Pro-life

[Steinar Valsson]

Why in the world should it be taken under review by a psychologist? You don't think people can make their own choices?

And why should it not be used as a contraceptive if people wanted to be that stupid? Why should it be last effort?

You're not really pro-choice if you're going to limit them like that.

The psychologist was just a suggestion of a profession to determine the reason or something like that.
And an abortion should not be used as a contraceptive for very simple reasons. It's like getting fat, having liposuction, getting fat, getting liposuction, getting... There are smarter ways to go about it. It's just stupid. The main reason might be that if people think of getting pregnant as some "oops" people might not view it as seriously. New life is at it's beginning and they think "oops, well let's go off to the doctor, again." I'm not saying people should be legally banned from doing this, but it's just stupid, irresponsible and desensitising to the concept of pregnancy. It should not be made a day-by-day thing to get pregnant and then abort. I'm for abortion when other methods fail and people don't want/can't have the baby.
I guess what I'm saying is that it should have some impact. Women are not supposed to feel bad aboud getting an abortion if they needed it but they should still know that a new life was in the making.
I'm not limiting the choice itself, simply saying that this choice should not become the new condomn. Something you can get at 7-11. There is more weight to it. But banning it would be like banning condoms, stupid and unthoughtful.

 

[JoeCool385]

They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

Yes, my mother, my sister, my grandmother, my aunts, and my wife are all anti-women. They don't like women and believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

Seriously, if George Carlin wasn't so busy making ridiculous straw men, he might have been funny.

I say people shouldn't interfere in what is not their buisness.

...said the man who lived next door to me, who was molesting his daughter and beating his wife.

Plus, it's better to offer the abortions in legitimate, clean, and sanitary environments rather than opening up a black market for abortions and letting people prey and profit off of all those women.

Kermit Gosnell [http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf] is thankful for your support of his legitimate, clean, and sanitary environment.

 

[Steinar Valsson]

I'm not limiting the choice itself, simply saying that this choice should not become the new condomn. Something you can get at 7-11. There is more weight to it. But banning it would be like banning condoms, stupid and unthoughtful.

I'll wait to say more on that after I see if you clarify.

So I shall clarify.
I don't mean to limit the choice, I would simply like the view of that choice to be bigger, more substantial then buying a condom. Going to the stoe and buying them is a choice with no real implication. But having an abortion is aborting what would become life. I'm simply saying that there should always be a difference in thought between those two. I'm happy with how it is today in regions that allow it completely. I simply don't want to see people making this choice without thought. There, finally got it out of my head into text. That is how it is today, mostly. People go in, having thought about "what if I kept it?" And for some reason decided that they didn't want to keep it (they being any women in this situation). This choice shouldn't be like buying a condom, a light choice. It's a question of what does this choice mean. Sex with a contraceptive eliminates the possibility of life, so it basically has the same affect as male masturbation in relations to pregnancy. But when pregnancy occurs, the life part has begun. Then there is the question, do we want it or not. Many women have said they wanted to keep it and ended happy about it even if they were not sure at first. But many have not. People should at least think about the possibility "Do I want to be a parent?" That's all I'm saying. If they decide not to, that's their choice. And I'm for them choosing - pro-choice.

 

[Steinar Valsson]

Yes - the woman probably should have final say with regard to whether or not she wants to have a child. But if she gets pregnant - whether by accident or not - that's a new human being... and depriving that human being of life would be wrong.

At what point do you consider it a human being? Where do you personally distinguish between a mass of cells and a person? I'm simply asking out of curiosity.

Kermit Gosnell [http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf] is thankful for your support of his legitimate, clean, and sanitary environment.

That's a bit harsh and quite the ridiculous claim. It's like if you wanted more medical research and I told you Josef Rudolf Mengele [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele] wanted to thank you.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

I'm pro choice, but anti abortion.

 

[ks1234]

I am pro-choice... Main reason? Because THERE ARE ALREADY TOO MANY FUCKING PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET, anything we can do to keep the FUCKING population down (even if it's just a little bit).
Also, I don't want anymore illegitimate bastard children and/or their parents on my fucking TAX dollar, I would much rather my taxes go to an abortion paid for by the government than fucking support someones fucking kid for 18 years because they cant fucking afford it.
Also, children are fucking leeches ALL of them... if some fucking woman doesn't want some fucking PARASITE leeching off of them for the next 18 and 3/4 years, then I say MORE FUCKING POWER TO THEM, give them a fucking medal, applaud them if necessary.
Lastly, for all of you fucksticks who are going to say "You were a child once too!" or "if you think the world is so overpopulated, why don't you kill yourself", you know what I have to say to you sir/madam? Eat a dick.

 

[Steinar Valsson]

Alright, I wasn't sure if how you wanted people to think about it was bleeding over into what you thought the exact laws about it ought to be. And now that's cleared up.

Yeah, I should have skipped the whole psychologist thing, just popped to my mind and I didn't think it through. I suppose he would be useful in dealing with the after emotions if there were any severe ones and somehow mixed it up with the law, don't know. Stupid of me. Didn't mean to waste time and keyboard strokes, for you or me.

 

[anthony87]

I'm pro choice, but anti abortion.

So....what's the choice?

 

[Technicka]

They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

Yes, my mother, my sister, my grandmother, my aunts, and my wife are all anti-women. They don't like women and believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

Well, if they feel that women shouldn't have a say in what goes on with their own bodies, then yes, they are anti-woman.

I say people shouldn't interfere in what is not their buisness.

...said the man who lived next door to me, who was molesting his daughter and beating his wife.

Because privacy is totally a black and white issue and should be treated as such.

Plus, it's better to offer the abortions in legitimate, clean, and sanitary environments rather than opening up a black market for abortions and letting people prey and profit off of all those women.

Kermit Gosnell [http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf] is thankful for your support of his legitimate, clean, and sanitary environment.

Do you avoid taking planes because they sometimes crash? I guess you don't own a pet because there's been documented cases of them attacking owners. I'm rather surprised you bothered getting married with the odds so stacked against you.

 

[T8B95]

I think this is a very appropriate image;



Pro-lifers really love the idea that life is holy from the 'immediate beginning', while nearly all 'pro-choicers' understand the idea that life develops in the womb. Pro-choicers nearly never support abortion in 9th month; they all want a sensible limit, giving the woman enough time to end their pregnancy but not waiting for development of an extensive nerve-system etcetera.

That image made you my favourite person on this site. Thank you for making my day.

The line for where a baby ceases to be a cluster of cells and starts being a human is very blurry. However, while it is just a clump of cells it is very hard to argue that it is a person. It's not even really alive.

I dislike it when anti-abortion activists use the term "murder" to refer to an abortion. It devalues actual murder in my eyes. They're saying that getting rid of a microscopic cluster of cells is precisely the same thing as stabbing someone in a back alley. That seems wrong to me.

Ever read "Consider the Lobster"? The title essay in that book is a humanization of lobsters. In particular, one line says this,

However stuporous a lobster is from the trip home, for instance, it tends to come alarmingly to life when placed... in a steaming kettle. The lobster will sometimes try to cling to the container's sides, or even to hook its claws over the kettle's rim like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roof. And worse is when the lobster's fully immersed. Even if you cover the kettle and turn away, you can usually hear the cover rattling and clanking as the lobster tries to push it off. Or the creature's claws scraping the sides of the kettle as it thrashes around. The lobster, in other words, behaves very much as you or I would behave if we were plunged into boiling water... the lobster acts as if its in terrible pain...

Here is an essay that is hailed for it's uncomforting, but accurate, portrayal of the death of a lobster. Championed by many animal rights activist, it can often be found among the most popular websites dedicated to overt animal welfare.

At the risk of going off-topic about the lobster thing: while it's interesting, it's blatantly untrue.

A lobster is killed almost instantaneously after being placed in a pot of boiling water. The "screams" that are often heard from a boiling lobster is actually the air escaping from the shell. The rattling of the pan described in that essay is a result of the boiling steam escaping the pot, rattling the lid.

So the comparison does not quite hold up the way you expected it to. It does however, provide an interesting analogy in a separate way: much like the lobster, the fetus feels no pain. It has no central nervous system. It is not conscious. It does not have any thoughts like you or I do. In most cases, it doesn't even have a brain or heart when it is aborted.

 

[JoeCool385]

They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

Yes, my mother, my sister, my grandmother, my aunts, and my wife are all anti-women. They don't like women and believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

Just because they're women doesn't mean they haven't been indoctrinated into a mindset that works against them.

Men have run the world for thousands of years; are you really so naive as to expect that the socializing involved hasn't screwed up some women's priorities?

George Carlin's quote was about the intent and beliefs of pro-life people, not the end effects of their actions. Whether women who are pro-life are working against their own sex may be true, but to claim that they are pro-life because "they don't like women", and not for their own stated reasons requires a knowledge of their interior thoughts beyond the divinations of mortal men.

I find it unhelpful in a debate to claim to have knowledge of the "real", unstated reason why my opponent holds a belief. Too often, these claims devolve into unproveable, ad hominem assertions. In logic, a gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously denied.

If Carlin had simply stated that pro-lifers were working against the good of women, then we could have a debate on that. Once he's claimed to know a Secret, Inner Motive, then he's shut down any possibility of real conversation. No matter what a pro-life woman says, the only response she needs to be given is "you just say that because you hate women!"

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

EVERYONE BREAK IT UP!!!...

OT i dont see the point in this thread...what are you asking?

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

I'm pro choice, but anti abortion.

So....what's the choice?

Well I feel the woman should be allowed to choose if she wants to have an abortion or not, but, I think that all other options should be considered and discussed. I also am in favor of allowing the man to take the baby if he want's it and the woman does not. A father should have a right to his child if the mother wants to sign her rights away she should be able too. I think abortion should be something considered only after other options have been weighed. A decision not made lightly. Hell I have a couple of gay friends who are very well off that would gladly adopt a child that the mother didn't want.

 

[ZeroMachine]

If it makes any sense, I'm pro-choice, but against abortion.

I feel that it's wasted potential. But I would never fight to stop someone from having one. I would just warn them that any regrets they have will be terrible and irrevocable.

EDIT: Well, shit, I'm not the first person to say that here.

 

[targren]

Considering it's her body I see no reason why it should be anything other than her exclusive decision.

I can answer to this one, since this is my big problem with the whole argument: If the decision is unilateral, so should be the responsibility. This is a bigger deal, of course, when the woman in question decides to keep the fetus, thus, under the current system, damning the "father" (who, all too often, it seems, actually ISN'T) to what amounts to indentured servitude for a good percentage of the remainder of his life.

That's right, it's a power imbalance, which is apparently only a bad thing that needs to be fought against when it's the female on the disadvantaged side.

 

[spartan231490]

Can't disagree with anything you say. I've been pro-choice for as long as I've been alive. Don't see how I or any one else has any right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion. And besides, there are common plants that will cause a first semester trimester, if you outlaw it, it will just go underground. You can't stop it, and you have no right to, so stop trying.

 

[caselj01]

It is true that the branding of the anti-right to abort stance as "pro-life" is deliberately meant to make it sound more reasonable. However I would say the branding of the pro-right to abort stance as "pro-choice" is basically the same thing, after all, people wouldn't support something called "pro-the right to murder unborn babies" would they?

 

[Darkmantle]

They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

Yes, my mother, my sister, my grandmother, my aunts, and my wife are all anti-women. They don't like women and believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

It's just like how you are not racist if you have that one black friend amirite?

 

[Caverat]

Again, I am pro-choice, but I get annoyed when other folks who are pro-choice over-defend/over-justify it. Women have the right to control their own bodies, boom, that is all you need. There is nothing else to be said.

I say this because that entire statement of when someone officially becomes human is arbitrary, and meaningless. At no point is a human organism not a human organism, every stage of a human life is a stage of human life. That includes the preborn bits. I get it, people don't like admitting abortion is killing a human because we are taught killing a human is wrong. But that whole idea that there is a specific point when a human becomes a human is silly, and since it has no basis in anything other than opinion it should be up for debate on where that official "is a human point" is, including the criteria for full human status. Humanity becomes a status rather than a fact of simply being a member of the species

Hence my problem with that line of reasoning: if being human is a status that has criteria to be met, that means the idea that a human organism doesn't meet them is acceptable. If people say someone isn't human because of 'X', they aren't human. That shouldn't, in my opinion, be something that is up for debate. Admittedly, no one here is suggesting that people of diminished mental capacity be subject to abortion, but as the point at which a human is a human is an opinion, someone could say so with as much merit as a person who arbitrarily says second trimester.

That being said, everyone has the right to control their own body, and while it sucks for the human being aborted, they are occupying space in another person, absorbing that human's bodily resources. Landlord says no, out ya go.

Once more: I am also pro-choice, but for the sake of the fucking we all love please stop droning on about someone not being human because women should have the right to get abortions. They deserve that right, it's their body. There is no need for further validation, stop making shit up.

 

[Dr_Baron_von_Evilsatan]

Simply put, I find the fact that so many people find no value in an unborn child to be disgusting.

That's a strawman argument, nobody is saying an unborn child has no value, but the only value lies in it's potential to become a fully-grown human being, and if this is so important that you feel that it gives you the right to tell other people what to do then you have to accept the same logic being applied to yourself.
So every time you refuse an offer of sex, or masturbate rather than finding someone to impregnate, you are committing the same destruction of potential that abortion does.
Would you feel it reasonable if every time someone offered you sex and you refused the police arrested you? Or to take it to the most extreme conclusion, a woman who escapes her rapist and contacts the police is dragged back for him to finish impregnating her?
Claiming that abortion should be illegal because it wastes the potential of a life is an inherently flawed argument, and leads back to the woman being nothing more than a baby factory, with no control over her reproductive system.

I'm sorry, you seem to be refuting an argument I wasn't attempting to make. I'm going to chalk this up to my fault. I feel bad since you seemed to really enjoy proving me wrong. That first line was just how I felt about this whole argument in general. Yes there's no discussion there, my fault. I was having a bad day and the people on this forum can be...depressing. I guess my discussion is that morally, abortions are often used wrongly (opinion), but there's no way to police proper implementation or enforce acceptable abortion without severe abuse from the population. Therefore, despite how I personally feel on the matter, I can't ask that it become illegal.