Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

My friend and I just had a huge argument over whether abortion should be legal or not. He's a liberal, so he argued that since a fetus wasn't "conscious", it was okay to abort it, and that it was the woman's choice. I told him that abortion was basically murder when the fetus develops a brain and has a heartbeat, and the argument disintegrated into us shouting whether or not the fetus could be considered alive in that case.

What are your thoughts on abortion, and when it should, if at all be legal?

I think that it's ok until the third trimester.

Then you're practically killing an infant.

You're killing an infant that can only react to stimuli in the most basic ways, can't survive without leeching off of a more developed organism and can barely move. It's alive in the same way that a mollusk is alive. 

Ever had mollusk?...

Yeah, I support it. We're heavily overpopulated, and bringing unwanted life into the world that's basically an inconvenience isn't a good idea.

Well Steve we agree on another thing. Abortion should be legal.

I... I've failed to pin your beliefs on every single occasion.

There was one other time we agreed on something, but I can't remember.

Gay and Trans rights, I believe.

Wasn't that thread deleted?

Probably. Our Animal Fucking and Hitler debates were, so probably.

Alright, alright, off topic. Sorry.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it being legal in any case, including the third trimester. I just wouldn't want that in the future to be extended to it's logical extreme (infanticide), so I just defer to U.S. law. I definitely have a problem with it being outlawed entirely, however.

Personally I think woman's body = her choice and in the same way we can't tell someone if they should or shouldn't have things like kidneys or lungs it's up to her whether she has what is essentially a large moving part of her body or not. I know a foetus is considered alive by some but until it reaches the point where it could survive independently of the mother, which at the minimum is at least 6 months (I think the record is 24 weeks but most babies need 7 or 8 months) I don't think it can be considered a live and independent person. After 24 weeks if the life of the mother is threatened I think abortion is ok but otherwise I'm not sure why she'd wait until 24 weeks in to get an abortion unless there are some special circumstances...

Essentially every case is different and some people who want them can't have children and many who aren't ready for children do have them so there is no one answer about this but everyone has their own opinions :) It's a sure topic for, hopefully civil, debate though :)

Uhh... I really strongly believe that doctors should do everything they can to discourage women from removing their own kidneys and lungs. >.<

Not that I really want to see this thing revived further, but this post did make me smile, Briar. xD

Wow.  I was gonna give an over-under on how many posts before this thread gets nuked from orbit, but 2 hours and 100% civility.

Of course,  so far everyone's pretty well in agreement. 

 Haha I know what you mean, in fact I used this topic for my Public Debate class today and it stayed pretty civil there too which was surprising but we wandered off on a tangent on "why do people do obviously bad things" like drinking and smoking and does any one person have the right to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their bodies, specifically what they choose to put inside them be it drugs, parts of other people's anatomies or whatever else (the possibilities are considerable). 

It was an interesting debate :)

From a utilitarian standpoint, unwanted pregnancies born to poor families probably won't help us. 

That's a misguided and silly book. The reasoning that their body parts are living on even though they've been disassembled is absolutely retarded, because that's not how the fucking human body works. Nobody would agree to that. Why would  the pro-life side accept that? "No more abortions, but we can disassemble teenagers for their parts." 

Also, I think that the pro-choice side would think that's bullshit as well. "Instead of abortions, you can now have your child torn to bits when they're thirteen, after their childohod is over". It makes no fucking sense. 

It's frustrating and it's absurd, and Shusterman seems to think that it's deeper than it is. I've noticed that's a theme with YA, these days. 

I'm also not sure what it has to do with abortion, when you consider that teenagers being ripped to shreds is totally different from a clump of cells that can't feel being surgically removed. 

What a bad joke. 

In my honest opinion, the only reason to have an abortion is if having the baby puts the mother's life in jeopardy. Adoption is a viable option for less avoidable accidental pregnancies (say, broken condom, rape, exc) but if you're going to have sex and you don't want kids, take some responsibility and use protection and birth control. It's not that complicated.

If I were a rape victim, I probably would not want to have to give birth to a child. It's a strenuous, unpleasant process that disrupts the life.

Also, why do we need more humans, again?

Nothing like a nuclear war to fix it!

On the other hand, I know more than one person who was born or had a ancestor be born as a result of rape. And honestly, I like being alive.

If you were aborted, there would be no you to appreciate life. You would never have even been self-aware, or complicated enough to know you were alive. 

I'm glad that I wasn't swallowed, but I don't think we should disallow taking a dick in the mouth, if you catch my meaning. 

... I get that you don't see it this way, but there is a difference between a puddle of sperm and a zygote already developing into a fully formed human being. "You" would not have been swallowed. (xD Catch your meaning? Was there supposed to be something subtle about that? Lol.)

No, I just haven't slept in a couple days. 

But is there? You touched down on something interesting there. A zygote already developing into a fully formed human being. That's sort of a concession that it's not human yet, yeah? To me, it's sort of like smashing an egg. Sure, that sucks for the chicken-to-be, but the chicken-to-be isn't even able to conceptualize "sucking". 

I think he means an egg from a farm or something that IS fertilized.

And it's kind of an obvious fact. Nobody want's to go make an omelette and accidentally have fried chicken.

Probably. 

And I wouldn't be too sure about that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut_(food)

Eh. I guess so. But I was kinda referring to someone who plans to make some scrambled eggs, not whatever that demon spawn food is.

"Time to make some eggs sunny side up!"

*Cracks egg*

"Welp, change of plans, kids!"

Eh, I'm using that wording more for your benefit. "Fully developed" (developed being a meaning of formed) is more accurate to what I actually mean and honestly, you do not count as a "fully developed" human being considering the brain is not fully developed until age 25.

I agree with Malk on that one, if the woman doesn’t want to spend 9 months carrying a rape baby, she shouldn’t really be forced to.

And I don’t think rape counts as an “accidental” pregnancy.

... I say accidental because I assume neither the rapist nor the victim intended to have kids as a result, but eh. I guess it's possible that the rapist did intend that in some cases.

Contraceptives should be used way more often (I'd even argue it should be encouraged), I agree with you on that, but it doesn't mean you should take away a women's right to choose, which is more important than anything else, IMO.

The key problem I have with abortion is that it disregards the rights of the unborn kid. Yes, I know, a lot of people view it as being a lump of tissue that the mother has a right to remove like any other bodily part, but ... no other 'lump of tissue' will presumably be able to get a high school diploma in less than 18 years, so... I just don't see it that way. (Especially considering how wrong we've been about childhood development / infant awareness and sensory perception, psychology, etc, in the past.) 

In the context you're referring to, personhood is a prerequisite to rights. What would you say defines it?

Right now we know more about human biologically development than we ever have in history (really, that could be said for most things, if not everything). And anyway, the solution is not to lean towards the polar extreme.

edit: Also, psychology is garbage.

@Kiel_Farren 

Would love for you to respond to this.

(Haven't used it before; Is this how the tagging system works?)

Literally, what is the definition of it? 

1. the quality or condition of being an individual person.

The tagging system does not always notify me. Sometimes it glitches. 

You do know you're talking about "the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context" right? ... How is studying any part of the human body or its behaviors / functions "garbage"? 

The validity is questionable.

Well, that couldn't possibly have anything to do with how culture changes over time, could it?

In referring to U.S. law, specifically the Constitution, there are few instances of 'person', but when it does show up (in the 14th amendment) it implies personhood requires citizenship. The two ways to attain as such in the U.S. is birthright citizenship and naturalization. A yet-to-be born fetus accomplishes neither of those, so it can be safely excluded.

Malk hit one of the reason psychology is trash, but just in general, it's hugely pseudo-scientific, and it likes to think of itself as more important than it actually is, especially seeing as neuroscience and neurology exist.

Shame that you're not going to respond to this. Could've led to something interesting.

... You waited two hours and decided I was never going to respond? (For the second time in a single day, no less.) xD Dude, I just became a mod, I've been getting a lot of messages and I do have a life.

But hey, if you really can't wait, there are other people to argue with here who can amuse you. Go nuts.

You make an interesting point actually to try and see things from the abortion's point of view. I'm sure most of us wouldn't like it very much if our parents suddenly turned to us and said "we've decided to get you aborted dear. Put your coat on and come with us down the firing range, oh by the way you can cancel that health check up for next week". The question comes down to self-awareness and when to draw the line, as far as I'm aware most babies don't become self-aware or capable of recognition of themselves as a sentient being (recognizing themselves in a mirror for example) until at least several months after birth. If a foetus doesn't know it's a foetus then will it be troubled by it's abortion?

Another interesting point is when does life become life? At the moment of conception or even before? Should sperm be considered sacred and all ah activities that waste it be made illegal? Should chicken eggs be considered sacred? Should a kiss be viewed as a pledge to procreate? Should the glint in the milkman's eye be taken as a pre-nuptial agreement? That's the fun thing about this because there is no universal right or wrong standard which means philosophy can take conversations down pretty interesting paths :) It's a bit like a scenic maze or as someone (Bertram Russell?) said "a road from nowhere leading to nothing". :)

Well, if you mean troubled as in pondering death and all that that entails, obviously no. But troubled in any way, like... pain? Yes. A fetus absolutely can feel pain: http://www.mccl.org/unborn-babies-can-feel-pain.html

More so than an adult, in fact. 

(Also, being aware of itself is not really an issue. It's being aware of things like, its mother being a separate entity that babies take a little longer to grasp.)

The fetus isn't "aware" that pain occurring in the sense but rather simply its nerves are responding to pain the same way any other non-aware cluster of cells would. I would argue in the way many people use "feel" it doesn't even do that as there's no emotional response of awareness going on at all, and rather it just "reacts" to painful stimuli.

Yeah, I guess one way to look at it is summing up which will cause more or less pain in the long run: having a child if you are not ready for it or aborting it. Some people might have a selfish perspective and consider their own views more important than anyone else's, including the unborn child's but such people probably lack the maturity to safely raise a happy child... When I was a teenager I knew girls in my town who deliberately aborted their children by drinking too much vodka every night or getting high and asking their friends to punch them in the stomach but their babies might have been better off not being raised into the sort of lives those girls would have offered them... it depends on individual circumstances I guess :( I don't think those girls had very happy lives generally and at least one made a few suicide attempts.

Oh, I never said I believe people should be made to raise the kid... I just said people should be more responsible with condoms / birth control and adoption is viable when you have a kid anyway.

I hate abortion. I find it strange that i feel that way considering i don't like children. :/

Why do you hate it?

Because you are ending an innocent life that is unable to speak for itself. I mean a lot of people alive at this very moment would have disagreed with their parents had they chosen to go with abortion when they were being developed. Just because it's a baby that has yet to be born doesn't justify it.

Well, everyone alive today would have disagreed to their parents wearing a condom, but that doesn't mean its bad.

I wouldn't ;~;

But you have to distinguish between those who actually wanted kids and would look after them, and those who did it for other reasons. What about all those kids that are told they aren't wanted or are 'accidents'?. Besides there are definitely people out there who wish they had never been born.

OK, but the point I was making was that just because people wouldn't want to have been aborted, doesn't mean it's wrong. If I may ask, why do you find a fetus anymore deserving of life than any other collection of similar cells with a similar lack of consciousness?

Who says i find it more deserving? I believe all life forms are deserving of at least a chance at life.

Do you find meat eating as bad as abortion? Or killing pests such as rats or rabbits?

Well actually, i eat as little meat as possible but my family makes me eat it, saying that i don't eat enough protein, so yes i do find meat eating bad. I only think that killing pests is justifiable if there is overpopulation and they are threatening the eco-system.

I think killing something because there is overpopulation of it and its threatening the eco-system definitely applies to fetuses more than any other creature.

I think it applies more to the human beings currently alive and aware of themselves than the fetuses. Sure they will be adding to the population, but that mistake lies with the parents. If you want someone dead kill the parents considering abortion.

The parents are sentient, conscious beings with hopes, dreams and all that stuff. They're self-aware, and hence killing them would be immoral. Fetuses have no consciousness, they're not sentient, they're not self-aware. The things we find important about human life such as sentience don't apply to them, and if they're unwanted by the parent(s), then there's no reason to force someone to have them seeing that they will grow up in a world where their existence damages the enviroment and we're already overpopulated.

My point being that while they still aren't self-aware, you are still killing an innocent being that has yet to experience life. Besides there are plenty of people out there willing to adopt. My family even does fostering. But you do make good points. Does that mean you support abortion or something else? I need to go to bed though so I'll read over your answer in the morning.

Yeah, I support Abortion whole heartedly. I don't think they're innocent, though. A lack of consciousness does not equal innocence. A rock or skin cells or bacteria are not innocent. The quality of innocence can only come about at a certain state of intelligence, unless you mean it in the sense that they are literally innocent of doing anything wrong, which I find irrelevant as we're not "punishing" them for wrong-doing anymore than we're punishing rabbits for being pests. Goodnight, anyway.

"we're already overpopulated."

To be fair, that's debatable. 

Is it? We're consuming resources at unimaginable rates, we've got to a point where we've wiped out considerably amounts of the[ planets biodomes to give ourselves (and our sweet, delicious cows) room to expand and we're only speeding up. What do you think is debatable about the issue?

I wasn't implying I was the one interested in debating it, lol. I've heard some rather passionate arguments from both sides, though. 

Where? I'm genueinly curious to know what those arguments are.

I didn't exactly log them away for later use. I know there are sites dedicated to the subject though. If you genuinely care about reading the opposing side of that, then I'd recommend Google. 

Huh. I'll do that, then.

Financial, economic, and emotional burden to the woman...

...even if the woman was exactly just that to her own mother?

For me, the pro-choice logic doesn't seem as sound when put on a practical level.  Not every rape victim gets an abortion, and not every abortion comes from a rape. 1.1 million abortions were made in 2011 (Guttmacher claims they got their info from State Dpts.), but FBI reports around 83,000 rape cases.  3.9 million people were born in 2011.

Given the exponential nature of human growth, cutting off 25% doesn't really help with population control, but it does slow it down a little.  Still not hard to imagine that there may be population limits within the next century, so abortion as a humanitarian tool is...ineffective.  Not enough removed, mainly because...oh, I dunno, maybe because the majority of people would like to actually pass on a legacy for the future?  It just really, really sucks that 1 in four kids are already dead before the race even started.  Yeesh, how are we gonna out-hump India and China? (Joke; we probably shouldn't.)

So if this isn't going to superbly aid humanity in the long run, how does this serve the individual?

Oh, but because we might humanize humans, we gotta indoctrinate the next generation that people AREN'T PEOPLE UNLESS THEY COME OUT OF THE WOMB.  Fuck all even if they're just like a newborn; if it ain't born, kill it.

So now we have a generation of people that follow a group of legislatures that arbitrarily decided that there was a limit to people being people.  In the case of third-trimester abortions, apparently starving for a less longer period of time deems you as a pile of flesh, regardless of the current progress you've made (which is quite a lot, by third trimester).  Second-trimester says you've got to not only look a little different from a croc embryo, but you also gotta look different from other primates to make the cut.  Because it ain't human until it relatively looks like one...I guess.

And because of that, you've got a generation of young adults who use sex as another medium to socialize, hence why we have sex everywhere in social media...

Oddly enough, the USA opposes using stem cells in embryos for research.  Surprising, considering how many embryos are destroyed for non-scientific usage.  So...what, the majority wants to have sex for fun, but fuck all if we get anything useful out of it?

In cases of rape?  Abortion - mebbe.

In other cases?  Why the fuck haven't you bought condoms and contraceptives?

I'm just gonna say I'm disturbed at how far down the line you guys want abortions; third trimester babies can survive with life support, and they look pretty fucking human to me.

I dunno; they grow up to look pretty fucking human too.  I wonder why?

Why do you consider it ineffective at slowing human growth? Sure, it doesn't do it to an extent that would fix the problem, but it does help towards that direction? Just because it doesn't work to completely curb the problem doesn't mean you can dismiss it as helpful anymore than the failure of charities to feed all the hungry means you cna dismiss them as useless.

Also, the parts of humanity most people deem valuable aren't present in these fetuses in the womb. Sure, by definition they're human, but without self-awareness or sentience, what standard would we hold them above any other clump of cells? They could grow into a sentient being, but the same argument could be put forward for not using condoms as it again prevents a sentient being from developing.

Some of the charities that...oh, I dunno, inflates available resources so no businesses based in those communities can get up and running without being outcompeted by literally charity?  I'd only count the charity money as helpful if it builds infrastructure, instead of creating dependency on a single lifeline.

As some African communities are dependent on charities, so are we dependent on abortions to stem the growth of the human race.  That in itself is not a long term solution, and instead there's this complacency in one of the largest nations in the world that things will un-fuck themselves and that irresponsibility is forgivable with so little resources today.  Instead of drawing the line to save people, we've disposed of an entire age group that wasn't even questioned until people realized that it would be convenient to remove their status as one such.  Classes that discuss pregnancy are met with disdain, and the apparent lack of giving shits was one of the reasons why there was a spike in teen pregos a few years ago.  When it became popular to throw away at least responsible sex, we ended up with fucktons of kids who are still struggling with un-fucking their lives physically or economically, whichever choice they made.

That's what happens when you dress up an option as the go-to panacea.

Newborn infants aren't self-aware; they only cry for nourishment and warmth...similar conditions to living in the womb?  So what differentiates a newborn from a fetus, other than the fact the former screams a lot more about it?

OK, charities was a bad example. But I don't understand the point you're making about population control. Population control isn't anymore of an issue in places where abortion is illegal than legal. Teen Pregnancy Rates have been going down pretty consistently, and a single spike does not negate that.

I would say the difference between newborns and fetuses are firstly that the newborn is more developed than most fetuses, so in the first and second trimester there's a huge difference. Between the third trimester and newborns is that they don't need the mother to survive, so we have other options than "Kill" or "Force Mother To Keep". In all honestly, I would still consider newborns to be considerably less valuable than an actual self-aware being.

"Population control isn't anymore of an issue in places where abortion is illegal than legal."

Thanks for repeating what I just said lel

But as you have lowering teen prego rates per number of people, you also have more people in general just going at it.

And...I hope there's a right that states that all life is valuable in the USA and cannot be devalued unless it brings harm to another life on purpose, so long as you are a citizen...I'm pretty sure there is...

No, I meant it's not an issue as in not an issue of debate between people or something people care more about. Unless I'm mistaken, you were saying abortion takes away attention from other attempts to control the population.

Yeah... more people are fucking. That's... I don't know what your point is with that. Sorry if I'm being a bit slow.

Life isn't inherently valuable if it doesn't purposely cause harm. Like with farmers killing pests, things can cause harm and need to be gotten rid of without having had malicious intent. The fact that a long time ago some people said they wanted fetuses to have the right to be alive is pretty irrelevant.

First of all "spreaded" is not a real word.  Second, what a misogynistic way to refer to sex.   

Eyyy! Mah boy Jimmy finally replied to the OP. It's about time. 

Right, because women who enjoy sex are primitive and disgusting, and children are a punishment for those women, sent straight from a cruel, vindictive god.

I do not believe that abortion should be legal. Human life is precious and should be protected.

Not at all? What about in cases of rape, or because condoms (and other contraceptives) aren't 100% preventive. Even then, all that notwithstanding, outlawing it denies women's autonomy.

No. Not at all. I know a few good people that were products of rape.

I don't really know how that last sentence is relevant at all, tbh. You don't think forcing a person to give birth to a child she never wanted (nevermind all the horrible shit that goes along with rape) isn't even a little fucked up?

Yes, I admit having to bear a child that you don't want would be horrible. But, I don't think it would be as horrible as killing a defenseless and innocent human.

Just because something is defenseless doesn't mean killing it is bad. Insects aren't capable of defending themselves from cropdusters, but we dust them anyway because they'll eat our food otherwise. Just because something is innocent doesn't necessarily, and shouldn't necessarily mean it automatically becomes endearing and good. It just means that the thing in question hasn't done anything wrong... Which doesn't exactly mean much when you aren't capable of carrying out your own actions properly or even making conscious decisions. They haven't done anything wrong, but, y'know, they haven't done goddamn anything. You can only really judge them on what they will do. And that brings the nebulous, un-judgeable idea of potential into the equation again. Potential is fucking ridiculous, if I haven't mentioned before. Yes, they could grow up to be Mother Teresa in the end, but they could also grow up to be literally Hitler.

The one thing we can guarauntee is that, if left to grow into a whole baby, they're going to put the mother through a very uncomfortable, if not painful process that, in the case of rape, stands a good chance of mentally scarring the woman for life, in addition to physically, and in all cases, stands a good chance of causing lifelong problems and disorders. In that sense, the only thing an unwanted fetus could definitely be described as is bad. Really, really bad.

Anecdotal evidence and an appeal to emotion. We can't prove that a lot of rape babies are good people, and we can't prove that that would even matter, but what everyone already knows is that birthing a kid that was put into you by force is an absolutely horrible thing to go through.

To put it in perspective, you've seen Alien, right? Make some changes to the film, say, a much higher survival rate for chestbusting and the baby stands a chance to grow up into a fine, upstanding space marine instead. But the victim of horrible, astrolube xenomorph molestation will have to pay millions of dollars over the course of its life to keep it alive, and it will forever remain a hideous reminder of the disgusting worm-mouth thing that did horrible things to the "Mother". Not to mention, that potential is a very nebulous and difficult subject. It stands the same chance of growing up to be an alien queen and starting a whole new hive of horrible rape-murder death aliens.

Yes, life is precious. But when we're, say, forcing a rapist's child upon a woman who may be unable to provide a happy childhood for that child, let alone herself, then the preservation of that child's 'life' - one which does not yet have aspirations, dreams, proper physiological function - should be less important than the preservation of the woman's happiness. You also need to remember that (wow, this is something else but) a woman might not want to raise a reminder of a rape committed against her.

Even in that situation, if that individual is incapable of providing for that child, it can also be sent to a family who can.

Do you know how difficult pregnancy is for some women? It can cause depression without the right support, and especially when the child you're nurturing is a product of a rape, nevermind the consequences on social life and worklife. And you may not even receive the right support. Many rape victims feel isolated from their family who may be ashamed of their pregancy and bastard child. Childrearing is hard. Paid parental leave isn't guaranteed in all of America (I think?). And to give birth to and nurture a child which is only a scar left on you by a rape is not something that women should be forced to do. Quite literally if the birthing requires a c-section.

One other thing, in the case of giving birth to a child with disabilities or some illness. Who do you think will be responsible for the child? Almost certainly the mother.

"Almost certainly the mother" he just suggested adoption, you know... that was basically his entire post. xD 

Adoption can sometimes just be as hard as abortion.

No it is true because lot's of people that consider adoption can feel guilty that they can't take care of their own flesh and blood. That's what causes abortion, or them raising the child. Not every time though, but even adoption can a really hard choice.

Do you think a woman should have to give birth to a child that would probably live with horrible birth defects, or has a condition affecting her body's ability to properly provide for, or even survive birthing the fetus?

Killing people just because they have defects is something that was already been deemed unethical by a good chunk of our society. Abortion to save the mother's life, on the other hand, I'd fully support--but as the medical community is very, very aware, that is extremely rare.

Well, there's a difference between killing sentient people with defects and preventing them from actually becoming sentient.

Appeal to popularity. Also, kek at the notion of objective morality.

I'm going to disagree that life and human life is precious or even important. I'd say it's the actual consciousness in human beings that is important, which fetuses don't have.

It seems to me that some people are against abortion... until it's themselves/their partners/their daughters get pregnant accidentally.

The reverse of that sentiment has been brought up, if you didn't see.

Please, I am against abortion unless it involves the well known 1% (Rape Victims) and the other lesser known (Incestous Relations) but other than those two cases, Pro-Life.

However, I do urge you to watch the twenty-minute movie The Silent Scream which covers the topic of abortion in a rather philosophic and rather infinitive stance.

The opening music is quite erie may I say, and also, you will see a lot of dead baby.... a lot.

I never really understood the stance that incestuous relations that aren't rape should get a free pass, just because it's likelier that there would be birth defects. So if you bang your immediate relatives, you get to use it for birth control, but no other couples do? So if you want to spread your seed without consequences, grab your sister!

Not sure these implications reflect well on us, honestly.

Not like the implications are good for any side; it's a lose-lose-lose topic.

What the heck is "a rather infinitive stance?"

Infinitive:  a grammatical term referring to certain verb forms.

Blast, you foiled my evil grammatical plans once more.... curse you SpiderMan!

I'm not counting this as a derailment because you're still discussing abortion, arguments for / against it, and the points when people do / don't think it's okay. Incestuous rape resulting in children is one of the (disturbing) possibilities where one would consider that option.

Rim did see rape AND incest, so I assume he considered incest that wasn't rape justification for abortion. Also, glory be to Kiel, a merciful yet just mod!

I agree with Aman on this one. As long as I'm not paying for it (unless it's rape), I'm in favor.

I am liberal if that makes a difference.

I'm sure all the site's women are immensely thankful for the invaluable insights shared by their male colleague-writers.
 

So... fuck off if you think men don't have the right to talk about this? It's a serious issue, and the fact that I can't personally have an abortion is as irrelevant to whether it should be legal or not or whether its moral, and isn't relevant to my or anyone else on here's arguements.

It's especially weird, seeing as most of the posts ITT advocate keeping it legalized, at least to some extent.

You think so? I was surprised with the amount of anti-abortion people on here.

Not really, the large of the posters appear to be either pro-choice or are okay with abortion with conditions. 

(Also, keep it civil, folks. Civility is literally the only reason we haven't nuked this... yet.)

It really comes down to whether they're being sarcastic or not. Or perhaps whether they actually read the thread and just wanted to see how many replies they'd get.

Entirely possible that it's trolling, yes.

As time goes on, I'm realizing there's a lot less trolls and a lot more stupid people than I thought when I was young and idealistic.

Which is why I generally assume people are "just that stupid" but I've been wrong before.

They probably appreciate men's opinions more than yours. 

I can only really speak for the US in this instance, but it seems that abortion would be less of an issue if the school system actually dished out some good sex ed instead of the "if you have sex you will die" they drill into students' heads. Of course that only applies to the schools that teach sex ed since some states don't require schools to offer it. There is also the issue that a well informed population will still need condoms, birth control, and/or contraceptives in order to have safe sex– all of which are materials that not everyone has access to. Increased education and access to condoms, birth control, and contraceptives leads to healthier sexual habits which leads to fewer unintended pregnanciesX.

Regardless, I believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances since women who want abortions historically get them regardless of legality. (In fact our ratio has been decreasing since abortion was legalized... probably due to contraceptives though I haven't investigated that X) When someone seeking an abortion is of a lower socioeconomic status they risk having to resort to less safe methods of abortionX. Even if some women received safe abortions while abortions weren't legal, the unsafe ones were just another way to discriminate against the poor.

Of course most people don't realize this, but abortion wasn't restricted in America until the 1800s, so when they say they want to go back to an old system, they are really establishing a new oneX. This isn't an argument or anything, just something I found interesting. I apologize that this is so American-centric, but I haven't done as much research on the worldwide scale and don't want to misrepresent another culture.

I'm in High School right now, and I can tell you that our school is informing us well about safe sex. Talking about condoms, IUD's, pills, the shot, ect. and their effectives rate. We also talk about STD's, and have even seen pictures of them. Oh how I am mentally scarred for life. We even had speakers come in to talk about abortion, adoption, and teen parents, ect. We basically covered it all, and the class wasn't optional, you had to take it. So at least our school, out of the millions that are out there, teach us all about it.

First of all, I'm not sure what the point of having a thread about abortion is. Abortion debates always rehash the same predictable talking points over and over again, and a lot of people get mad, but no one's opinion ever budges the slightest bit.

That said, let me bring up a point for consideration. I think that the pro-life stance is better termed pro-birth, because at least in the United States, the concern for the lives of children among that group ends when they're born. The conservative base that cries out against abortion usually also wants to defund welfare and other social programs, but unwanted pregnancies are strongly correlated with poverty. If you believe that the government has the duty to force a woman to bear a child regardless of her ability or willingness to provide for it, you should also believe that the government has the duty to support that child financially.

I agree. Many people are against abortion, but then don't provide or care for the child after it is born. But, Spartacus created the thread to see what everyone else thought about abortion.

You've been on the internet before, right? I could have recited this entire thread from memory.

But yeah, pro-life people, either you care about the lives of children or you don't. Please be consistent.

Um, yes. I have been on the internet before. :)

*Like this?

U-uh, well, I don't know of any people like that who aren't, you know, very lazy busy.

Come on, we all know mirrored question marks are designated irony punctuation?

We could always have more resources to advance the super soldier program...

If anything helps...Bernie?

A friend found this and it reminded him of this thread.
 

I remembered this comic when Axiom was talking about the hypocrisy of many Pro-lifers.

Huh... I don't get ghe comic.

I'm  Pro choice until the fetus is 3 months old. 

They're saying that many Pro-lifers only care about the baby before it's born. After that, the comic says they couldn't give a flying hell about it.

Which, while an interesting assumption, isn't something I'd veer too far into since Axiom brought up poverty, welware, exc. Which are issues, even technically related issues--but they are not the same issue.

Oh, I understand that. I was simply explaining the comic.

Here's a better link.

Thank you.

No problem.

In my opinion, it should be? illegal. If they were stupid enough to have a baby they didn't want then they could just find out how to get through it.

Don't forget some people have no choice in the matter such as victims of rape or accidents involving split condoms etc. Not everyone who has an unplanned pregnancy is "stupid" and also what about in situations where the mother's life is threatened or the baby has a serious medical condition that would condemn them to a life of pain and suffering?

There are many reasonable pro-life supporters who I can disagree with but still very much respect. You give them a bad name.

Seriously. I mean, I consider myself pro-life, (to an extent) but I don't express it like that. 

I'm not pro-choice, I'm just anti-life. 

Bearing that in mind, death to all womb-filth!