Don't you hate it when that happens?

Avatar image for sc
#773 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio
Moderator
Avatar image for sc
#774 Posted by SC (18159 posts) - - Show Bio

Didnt New York, and 7 other states from what I read, just pass a law that you can give birth to a healthy baby, no issues, already born, and decide screw this kill it?

If true, wow, Pro Life idiots looking better than Pro Choice murders. I mean... damn.

Not really... what I mean, is that it would be inaccurate to say that thats what they passed.

Such bills/laws (I am not familiar with the nuances of each bill) but I am with a few of them. Generally though, they delve into certain specific circumstances and situations. A woman can't just randomly decide to have an abortion just cause' just a day before she is due. Its far more complicated than that, also ignoring the issue of actual people actually behaving like that. Certain articles and reactions to such bills, may not necessarily reflect this though, but I am usually skeptical of such articles as they rarely address actual specifics, and often exist to either affirm political preferences or cast suspicion/doubt towards political enemies.

One of the sources/links you posted in another post, did cover some specifics though, and drew some decent conclusions. "Bishop Coyne’s statement is true in a strict legal sense, but only if the law existed in a practice and policy vacuum. Without context, it is seriously misleading in regards to what would be permissible practice in Vermont. The proposed law would not change the legal reality in Vermont in any way. And all evidence indicates that the type of abortions that the bishop fears -- elective procedures in the final stages of pregnancy -- do not occur in Vermont, and would not occur if H.57 passes."

I underlined the bit about context, because its really important to establish it in any discussion.

Moderator
Avatar image for mrmonster
#775 Posted by mrmonster (15533 posts) - - Show Bio

I think it's a necessary evil.

Look, I get why people are pro-life. Abortion is not a pretty thing. If you were to take a time machine and ask my younger self how I felt about abortion, I'd have probably told you that I was pro-life.

But I don't say that anymore. Why? Because fact is, we need to have a safe and legal way for people to get out of unwanted pregnancies. The alternative is millions of children growing up unwanted and neglected, an outcome far worse than legalized abortion.

Avatar image for leem724
#776 Posted by LeeM724 (634 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro Choice

I really hate babies...

Avatar image for hereforoneshot
#777 Posted by HereForOneShot (174 posts) - - Show Bio

I have no respect for anyone who decide their view on abortion based on their political alignment.

It should be the other way round.

As for the topic at hand, my stand is very simple. The act of abortion is not something to be encouraged but it should be legal. Arguably it should not be socially acceptable except in certain extreme circumstances.

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
#778 Posted by Lord_Tenebrous (2242 posts) - - Show Bio

It's despicable murder; to think of the hundreds of thousands of people who will never live their own lives, because they were ruthlessly sacrificed on the alter of convenience, torn apart limb from limb or chopped into mush from within the safety of their mother's womb. It is nothing short of an atrocity.

Avatar image for ourmanuel
#779 Posted by ourmanuel (11876 posts) - - Show Bio

It’s naive to be anti abortion imo.

With that said, I think abortion after 3 months is despicable but the benefits still outweigh that evil.

Avatar image for jexsu
#780 Posted by Jexsu (1290 posts) - - Show Bio

In my opinion, the only time an abortion should happen is when the woman's health is at risk, the woman was raped, or it was incestuous coitus. Otherwise, birth the child and put the baby up for adoption. Both should be old enough to know to wear proper protection; if it can't be bought, there are places they could get it free.

Avatar image for arranvid
#781 Posted by ArranVid (2112 posts) - - Show Bio

I used to be Pro-Choice years ago when I was a teen but recently I have become Pro-Life

Avatar image for eichholtz
#782 Posted by EICHHOLTZ (573 posts) - - Show Bio

I think it should be legal but I am against it. every pro choice argument I have ever heard at it's core basically boils down to "murder should always be illegal except when it's convenient to my personal life" which is fine if you are Ok with knowing you exterminated a potential human life. I wouldn't do it, but I don't think it should be illegal.

just buy some condoms when you stop at the liquor store. problem solved.

Avatar image for marvelanddcfan24
#783 Edited by MarvelandDCfan24 (7521 posts) - - Show Bio

For someone who has been there for a few deliveries and works in the medical field abortions should be legal until be legal until a range of 16-20 weeks unless the life of the mother is threatened

Avatar image for arranvidreturns
#784 Edited by ArranVidReturns (1354 posts) - - Show Bio

If I was a mother I just would not be able to bring myself to kill the being inside of me...then I carry this viewpoint onto the worldwide scale. It's a bit of a tricky debate of course.

Avatar image for iron_tiger
#785 Posted by Iron_Tiger (438 posts) - - Show Bio

Speaking of Abortion...

Live: Alabama Senate to vote on strict abortion bill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg7ApMOoHKE

Avatar image for doofasa
#786 Edited by Doofasa (2167 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-choice but under certain contexts.

Also from a pragmatic standpoint Earths getting overpopulated as it is. Soon enough there will be more government backed forced abortions due to child control policies.

Avatar image for iron_tiger
#787 Edited by Iron_Tiger (438 posts) - - Show Bio

"All men at the age of 21, should have a vasectomy." Per Senator Figures. Wow, what trash. Blame men for women becoming pregnant, apparently.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#788 Posted by jagernutt (16634 posts) - - Show Bio

Abortion is killing. I personally think it should be okay in rape cases though.

Avatar image for laflux
#789 Posted by laflux (24730 posts) - - Show Bio

Okay with the 3rd Trimester abortions literally nobody ever has them accept for extreme complications. A third trimester abortion is understandably more traumatic for the women carrying the child as well as the staff involved. It is completely counter-intuitive for a woman who wants to have an abortion to wait so long to have a more difficult abortion which carries more social stigma rather than have one earlier. Stop with the scare mongering.

Okay back to the Question. Unquestionably Pro-Choice.

If its a case of Christian Morality (which is a big factor in American Arguments), there are only a few scriptures in the bible which can be seen to be supporting the pro-life argument

Jeremiah 1:55"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Psalm 139:13-1613For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. 16Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

They are a few others about Children being gifts from God, to have children and multiply but these are the ones which I see used the most.

However throughout the Old Testament God allows or flat out encourages the genocide of various cities and peoples, which would of course include Children and Pregnant mothers. God actually took his anointing off Saul King of Israel because he didn't wipe out Amlek completely.

For people who don't base their pro-life stance on the Bible in America, as well as the factually inaccuracies of comparing embryo's and even early stage foetuses in terms of development and viability, there is one massive elephant in the room. Incriminating Abortion doesn't actually stop abortions. It just makes them more unsafe and creates more criminals (I guess since the American prison complex is heavily monetized this might be a good thing for them). What does reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies is adequate sex education and adequate protection. Furthermore many of those who strongly advocate for Pro-Life have no interest in creating a society for Children who may have been aborted from disadvantaged homes. So the whole Pro-Choice argument invariably ends up as being one riddled with hypocrisy.

So yea I've been pro-choice for as long as I can remember. At first it was more eeeh I don't really like the idea of abortions but they make sense so its fine. Now I see the Pro-Life argument is congruent with the oppression of Women, especially those from poor and more disadvantaged backgrounds. Its not Pro Life its pro control.

Anyway Conservatives from other Western Nations are literally laughing at some of the abortion laws that are being passed in the U.S. I can't think of stronger sign that this is some backwards ass shit.....

Avatar image for laflux
#790 Posted by laflux (24730 posts) - - Show Bio

Years ago on Comicvine, there was this user who was painfully pro-life. He used to post pictures as dissected foetuses as a way to induce "sympathy" for his cause. We viciously counter-trolled him by posting photo shops of people eating babies (Most notably George W Bush). He was ridiculed and laughed at. Eventually he was banned (for some shit I can't remember but was unrelated to that. I want that Comicvine back. Where is that Comicvine?

Avatar image for jonjizz
#791 Posted by jonjizz (1015 posts) - - Show Bio

nothing against it, it's their choice and none of our business really

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
#792 Posted by Lord_Tenebrous (2242 posts) - - Show Bio

It all comes down to whether you believe it's a human life or not. At least hopefully. If you think it's a human life and still support abortion, then you've got severe issues.

Avatar image for sawed_off_it
#793 Posted by Sawed_Off_It (13362 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-Life for the most part. Under certain circumstances I understand .

Online
Avatar image for lan_fan
#794 Posted by Lan_Fan (14706 posts) - - Show Bio

This topic gives me bad memory, smh.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#795 Posted by jagernutt (16634 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-Life for the most part. Under certain circumstances I understand .

This

Avatar image for bumpyboo
#796 Posted by BumpyBoo (14772 posts) - - Show Bio

i don't know how I feel about it anymore.

Avatar image for lunacyde
#797 Posted by Lunacyde (28251 posts) - - Show Bio

Legal but regulated.

Moderator
Avatar image for kingofwakanda
#798 Posted by KingOfWakanda (2570 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for wilkiins17
#799 Posted by Wilkiins17 (208 posts) - - Show Bio

Abortion is isn't good.

Avatar image for mister_stark
#800 Posted by Mister_Stark (500 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm Pro choice, this doesn't mean I myself would want to abort a child it means that I believe people should have the choice.