# Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?



## aizen (May 10, 2013)

Most curious about the opinions of NTs specifically. Also list reasoning as to why?


----------



## Elrohir (Mar 9, 2013)

I'm pro choice. Simply for the reason that I think the would-be-mothers decision is the only reason needed. Its her body neverless.
Also, you might want to look at This pretty much the same stuff in the ENTP Section


----------



## remmycool (Apr 10, 2013)

I'm pro-choice, but not because of women's rights. I think the women's rights arguments are extremely weak and a big reason why the pro-lifers have been gaining ground over the past few decades. "My body, my choice" could easily be extended to support the murder of anyone wholly dependent on you, such as an infant or a senior. "If you don't want one, don't get one" is the exact same argument we (as a society) rejected when we banned slavery. "Abortion needs to be legal because of rape/incest/harm to the mother" neglects the facts that the overwhelming majority of abortions have nothing to do with those issues, and even pro-lifers are generally willing to grant exceptions in those cases. 

I'm pro-choice because I just don't think fetuses qualify as people. They're people-ish, but not people enough to warrant equal legal rights. It's completely legal to kill your dog as long as you do it humanely, and that's more or less how I think fetuses should be treated as well.


----------



## PinkTreeLeaf (May 26, 2013)

I see the line of abortion/murder as arbitrarily set by people(Is it birth, is it 3 weeks, is it conception). So I think abortion is the same as murder, but that being said, sometimes murder is needed, and if its either bring a child to suffer the hell that is life, and at the same time ruining your life, or wiping it out before it can care, I think i would go for the later.


----------



## aizen (May 10, 2013)

PinkTreeLeaf said:


> I see the line of abortion/murder as arbitrarily set by people(Is it birth, is it 3 weeks, is it conception). So I think abortion is the same as murder, but that being said, sometimes murder is needed, and if its either bring a child to suffer the hell that is life, and at the same time ruining your life, or wiping it out before it can care, I think i would go for the later.


Interesting. Personally I do not think that the fetus is a human being until it is capable of surviving outside of the mothers womb, which is at 23 weeks or so.


----------



## k3vin (Feb 13, 2012)

I float either way depending upon the circumstances.

If you got raped and were impregnated, obviously abortion is the route to go.

If you have a partner and made a series of ill advised decisions [i.e. drunken, unprotected sex with a partner], then it is selfish to deprive that child life because _you _messed up. That child deserves to live with you having to face the consequences of your actions.


----------



## RandomNote (Apr 10, 2013)

Pro choice.......its their body they can do what they want with it.


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

the forcing you to deal with your actions only flies so far as it harms no one else. The child is truly the one who suffers the consequences. I've seen unloved, sexually assaulted, abused, beaten, starved, cut children in this world. Many of them didn't escape the cycle of abuse. Should they be forced to live life in suffering? Isn't that worse than not having been alive?


----------



## k3vin (Feb 13, 2012)

Tea Path said:


> the forcing you to deal with your actions only flies so far as it harms no one else. The child is truly the one who suffers the consequences. I've seen unloved, sexually assaulted, abused, beaten, starved, cut children in this world. Many of them didn't escape the cycle of abuse. Should they be forced to live life in suffering? Isn't that worse than not having been alive?


I suppose that is a question pertaining to the character of those involved. If either one of the participants are "good" or "bad" individuals. Surely in one situation there could be good people resulting in the occurrence, and the other there being a "bad" person or both "bad" people .

So then, it depends upon situational factors of what circumstances you're born into. 

I'd say more often than not roll the dice and let that child live, because, they have the chance to _overcome _the hurdles life throws at them. Then again, one traumatic experience can severely eff up one's perception of the world, and their day-to-day living. Also, the degree of abuse/maltreatment is influential, in that, the more mild can be more easily overcome, and also the perseverance of that person, obviously [more weak will succumb, and the stronger triumph]. Its not an easy solution to draft, because of the medley of interacting factors. 

Abuse is bad, but life can't be optimal for everyone, unfortunately.


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

k3vin said:


> I suppose that is a question pertaining to the character of those involved. If either one of the participants are "good" or "bad" individuals. Surely in one situation there could be good people resulting in the occurrence, and the other there being a "bad" person or both "bad" people .
> 
> So then, it depends upon situational factors of what circumstances you're born into.
> 
> ...


your argument was that it should be punitive for people who make poor choices. That punitive mindset is not without consequences. 
The prefrontal cortex for decision making isn't mature until 25. good choices are not easily made until that point.


----------



## Basileus (May 8, 2013)

choice. many children who end up being orphans are not successful, depressed, and may live in an abusive house. It also would help keep populations from growing too large. eh, don't feel like elaborating cuz that gets me bored


----------



## Violet Water (May 25, 2013)

aizen said:


> Interesting. Personally I do not think that the fetus is a human being until it is capable of surviving outside of the mothers womb, which is at 23 weeks or so.


I don't think the fetus is a human being until we are all capable of living on other planets. Same logic.


----------



## Violet Water (May 25, 2013)

Tea Path said:


> the forcing you to deal with your actions only flies so far as it harms no one else. The child is truly the one who suffers the consequences. I've seen unloved, sexually assaulted, abused, beaten, starved, cut children in this world. Many of them didn't escape the cycle of abuse. Should they be forced to live life in suffering? Isn't that worse than not having been alive?


Agreed. Life is over-rated. Also, there are already too many people in the world, and this (aborting unwanted children) is one way of cutting down the numbers so everyone is better off.


----------



## k3vin (Feb 13, 2012)

Tea Path said:


> your argument was that it should be punitive for people who make poor choices. That punitive mindset is not without consequences.
> The prefrontal cortex for decision making isn't mature until 25. good choices are not easily made until that point.


So perhaps it falls on the parents to help them make those choices then, or whatever mentoring person there is to help young folks, if that's who we're talking about, in mediating the decision process.

Also, i wasn't staunchly defending the Aristotelian logic that all things face justice, my argument was more of an ambivalent nature, as I was trying to explain in the "medley of factors" paragraph.

We can argue "i think x" and "i think y" but and the end of the day, you and i are not that female, and we are not the one going through that experience.

So we can arm chair philosophize, but really, we don't really know - that person's past, the relationship they'd had with that person, or what that person thinks about the world, or what have you.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

aizen said:


> Most curious about the opinions of NTs specifically. Also list reasoning as to why?


The problem with Pro-Life is that it isn't really Pro-Life. Women will get abortions whether it's legal or not. When it's illegal, there is no supervision on quality and hygiene and a considerable percentage of women will die. Also there is research that shows that crime rates (including murder) decline about 15 to 20 years after abortion is legalized. (that's because the average age of women when getting their first baby goes up after legalizing abortion and thus they´re better able to provide a better up-bringing to their children.)

Pro-choice,.. is limited. It requires more than just that. This choice should be made before even getting pregnant. And that requires informing the population, especially the adolescents about sex and where babies come from, etc. This is the real reason why so many religiously motivated Pro-Lifers are against abortion (even though they´re not aware of it). This increases individualism and reduces the power of religion. Obviously not something religions like.

Pro-choice but with informing and taboo reducing cultural change included.


----------



## aizen (May 10, 2013)

Violet Water said:


> I don't think the fetus is a human being until we are all capable of living on other planets. Same logic.


.......lol what?

The majority of abortions take place within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy (last time I checked.)

After fertilization it takes an embryo 8-10 weeks to develop into a fetus. That same fetus lacks self awareness, displays parasitic characteristics, and is incapable of surviving outside of the mother. Since pro-lifers would have inalienable rights that circumvent the mothers freedom of choice attributed to the fetus, there should be universal agreement as to at which point it is considered human.

Since a fetus is capable of surviving outside of the mother and experiencing pain at around 22-23 weeks, I personally, would not consider it a human until this point. Why? Because the entire pro-life movement is driven by religious undertones that attempt to lobby the Ten Commandments as legislative law. The mother is already a self aware human being and the rights of a 'potential' human being should not cancel out her freedom of choice.


----------



## LaTortugaChina (Apr 8, 2013)

Violet Water said:


> Agreed. Life is over-rated. Also, there are already too many people in the world, and this (aborting unwanted children) is one way of cutting down the numbers so everyone is better off.


Wow. That is such a terrible thing to say. Life is not overrated. It's a blessing. Some days are rough, terrible. Everyday there's more illness, murder, depression, but there's also beauty. Whether you believe in Jesus, Allah, the Budha, or Mother Earth, there's no denying, there's beauty in the world. Every smile can birth another smile. Light can be found in the darkest places. Light can be found in a child born out of rape or stupid decisions. Light can be found in the hopefulness that people acquire through adversity. I don't think it's governments place to restrict a woman from getting an abortion. I understand and actually respect women who get abortions because its a very hard decision to make, but I am apalled by your statement. I know people who have lost loved ones from cancer, from being shot, from suicide, and the fact that they can still live their lives gives me hope. Life is not overrated. Give thanks


----------



## Violet Water (May 25, 2013)

aizen said:


> .......lol what?
> 
> The majority of abortions take place within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy (last time I checked.)
> 
> ...


Haha it was kind of a joke. All human beings are parasites of the Earth, so if being independent from the host is a requirement for being human, then we'd need to live elsewhere - that was the logic of the joke. 


But I don't think there is a point at which a fetus becomes human - how would you prove that? It's better to say "do it before it can feel pain" than "before it becomes a human being" I think.


----------



## aizen (May 10, 2013)

Violet Water said:


> Haha it was kind of a joke. All human beings are parasites of the Earth, so if being independent from the host is a requirement for being human, then we'd need to live elsewhere - that was the logic of the joke.
> 
> 
> But I don't think there is a point at which a fetus becomes human - how would you prove that? It's better to say "do it before it can feel pain" than "before it becomes a human being" I think.


Ah, I get it then.

And right, there could never be universal agreement as to when a fetus is a human being, so proving it is furthermore impossible. Aborting before it can feel pain is the gist of my stance.


----------



## Violet Water (May 25, 2013)

LaTortugaChina said:


> Wow. That is such a terrible thing to say. Life is not overrated. It's a blessing. Some days are rough, terrible. Everyday there's more illness, murder, depression, but there's also beauty. Whether you believe in Jesus, Allah, the Budha, or Mother Earth, there's no denying, there's beauty in the world. Every smile can birth another smile. Light can be found in the darkest places. Light can be found in a child born out of rape or stupid decisions. Light can be found in the hopefulness that people acquire through adversity. I don't think it's governments place to restrict a woman from getting an abortion. I understand and actually respect women who get abortions because its a very hard decision to make, but I am apalled by your statement. I know people who have lost loved ones from cancer, from being shot, from suicide, and the fact that they can still live their lives gives me hope. Life is not overrated. Give thanks


Life may be pleasant for you, and it may be pleasant for me, but you can't say it has been pleasant for everyone that has ever lived. So how you see life as a "blessing" is beyond me. The question should be: is this child likely to be happy or unhappy in these conditions? If unhappy, don't have it, even if the mother wants to (the mother's happiness will be canceled out by the unhappiness of the child).

The rest of your post just sounded like religious fluff to me lol.


----------



## His Name Is John (Aug 27, 2012)

Pro-life.

I've become even more convinced of this since starting my philosophy degree.


----------



## Devrim (Jan 26, 2013)

I hate the term "Pro-Life",
It already makes it seem like the more "Moral" and "Good" approach.

I choose Pro-Choice though,
Woman AND Mans choice,
As they will be looking after that child,
If they can't financially and emotionally do it to the best of their abilities,
Then I'd rather the child not be cursed by uncaring parents,
Or a bad upbringing.


----------



## MikeEatsASalad (Feb 15, 2013)

Pro-choice. We don't need more babies in this world.


----------



## Outside_The_Box (Apr 17, 2013)

I'm pro-choice, but to a point. Where that point is, I don't exactly know. If I knew then policy makers would be asking me for the answers. I guess the arbitrary line in the sand I would draw is the third trimester. Besides, it shouldn't take until the third trimester to decide to get an abortion. It's kind of a big decision. But, I think that's already illegal here in the U.S. anyway, so... keep things how they are? The only moral issue I have with abortion is that I think it's cruel to abort a fetus that can feel pain and fear. I don't know when that ability kicks in though, so I'd have to ask an OBGYN, provided they even know. But other than that I'm pro-choice. I have no religious reason to be pro-life since I'm agnostic. This is all just my opinion though, I have no desire to force my views on others.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Pro-choice. A fetus is merely a clump of cells, it's not human. Just because it has the potential to become human doesn't mean it is at the time.

Now as to whether there should be a cutoff point or not (obviously shouldn't be able to abort one that's 8 months into development, that is human at that point, hence premature births that survive), I'm not exactly sure where I would draw the line.

Being that most occur during the first trimester/early 2nd trimester, I'd say that's safe. At that point its just nearing two inches...I'd hardly call that ''human'' yet. Somewhere after the middle of the 2nd trimester, I myself would probably quit arguing that hard to defend abortion, but at that point I still wouldn't call it murder or try to tell others they couldn't do it if that's what the mother decided to do and the doctor was okay with it.


----------



## DrJakeyll (Nov 11, 2012)

ENTP speaking. Pro-LIFE! I literally do not understand the question. Only about 2% of rapes end in pregnancy, so lets just kill that cliche right now. I mean, it sucks for rape victims and teenagers, but there are thousands of fantastic orphanages in every state. And trust me, lots of couples want to adopt. 

Someone once argued that a pregnant teen will have to go to school and she'll be teased. So? Is that really justification to prevent an innocent baby from having a life?

My mom was adopted, and her parents were/are incredibly loving, even if they didn't have a lot of money. Just wanted to counter anyone who has seen to many movies an thinks that orphanages are hellish sweat shops. 

Now, if it's going to kill the mother it's a little more complex. But I still don't think it is EVER morally correct to assume that you have the RIGHT to decide whether or not another human lives.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

It's not human....it's a mere clump of cells. Hate when anti-choicers try to make it seem as if they're taking a moral high ground by claiming we're killing a human. No, it is merely preventing a clump of unconscious and mindless cells from developing into one, before we get yet another unwanted child or one that can't be adequately taken care of in this world with enough of them already. 

Eh, anyway, won't really be getting into this debate, just wanted to add that, sorry.


----------



## SeñorTaco (Jun 5, 2013)

Pro choice
the frick


----------



## runnerveran (Dec 19, 2011)

Pro-choice. I see no reason why _potential_ persons should be treated as persons.


----------



## SeñorTaco (Jun 5, 2013)

DrJakeyll said:


> ENTP speaking. Pro-LIFE! I literally do not understand the question. Only about 2% of rapes end in pregnancy, so lets just kill that cliche right now. I mean, it sucks for rape victims and teenagers, but there are thousands of fantastic orphanages in every state. And trust me, lots of couples want to adopt.
> 
> Someone once argued that a pregnant teen will have to go to school and she'll be teased. So? Is that really justification to prevent an innocent baby from having a life?
> 
> ...


If a lot of couples want to adopt, why are there so many orphanages?


----------



## purposive (Jun 4, 2013)

Pro-choice. I don't think anyone has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. If its not your body, not your responsibility you don't and shouldn't think that you have any right to a decision. I think that men can express their thoughts but st the end of the day it's not anyone else's decisions.


----------



## that (May 22, 2012)

I'm pro-choice. I think a woman has the right to decide whether she wants to bear a child or not. Do I think that putting a child up for adoption is better than abortion? Yes. But I'm not going to judge and condemn just because somebody doesn't want a babay.


----------



## kissy2490 (Jun 8, 2013)

Pro Life. I think everyone should have an opportunity to live. Though, I won't condemn a woman for making a choice to murder her child.


----------



## that (May 22, 2012)

kissy2490 said:


> Pro Life. I think everyone should have an opportunity to live. Though, I won't condemn a woman for making a choice to murder her child.


The fact that you call it murder makes it sound like you are condemning.


----------



## kissy2490 (Jun 8, 2013)

Tea Path said:


> the forcing you to deal with your actions only flies so far as it harms no one else. The child is truly the one who suffers the consequences. I've seen unloved, sexually assaulted, abused, beaten, starved, cut children in this world. Many of them didn't escape the cycle of abuse. Should they be forced to live life in suffering? Isn't that worse than not having been alive?


I've been one of those kids you mentioned and I wasn't an unexpected pregnancy. I knew many that have been through all that as well. Do they suffer during the process? Yes. But just because your life is hell doesn't mean that you keep it that way. Some do get out and make a real difference within their community because of what they went through. A person has a choice to use their life for the good of mankind or for the worse. But you don't have to be a illegitimate bastard to do it. 

I personally see life as a gift. Each one of us has a precious moment in time to really do something worthwhile. True many people don't do anything but waste away, others shoot for the stars then land on their face. But it's the journey that is truly valuable. 

Whatever the circumstances are, I don't see neglecting a human-being the chance to live fair.


----------



## kissy2490 (Jun 8, 2013)

that said:


> The fact that you call it murder makes it sound like you are condemning.


What I meant to say was publicly condemn because I would be lying if I wasn't doing it in my head.


----------



## DrJakeyll (Nov 11, 2012)

Clearly because of all the unplanned pregnancies. MOST babies that are put into orphanages within their first 6 months are adopted quickly. The demand is inSANE, there're just a lot of pregnancies.

The whole "it's just a clump of cells" thing is HIGHLY debatable and is a total matter of opinion. Personally, I believe it's a baby from the moment of conception. When you sleep, you are unconscious. Does that make it ok for me to end your life? Can you honestly say that, of your mom had been a teen, you have rather been aborted?


----------



## JamesSteal (Apr 14, 2013)

It all depends if the woman wants it or not. If she does, it's an "unborn child", if she doesn't, it's "just a clump of cells".


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

DrJakeyll said:


> Clearly because of all the unplanned pregnancies. MOST babies that are put into orphanages within their first 6 months are adopted quickly. The demand is inSANE, there're just a lot of pregnancies.
> 
> The whole "it's just a clump of cells" thing is HIGHLY debatable and is a total matter of opinion. Personally, I believe it's a baby from the moment of conception. When you sleep, you are unconscious. Does that make it ok for me to end your life? Can you honestly say that, of your mom had been a teen, you have rather been aborted?


When I'm sleeping, my brain is still working and I have a subconscious to my conscious. 


It IS just a clump of cells, that's not debatable really, all the intricate things that make a human a human are not yet developed...just a bunch of cells going off the software (dna) doing what it's told to do at that point (a major part of what actually makes stem cell research so valuable). Even when the heart first starts beating, that is merely just a muscle doing what the cells are told to do, it's still not ''alive'' anymore than we would consider a plant, it is merely doing what it is programmed to do. Now I can understand how after a certain point either late into or after the second trimester you'd wanna cut it off to be able to get an abortion, but before that it's just not at all developed enough to really be considered human.

The whole ''its a baby from conception'' is bullshit tbh, because it most definitely is not. At the moment of conception, more than anything it really is just a clump of cells. Don't have to like abortions at this point yourself, that's fine, but to tell/force others that they can't go along with it is bullshit, because there is nothing to solidify your claims.


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

kissy2490 said:


> I've been one of those kids you mentioned and I wasn't an unexpected pregnancy. I knew many that have been through all that as well. Do they suffer during the process? Yes. But just because your life is hell doesn't mean that you keep it that way. Some do get out and make a real difference within their community because of what they went through. A person has a choice to use their life for the good of mankind or for the worse. But you don't have to be a illegitimate bastard to do it.
> 
> I personally see life as a gift. Each one of us has a precious moment in time to really do something worthwhile. True many people don't do anything but waste away, others shoot for the stars then land on their face. But it's the journey that is truly valuable.
> 
> Whatever the circumstances are, I don't see neglecting a human-being the chance to live fair.


Thank you for sharing. I bet it wasn't the most straightforward path.


----------



## CaptSwan (Mar 31, 2013)

I'm Pro-Choice. Why? Because, in my opinion, for as long as the fetus is inside the mother's body, it's an appendix of her; a part of her sort of speak, but, she has the right to do with it as she pleases. Once it's out, it's an entire different organism; but, in the mean time...


----------



## aphinion (Apr 30, 2013)

Pro-choice, though I still think abortion is very tragic and should be avoided.


----------



## xrypto (Jul 2, 2013)

Pro-choice, the mother should be able to do whatever she wishes with her 'child' as long as it is still inside her.


----------



## Xenograft (Jul 1, 2013)

Pro choice, and that doesn't mean pro death, it means PRO CHOICE. 

There is no reason this should even be a problem or an issue in politics. It just makes no sense that the argument is a thing. Why are people so intolerant. I understand people not wanting to get an abortion, I don't care about that. What I DO care about is people trying to infringe on the freedoms of other women to have control over their pregnancies.


----------



## JamesSteal (Apr 14, 2013)

Don't dare drink or smoke whilst pregnant, it might harm the baby. However, if there is ever a chance that you don't want the baby, we'll just call it a fetus. It doesn't have to be regarded as a human being if we don't want it to.


----------



## SpiralHacker (Jan 19, 2010)

Pro-choice baby


----------



## Swede (Apr 2, 2013)

Sorry, too lazy to read through all the posts right now, so chances are that nothing here will be new.

I am pro-choice, but I would never go that route myself, under normal circumstances. I know that I would never be able to stop thinking of my terminated child and I guess that I am too selfish to want to put myself in that situation. I have always been terrified of getting pregnant before I was ready for the responsibility, something that I has always been very open about with my partners.

If you look at statistics, close to 1/2 of all women that had an abortion in 2009 had already had at least one previous abortion (the only two women that I know had abortions in real life had two each, that I know of). I wish that number was lower, because to me it just shows a nonchalant attitude towards life - both regarding the potential new human being and towards the mother herself (because I honestly believe that guilt catches up eventually, but I may be completely wrong).
I would never encourage a friend to have an abortion. However, I would not judge her if she decided to have one and I would be supportive in either case.

I think that late termination of pregnancy (defined as >20 weeks pregnancy) is an absolutely discusting practice and very strict rules need to be applied.

Parts of my pro-choice reasoning are 
a) there are circumstances where you may not have many choices but to abort, ex rape, incest, a very young mother (physical damage to a very young mother can be severe), severe & terminal issues for mother & child, severe mental disorder in mother
b) it is not my place to decide what other people choose to do. I don't know their reasons and its none of my business to know or to judge.
c) going down the pro-life path is dangerous and can often lead to illegal & dangerous terminations, further feelings of guilt for the mother, a power tool for abusive men, a bureaucratic system where there is no room for leniency
d) the choice should be up to the woman in question, not to a bundle of politicians - especially not the ones who are under the rediculous misconception that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." in reference to pregnancies. Sigh!


----------



## XO Skeleton (Jan 18, 2011)

I just love how much ppl are in each others business. Most likely u will never meet this person or the person who would have been. I just don't understand why ppl are so concerned with how others live their lives.

My philosophy is that if it doesn't me then go about ur business. Same thing with same sex. I'm 110% straight but if its man man woman woman do what u do; just don't try ang get me to be a part of ur sexcapades.

Tldr: pro choice :/


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

Pro-Choice

Feminism and stuff

Roe v. Wade decided this in the 70's. Why are republicans and christian interest groups suddenly making a big deal about this all of a sudden?

Also, this is a morally ambiguous gray area subject mattter. Who decides a person's morals? That person. Not the government.

AAAaaNNNNDDD women don't just call each other up and say "Hey girl! Wanna go get manicures and abortions this weekend?" There's usually a reason for the decision. It's sort of a like a Plan C for birth control. Only to be used in extreme cases.


----------



## sanari (Aug 23, 2011)

I am pro life because I believe a child is a person shortly after conception.


----------



## prince_burns (Jul 3, 2013)

aizen said:


> Most curious about the opinions of NTs specifically. Also list reasoning as to why?


I'm pro life. I've had two children die. One during pregnancy, the other was in danger and a c-section was performed. She lasted 7 days. My wife was devastated, I was pretty shook up. I can't imagine the malice that would consume a person to destroy a child out of convenience, regardless of whether you were raped or simply an irresponsible teen who doesn't know how to use a condom. Let alone it being YOUR OWN CHILD. Secondly, abortionists don't necessarily come with a doctorate. I've heard many stories of abortions causing perforation of the colon through the vagina, abortionists delivering prematurely live babies and decapitating them, infection, damage to the uterus. The list goes on and on and I'm not even a doctor. I'm a military mechanic and I hear about this stuff all the time. I discourage abortion but I don't condemn anyone for doing it. I'm just really against it.


----------



## yentipeee (Jun 19, 2013)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> Pro-Choice
> 
> Feminism and stuff
> 
> ...


ha ha I love your ass ass in lol

In all other western countries, abortion is strictly a matter between a woman and her doctor, not a political issue. So it is totally bizarre that a bunch of old rednex in US Congress are even allowed to talk about it (on grounds of separation of church & state), that would never happen in EU countries.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

yentipeee said:


> ha ha I love your ass ass in lol
> 
> In all other western countries, abortion is strictly a matter between a woman and her doctor, not a political issue. So it is totally bizarre that a bunch of old rednex in US Congress are even allowed to talk about it (on grounds of separation of church & state), that would never happen in EU countries.


Yeah, the u.s. is also a super religious country, such to the extent that electing an atheist/agnostic/non-religious person to any sort of government seat is completely taboo. It would never happen.

Which is ironic, because most of our founding fathers were agnostic, and part of the reason the u.s. was founded was to avoid religious persecution.

We've taken a step backward, and it's embarrassing.


----------



## DrJakeyll (Nov 11, 2012)

Tuff N TiNi said:


> That's true. My life won't be ruined.
> 
> But I think that there are enough children in the orphanages already. Besides, why should I be pregnant in the frost place if I don't want to and suffer an unnecessary financial loss? And I don't think I want to uselessly squeeze a watermelon-sized object through a coin sized hole and suffer the consequences. I also think that the less people there are in the world, the better off the rest of the people and the planet are.



Frankly, that's VERY selfish. And if you're having sex when you aren't willing/able to raise a kid, DON'T HAVE SEX. I realize that my opinion of post-marital sex only seems...prudish, but you should stop if you're so self-absorbed that you'd delete someone's chance at life in order to avoid some pain (though I know it's an UNBELIEVABLE amount of pain). THAT'S "why you should be pregnant in the first place". It's because you're having sex. Did you miss SexEd or something? Seriously. 

And it's not USELESS. You would be bringing a child into the world. From a basic ethical standpoint, you're giving someone life. OR you an choose to stop someone from ever experiencing....ANYTHING. And from a Darwinist standpoint: What's the point f life if you don't produce a child/raise someone? 

And what you really mean to say is that it's ether for YOU if you don't have that baby. I know you've willing out wool over your eyes and blinders to boot, but take them off for a second; why should YOU, an imperfect, amoral human (like everyone else), get to determine the fate of another? That baby is innocent, besides the I inherent sin nature which is in everyone. It has not sinned or wronged YOU or ANYONE. So push through those 12 hours of blinding pain (literally) and think about that.


PS: The only financial loss is the medical bills. And, btw, lots f couples would pay good money for one hot-out-of-the-oven.


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

Jennywocky said:


> It probably should have been <BLEEP!> as soon as the test showed two lines.
> 
> Srsly, can this topic ever be discussed seriously on this forum? Not trying to be cynical, it's just a volatile topic and quickly gets dominated by the extremes, the moderates are overshadowed.
> 
> I think the two positions are pitting two general goods (self-autonomy vs respect for the life/natural process) needlessly against each other. Someone can believe strongly in both life and choice, and approach the topic with more complexity than an either/or band-aid.


Good observation! A good debate is about (valid) arguments instead of just stating opinions and feelings. 

The topic is always of to a bad start because the premise of presenting only 2 options is already a rhetological fallacy.

Plus, because of the heavy personal feelings people are mostly just stating their opinions and then use their personal feelings about it as backing for that opinion.

From the debates forum 'stickies': Rhetological Fallacies | Information Is Beautiful

Read up, people, if you haven't yet - you'll start thinking in a different way.

...

Maybe this is a nice experiment - starting a thread on this topic with the rule of kicking any people from it who make a fallacy and refuse to withdraw the false argument. Hmm.


----------



## Accidie (Jul 11, 2013)

If you are against abortion, by all means, do not have one. No one is forcing you to. Show the same courtesy to others.

First off, I consider the terms to be anti-choice and pro-choice, or pro-birth and pro-choice if you like. The people who care the most about life in this equation are the people who place value on the woman's life, and the welfare of her existing children if she has them (most do).

Secondly, I'm sorry not sorry if I don't place much stock in the opinion of anti-choice men. You will NEVER experience pregnancy under any circumstance, so stop trying to lord over women who can.

Third, giving birth and raising a child should NEVER be a "punishment". You are not pro-life, you are sex-negative, particularly sex had by women. I have more respect, however little, for people who think abortion is unacceptable no matter what than for people who think it's okay under some circumstances and not others.

When you vote for criminalizing abortion, you aren't voting to put a stop to it, you're voting to make it UNSAFE. Because women are going to get abortions no matter what. Numerable women will die. Countless children will be orphaned. Still think you're pro-life?

Adoption? How many pro-lifers here have serious plans to adopt or have already adopted a child? A child over 6 years old, a black or Hispanic child, a child with moderate to severe physical or developmental problems? There are about 500,000 children in foster care right now, a system which is horribly underfunded. Go advocate for them instead. I think they need it more.



DrJakeyll said:


> And it's not USELESS. You would be bringing a child into the world. From a basic ethical standpoint, you're giving someone life. OR you an choose to stop someone from ever experiencing....ANYTHING. And from a Darwinist standpoint: What's the point f life if you don't produce a child/raise someone?
> 
> PS: The only financial loss is the medical bills. And, btw, lots f couples would pay good money for one hot-out-of-the-oven.


Would you say this same thing to the face of a woman who could not conceive? What about gay couples who can't or don't want to adopt? What about Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent Van Gogh, Sir Isaac Newton, Beethoven, Florence Nightingale, Oprah Winfrey, John Locke, etc I could go on all day. They contributed absolutely zilch to society, amirite?

P.S. So, baby-making as a business? And they call pro-choicers immoral.


* *




Articles and videos.

New report shows how the principle of “personhood” is already criminalizing pregnancy in the US

First Of All, Republicans, 88 Pregnancies A Day From Rape Is Not ‘Rare’ | Eclectablog

The Fallacy of Rape, Incest, and Life Endangerment Clauses

Why a 20-Week Abortion Ban Is Unthinkable: One Woman

Newsflash: Pregnancy Is Hard But Anti-Choicers Refuse to Admit It

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/m...d=1&adxnnlx=1374754732-Ihw37Dq/4gRAD9xoCGipuw

I Wish My Mother Had Aborted Me | Fem2pt0


----------



## prince_burns (Jul 3, 2013)

Pro-life. I watched my daughter die at seven days old. Next question.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Saw this a moment ago, so I thought I'd toss it in:

Majority Supports Legal Abortion, But Details Indicate Ambivalence - ABC News



> Most Americans continue to support legal abortion, as many oppose making it more difficult for abortion clinics to operate and two-thirds say the U.S. Constitution should trump state abortion laws. But views on legal time limits for abortions mark underlying ambivalence on the issue.
> 
> Fifty-five percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 41 percent believe it should be entirely or mostly illegal. Those almost exactly match their long-term averages, 55-42 percent, in more than 30 ABC/Post polls since 1995.
> 
> ...


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

Hmm. Let me try. 

The basic problem in law is "*murder* vs *reproductive rights*":

*Murder*:
The elements of common law murder are:


Unlawful
killing
of a human
by another human
with malice aforethought.

*Versus reproductive rights*:
"Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence"

The difficult part is: what is a human: At what point is an unborn child a human, a separate person? 

=> That's were it gets difficult and philosophical. This question has been debated by medical experts, philosophers etc. and has _never been solved_. 

According to US law, it's illegal to abort past: "either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."

So that would mean it would be murder after that point (at least in the US). 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for the moral points:

I'd argue for 'pro-choice' from the following points:

1) Men and women are equals as human beings and should have the same rights; even if they have different physiology. Men cannot biologically become pregnant; but women should be able to choose also not to become pregnant/reproduce based on equality. 

If it happens without the woman's concious choice then based on this the woman should be able to choose to end it. 

2) Furthermore personal rights from the moment of conception onwards change - a baby does not have the same rights/obligations right from the birth as an adult. 

A lot of choices are made for a child - it gradually gets more freedom/own choices as it grows up. We find this normal, we even judge the actions of a child in a different way - even crimes. And the parents are held accountable for the actions of the child for a long time. 

If do not find it illogical in this gradual increase in rights then that a mother would be entitled to end the life of her unborn child as it does not have the same 'rights' as a born child yet.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

I had the pleasure of taking a 'Life Management Skills' course at my Christian high school. It was taught by an obnoxiously conservative yet genuinely kind person. I couldn't hate the guy because he was so open and friendly and cared for all of his students. But the shit he said about abortion.....

First, he coined the phrase "You're either Pro-Life or Pro-Death." Then he described the process of an actual abortion in graphic detail. He grabbed a vacuum cleaner, stuck the hose into a sink, and vacuumed this putrid, toxic-looking blood-red/yellow liquid that was precariously forming a pool below the faucet. While the sink was drained, he was screaming to our class: "THIS CHILD WILL NEVER GET TO EXPERIENCE LIFE. YOU ARE EITHER PROMOTING THE LOVE OF GOD OR THE DEATH OF INNOCENTS."

I really liked that class.


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

@absyrd - wow. That was a private school I hope?

My stance is simple: the US government should not be allowed to intervene here whatsoever.

The bottom line for the anti abortion is this: they identify the child as a human. All other arguments are secondary supporters of the anti cause, thus much less relevant.

The bottom line for pro choice groups is that it is a woman's choice, and the infant is too young/undeveloped for it to experience pain.

Ultimately the pro life argument fails, as it is a focus on spirituality (the child has a spirit), which cannot be proven. I generally avoid the subject altogether as a) it's not logical on both sides, and b) I'm not a women.


----------



## absyrd (Jun 1, 2013)

@Revenant

It was indeed a private school. It was indeed the most frustrating five years that a left-wing atheist could ever experience. Not a single teacher in that school wanted me alive. Not a single tear would I shed if their deaths would soon arrive. 

Rhymerhymerhymerhyme


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

To condense my opinion quickly:

Early term abortions should be completely legal
Mid to later term abortions should be dependent on other factors, so not available on request.

Although I personally don't care about abortion, I thought I'd take a middle ground that hopefully most can agree upon.


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Pro-Life by practice and rationale! 

I'm a little surprised at how quickly so many "NT's" take the mainstreamers Pro-Choice talking point bait without giving the topic further thought.... Well, I was surprised until I read on a little further...
It seems that a near majority of "NT's" here, feel the need to compulsively remark on how liberal and anti-religious they are. I'm convinced that this is done in an attempt to prove to themselves and to other "NT's" that they are in fact "NT"... After all, everyone says "NT's" are supposed to be raging, godless, liberals, therefor, if I am to convince myself that my type truly is an "NT" type, I must fit the protocol.... Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... And if I want others to believe me when I tell them I'm a "NT" then I must spew the usual remarks for them as well.... Right?
" Yeah... Liberal this.. Screw God/ religion that... I'm an athiest.. Well I'm agnostic... Well I personally watched the faces of several children droop while I told them that Santa Clause isn't real!.... Pro-Choice? Of course I am! None of that religious based Pro-Life bull for me!"...

What a joke.... Yeah, fine. Be a raging, godless, liberal if you wish, but do so because you've convinced yourself that your rationale is sound, not because, as a "NT", you're supposed to.

With that said, lets unpack some of the junk in this trunk. 
To start with, I'll admit... Ok, you've got me on the " a woman should be free to choose to abort a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest blah blah blah" argument. This one actually has some form of logic associated with it. But, lets not be foolish... Out of approximately 1.2 million Abortions performed in the Us each year, less 1% are due to rape/ incest....
Really?... That argument is just a bug sized blip on the radar when were actually talking about the B-52 poised perfectly in the center of the screen...
So, then, why do women have abortions? Reasons... Hmmm... A reason? Oh! I found a few:
By percentage
• 21% Inadequate finances
• 21% Not ready for responsibility
• 16% Woman’s life would be changed too much
• 12% Problems with relationships, unmarried
• 11% Too young and/or immature
• 8% Children are grown; she has all she wants
• 3% Baby has possible health problems
• <1% Pregnancy caused by rape/incest
• 4% Other

So, in other words, nearly all abortions performed were for reasons that are directly related to irresponsibility. 

I did read one comment mentioning some sex-positive mumbo-jumbo, but, if the typical "NT" atheistic/[ insert awkward title here] mindset were to be used, we would deduce that life, as the pure result of biology, purposed the act of sex for procreation.... Am I right? If this is the case, it should be easy for a "NT" to see that two people engaging in sexual activity could very likely end with conception.... 
Hot stove burns hand! Don't touch... Sharp blade cuts flesh! Keep away from finger... Fart make you gag! Don't sniff.... Sex makes babies! Don't want baby? Don't have sex....

It all comes down to irresponsibility. Furthermore, the cycle progresses. Irresponsibility turns to rectification. When rectification is abortion, further irresponsibility is enabled... Of the women obtaining abortions in any given year, about 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion.....there's the proof... Vicious cycle, I'd say...
What a waste.
And, as far as damage done, beyond the destruction of an embryo, consider the other sexual and social side effects such irresponsibility entails. Can anyone say STD? Try to think of someone who is totally oblivious to what an STD is... Odds are, if they're over 8, they know a little about them. 

As for the " it's just a clump of cells until blah blah blah"...comments, Who cares! It's just a ploy, a distraction, a justification that's used to cover the heaping pile of irresponsibility it's sitting on! 
And as far as the whole "child's life quality" thing goes, or " a child shouldn't be a punishment" argument, I agree... But how irrational is it to think that abortion is the answer to that problem? It's like taking a poop with your pants on... You kinda feel relieved, but you still have the crap to deal with... 

I think we all need to heed Bob Barkers advice: " and remember... Have your pets spayed and neutered".... Its not that we should view others as pets, or that we should sterilize portions of the human population, but that prevention is the best cure for what would inevitably turn out badly... If the wacky, feelery, animal nut people understand that, why can't we?


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Wow! That was ridiculously long! Sorry... By the way, I'm new. Please let be know if/ when I'm responsible for broken rules. I would also appreciate a heads up if I have something between my teeth or if my crack is hanging out.... Thanks!!!


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

@_TechGyver_ 

So many bad arguments; this could be used as an exercise. So let's!

http://personalitycafe.com/debate-forum/122969-rhetorical-logical-fallacies-avoid-when-debating.html



TechGyver said:


> Pro-Life by practice and rationale!]
> 
> I'm a little surprised at how quickly so many "NT's"


"NTs" implies you don't believe they are NTs, irrelevant personal attack - _ad hominem_. You do this throughout your whole post. 



> take the mainstreamers Pro-Choice talking point bait without giving the topic further thought....


You generalize - quote what you're reacting to. 



> It seems that a near majority of "NT's" here, feel the need to compulsively remark on how liberal and anti-religious they are.


'It seems' is not evidence; You don't provide a quote; furthermore, grouping all NTs based on a few quotes is biased generalizing.



> I'm convinced that this is done in an attempt to prove to themselves and to other "NT's" that they are in fact "NT"...


Your personal conviction is not an argument. Plus, this is a clear case of jumping to conclusions. 



> After all, everyone says "NT's" are supposed to be raging, godless, liberals,


This is appealing to anonymous authority - 'everyone says' is not an argument. 



> therefor, if I am to convince myself that my type truly is an "NT" type, I must fit the protocol.... Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... And if I want others to believe me when I tell them I'm a "NT" then I must spew the usual remarks for them as well.... Right?


Jumping to conclusions again. Plus, this is oversimplification of the views of a group of people.



> " Yeah... Liberal this.. Screw God/ religion that... I'm an athiest.. Well I'm agnostic... Well I personally watched the faces of several children droop while I told them that Santa Clause isn't real!.... Pro-Choice? Of course I am! None of that religious based Pro-Life bull for me!"...


This was made up by you and not taken from a real discussion.



> What a joke.... Yeah, fine. Be a raging, godless, liberal if you wish, but do so because you've convinced yourself that your rationale is sound, not because, as a "NT", you're supposed to.


This is again a personal attack against a group - plus it tells a group of people how they are supposed to behave according to (your) belief. I'd say that seems like 'appealing to common practice'.



> So, then, why do women have abortions? Reasons... Hmmm... A reason? Oh! I found a few:
> By percentage
> • 21% Inadequate finances
> • 21% Not ready for responsibility
> ...


Please provide the source so others can verify your claim.



> I did read one comment mentioning some sex-positive mumbo-jumbo


You don't mention the quote - and 'mumbo-jumbo' is the 'appeal to ridicule' fallacy - you present it in an absurd way and therefore dismiss it. 



> QUOTE, but, if the typical "NT" atheistic/[ insert awkward title here] mindset were to be used


Again, ad-hominem, generalizing, ridiculing of NTs. 



> , we would deduce that life, as the pure result of biology, purposed the act of sex for procreation.... Am I right?


Again, jumping to conclusions. You don't bother to post a typical NT claim and it's not made clear how this supports your claim. 



> If this is the case, it should be easy for a "NT" to see that two people engaging in sexual activity could very likely end with conception....
> Hot stove burns hand! Don't touch... Sharp blade cuts flesh! Keep away from finger... Fart make you gag! Don't sniff.... Sex makes babies! Don't want baby? Don't have sex....


You make it seem that NTs are stupid by claiming something obvious and then making it seem like NTs don't get that. Then making a lot of oversimplified, unrelated analogies. 



> It all comes down to irresponsibility. Furthermore, the cycle progresses. Irresponsibility turns to rectification. When rectification is abortion, further irresponsibility is enabled...


There's an implied 'slippery slope' that's not supported by evidence. 



> Of the women obtaining abortions in any given year, about 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion


 Provide the source so others can verify.




> And, as far as damage done, beyond the destruction of an embryo, consider the other sexual and social side effects such irresponsibility entails. Can anyone say STD? Try to think of someone who is totally oblivious to what an STD is... Odds are, if they're over 8, they know a little about them.


This is 'appealing to fear'; by mentioning STDs prejudice towards the other side is increased. Plus, there's no clear linking argument provided between STDs and abortion.



> As for the " it's just a clump of cells until blah blah blah"...comments, Who cares! It's just a ploy, a distraction, a justification that's used to cover the heaping pile of irresponsibility it's sitting on!


This overly dramatic, misleading vividness. Plus it's just a confirmation of your own bias -> I believe they are irresponsible, therefore their arguments are false. 



> And as far as the whole "child's life quality" thing goes, or " a child shouldn't be a punishment" argument, I agree... But how irrational is it to think that abortion is the answer to that problem? It's like taking a poop with your pants on... You kinda feel relieved, but you still have the crap to deal with...


 This is a false analogy. You claim pooping your pants and having to deal with the 'crap' is comparable to having an abortion and dealing with the after effects. 



> I think we all need to heed Bob Barkers advice: " and remember... Have your pets spayed and neutered".... Its not that we should view others as pets, or that we should sterilize portions of the human population, but that prevention is the best cure for what would inevitably turn out badly... If the wacky, feelery, animal nut people understand that, why can't we?


Not really sure about what you're trying to say here.

To sum it up, try and avoid rhetological fallacies because they make it impossible to have a real debate.

EDIT: And welcome 

EDIT: And don't get me wrong, my main gripe with this thread is with posts providing only their conclusions/opinions and don't even bother to try and provide arguments. Which means no possibility for debate. I appreciate your effort for putting this 'out there'. I'm not personally attacking you, just your post. Just to be clear


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Awesome! I appreciate the post autopsy! Your right, the post is largely rhetorical and was intended to be. As you said:
"And don't get me wrong, my main gripe with this thread is with posts providing only their conclusions/opinions and don't even bother to try and provide arguments". 

Ditto! I started reading this thread in hopes of learning something ( data/ fact/ logic) that could potentially offer further enlightenment to the Pro-Choice point of view. But, after reading BS post after BS post ( and a few good ones, which had to be dug out) written by those of the NT persuasion ( no I don't deny that they are in fact NT), I quite frankly got mad! I went at it in double barrel shot gun style in hopes of motivating an attack that might hold more logical weight and possibly cause others to consider using the same guidelines your reply mentions. In order to prove me wrong, someone will have to pull out fact that can disprove the underlying concept of my post- Abortion, in nearly all present day cases, is driven by irresponsible behavior which could simply be avoided by pregnancy prevention...

Yeah, it does kinda have a weird motivational speaker kind of feel to it ( gotta stop listening to those tapes...), but hopefully, at some level, I got a point across. 

If I were to have commented on a thread that contained posts that were ideally structured, you never would have seen that side of me. But... It didn't appear to me that there would be an issue with the flippant Ne "Wild West" guns blazing approach... LoL! ( plus that's kinda fun to get out of the system from time to time)

Feel free to school me further! Did you weigh in on the matter? I don't remember seeing a post. 

BTW, I have a big smile on my face knowing that I made a more civilized person than I say (type) poop and crap!.... Hahaha


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

TechGyver said:


> Awesome! I appreciate the post autopsy! Your right, the post is largely rhetorical and was intended to be. As you said:
> "And don't get me wrong, my main gripe with this thread is with posts providing only their conclusions/opinions and don't even bother to try and provide arguments".
> 
> Ditto! I started reading this thread in hopes of learning something ( data/ fact/ logic) that could potentially offer further enlightenment to the Pro-Choice point of view. But, after reading BS post after BS post ( and a few good ones, which had to be dug out) written by those of the NT persuasion ( no I don't deny that they are in fact NT), I quite frankly got mad! I went at it in double barrel shot gun style in hopes of motivating an attack that might hold more logical weight and possibly cause others to consider using the same guidelines your reply mentions. In order to prove me wrong, someone will have to pull out fact that can disprove the underlying concept of my post- Abortion, in nearly all present day cases, is driven by irresponsible behavior which could simply be avoided by pregnancy prevention...
> ...


Page 10. Feel free to react.

I don't have any advice now other than that I'd recommend anyone to read the stickies in the 'debates' forum. Plus, @Jennywocky provided some good context on page 10 as well. 

Don't know about the 'more civilized' part though... .


----------



## Xenograft (Jul 1, 2013)

@TechGyver, I got out of bed purely to tell you how silly you are being. I'm not going to reiterate all of what Alles posted, but I'm going to explain something, because I think you have a misconception about this thread.

Yes, some people who post, especially those who have posted multiple times, will argue and explain their stance, but this was a question and answer post, not a question and explain in great detail with 1000 words or less your stance on abortion and why or why not it should ever occur. You seem to have this idea that that is what this thread was asking, when in reality it was an ask and answer (another logical fallacy, fun fact, but not in this regard), and so a lot of your "fake NTs" didn't include a thesis on their reasoning behind their opinion because they didn't see any need to. 

Also, please, in future posts, please try to stop generalising so much, there was quite a good deal of it in your first post on here, and it really isn't appreciated. 

Thanks.


----------



## Alles_Paletti (May 15, 2013)

Lazy Bear said:


> @_TechGyver_, this was a question and answer post, not a question and explain in great detail with 1000 words or less your stance on abortion and why or why not it should ever occur. You seem to have this idea that that is what this thread was asking, when in reality it was an ask and answer (another logical fallacy, fun fact, but not in this regard), and so a lot of your "fake NTs" didn't include a thesis on their reasoning behind their opinion because they didn't see any need to.


I know this isn't aimed at me. But just have to say:

The OP asked: "Most curious about the opinions of NTs specifically. _*Also list reasoning as to why?"*
_


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Alles_Paletti said:


> I know this isn't aimed at me. But just have to say:
> 
> The OP asked: "Most curious about the opinions of NTs specifically. _*Also list reasoning as to why?"*
> _


I plan to respond more to Tech's post later, when I'm not on cell; but yeah, I think this is the Debate forum and thus actual reasons/rational arguments are helpful.


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Alles_Paletti said:


> Page 10. Feel free to react.
> 
> I don't have any advice now other than that I'd recommend anyone to read the stickies in the 'debates' forum. Plus, @Jennywocky provided some good context on page 10 as well.
> 
> Don't know about the 'more civilized' part though... .



Thank you sir! Will take a look!

Edit- I most certainly missed page 10. I think I gave up at 7 or 8 and fired my shot... Oh well...



Lazy Bear said:


> @TechGyver, I got out of bed purely to tell you how silly you are being. I'm not going to reiterate all of what Alles posted, but I'm going to explain something, because I think you have a misconception about this thread.
> 
> Yes, some people who post, especially those who have posted multiple times, will argue and explain their stance, but this was a question and answer post, not a question and explain in great detail with 1000 words or less your stance on abortion and why or why not it should ever occur. You seem to have this idea that that is what this thread was asking, when in reality it was an ask and answer (another logical fallacy, fun fact, but not in this regard), and so a lot of your "fake NTs" didn't include a thesis on their reasoning behind their opinion because they didn't see any need to.
> 
> ...



[ tried to post back earlier but page wouldn't load.. Thought I had been banned.. Lol]

Good morning sunshine! I'm glad you got up early to reply, because I stayed up late posting my rhetoric. 

As far as the 1000 word thing goes... All the other kids were doing it and I felt left out!

Loosen up a little there hotshot! Life is to short to walk around with a wedgy up to your neck!

BYW...Lazy Bear... I genuinely love that name. However, my ridiculously "silly" imagination pictures you choosing your name after an intuitive burst of insight, while lying on your back on a starry night, staring up at the Big Dipper ( Ursa Major), and tripping on some narcotic.... Sorry, to go there. No harm intended! ( please don't hate me....I was born this way)

Edit- No hard feelings...



Alles_Paletti said:


> I know this isn't aimed at me. But just have to say:
> 
> The OP asked: "Most curious about the opinions of NTs specifically. _*Also list reasoning as to why?"*
> _



LOL!!!


----------



## VamPie (Dec 25, 2012)

Pro-choice. I can't see how a foetus' good should prevail over woman's or girl's good. The woman is a real, existing person who feels and suffers and makes choices. Foetus is not. Even if it's big enough to feel pain, it's still not an argument - animals feel pain,too, they feel much more than human foetuses. They feel fear, many of them are aware of themselves to some point, they are scared of death and pain. Also, naturally a lot of pregnancies are just terminated by a body, usually in very early stages, so that in years it wasn't even known. 
Study Finds 31% Rate of Miscarriage - NYTimes.com
If abortion is murder those are tragic infant deaths... Now I know that people grieve over miscarriages, but not after those they don't know about. And anyway, the conception isn't equal with start of a new human life, it's rather a chance of such life starting, a foetus being born and becoming a baby who becomes an aware person. 
It would be perfect if foetuses could be just taken out and grown outside, then being adopted by somebody, but it's not possible. I think forcing a woman to undergo a pregnancy she doesn't want is unnecessarily cruelty. Actually I see pro-life as anti-choice and pro-life doesn't make sense for me... what life? Animals and plants and bacteria are also life. One cannot save all the life. We have to choose, even when it's morally hard. 
I also don't like negative influence of anti-abortion laws on society. It's horrible. Sooner or later it ends up with pregnant women dying because they are refused medical help. It also result with illegal, unsafe abortion and in some environments infanticide.


What's best about pro-choice is that you don't have to get abortion if you don't want to. Even if it endangers your life.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

@_VamPie_: Glad you made that post, you said some things I had planned to say but just hadn't gotten to it yet.

One important point is that pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion: It instead is the ability of someone to decide for herself (and even himself, if the father is part of that decision) about a decision with huge repercussions on the future of multiple people. It is not just support for a woman choosing an abortion but for a woman NOT to choose it (for example if authority figures in a family or even the government in some countries would decide for the parents whether or not they'd be allowed to carry their baby to term). 

I have an evangelical friend who chose to carry her Trisome 18 baby to term and is raising her as best as she can with her husband, with all that entails -- and I support her decision to choose that, whereas people (including medical professionals) were trying to dissuade them from continuing with the pregnancy, as most children born with that condition die very young. (That little girl is currently beating the odds btw... half die at birth, and only 10% of those reach their first birthday, and I think she is currently 2+ years old.) 

Anyway, that is what freedom of choice is -- not just to choose to terminate, but to choose not to terminate even when others might try to force your hand. As you note, a woman can even choose to risk her own life, possibly die, if that is what she believes she needs to do. 

I was also glad to see you quote the miscarriage rate, to save me the trouble. If all those fetuses are "human life" and one thinks God creates human life at conception, then God is essentially murdering (directly or indirectly) 1 out of every 3 children who are conceived. I think that is rather preposterous. Hence, what is more likely is that there is something we don't understand about human life and all of this works. The most we can say is that it's a big decision and then leave it to the people who have been placed in charge of said decision.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

TechGyver said:


> I went at it in double barrel shot gun style in hopes of motivating an attack that might hold more logical weight and possibly cause others to consider using the same guidelines your reply mentions. In order to prove me wrong, someone will have to pull out fact that can disprove the underlying concept of my post- Abortion, in nearly all present day cases, is driven by irresponsible behavior which could simply be avoided by pregnancy prevention...


I'm feeling kind of burned out tonight, but I'll at least lob you my initial reaction to this paragraph and see what you do with it.

I think pregnancy prevention is preferable to abortion. I don't even know who would argue otherwise -- I mean, isn't it always better to not create the problem, than have to resolve a problem after it occurs?

I did have a pretty bristly response to the word "irresponsible," however. I didn't see the earlier post by you, sorry if it was explained better there, and while I agree in some cases that the word "irresponsible" might be appropriate, for one it doesn't seem particularly fair in terms of context of which many of these unplanned pregnancies occur. At least in the United States, we are living in a society where a large faction of those who are anti-abortion are also against birth control and sex education, and instead try to promote "abstinence" ... which if it fails is far more likely to result in a pregnancy than someone actually using birth control. (These are the same people currently bitching about Obama's ACA and trying to have BC removed from it, the same people who were trying to have women's BC pills not even covered by insurance.) 

And of course, then we have a lack of understanding of birth control and how it works, so it might not be used as effectively as it needs to be. And we have a culture that both glamorizes AND vilifies sex simultaneously. And we attach shaming to being sexually active and thus further discourage people from using BC. Etc. 

So ultimately It's not just a matter of someone totally having access to BC and knowing how to use it appropriately and just choosing to not even bother, it's typically the uneducated or the shamed or the misinformed, whose parents were too squeamish to talk to them about sex openly or weren't even there, who then get pregnant. IOW, I think our culture sucks and needs to get its act together; if you want to claim the people are irresponsible, we also have to label the culture as irresponsible... and that even includes some of the people who are anti-abortion. They contribute to the mess.

My other issue is that you've focused on the ideal without dealing with the problem. That's NICE that unplanned pregnancy should be avoidable, but in the meanwhile, what do we do with all the unplanned pregnancies? Your comment is merely a moral statement but not a very practical one -- and abortion is just one alternative that isn't preferable; without it, we also have a bunch of other crappy outcomes like abandoned/abused kids who either don't survive or who grow up to just perpetual the cycle. We need ways to deal with whatever solution our country decides is acceptable.


----------



## Kazoo The Kid (May 26, 2013)

I am morally against abortion. But I'm pro choice because pushing your own morals on others is wrong. End of story.

In a pro-choice world people can choose to not have abortions. Pro-life limits your choices. No one is right when they say "THE BABY IS ALIVE AT _____" because the baby is literally alive since its a sperm. 

Pro-choice allows everyone have their own opinions and options while pro-life forces a certain opinion and outlook on everybody.


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Jennywocky said:


> I'm feeling kind of burned out tonight, but I'll at least lob you my initial reaction to this paragraph and see what you do with it.
> 
> I think pregnancy prevention is preferable to abortion. I don't even know who would argue otherwise -- I mean, isn't it always better to not create the problem, than have to resolve a problem after it occurs?
> 
> ...



I see where your coming from, however, Im not sure that you completely understand my point. This is mostly my fault, as I have done a poor job of presenting it. I'll work on clarifying further and get back with you. Thanks for the input!


----------



## Emtropy (Feb 3, 2013)

I am pro-choice; naturally, being female. It makes me queasy to think about the government deciding what I can and can't do with my body - because that is essentially what pro-choice is: a choice. Not pro-abortion, or pro-killing babies. (which is debatable too) 

Even if you are absolutely against abortions, you shouldn't force your decision on someone else. Women are gonna get abortions either way: and I think everyone would prefer a safe option rather than a non-professional, life-risking abortion.

I don't mean to be sexist, but I do wonder what would happen if men could get pregnant. I'm sure the government would place abortion clinics on every corner.


----------



## Collie (Apr 15, 2013)

"I'm not pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion. Talk someone _into_ it."

I hate kids, so if you don't want 'em, don't have 'em. Makes no difference to me. Just like drugs and alcohol, it's a private property issue: do what you want with your own body, and shut up about what I do with my own.


----------



## Fish Launcher (Jan 14, 2013)

DrJakeyll said:


> And what you really mean to say is that it's ether for YOU if you don't have that baby. I know you've willing out wool over your eyes and blinders to boot, but take them off for a second; why should YOU, an imperfect, amoral human (like everyone else), get to determine the fate of another? That baby is innocent, besides the I inherent sin nature which is in everyone. It has not sinned or wronged YOU or ANYONE. So push through those 12 hours of blinding pain (literally) and think about that.


Who are you to force your morals upon others? Morals and rights are a human invention; made for human benefit, and they vary from person to person. What is right to one person could be wrong to another, and vice versa, because there is no absolute "right" or "wrong".

Besides, pro-life = forcing a certain opinion upon everyone. I can easily choose not to have an abortion if it was legal. Pro-choice, as the name suggests, gives you a choice. It gives you freedom. Pro-life would be too restricting.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

I'm pro-choice, as it gives the freedom to do what you want, if you don't like to abort, you can take that way, but if you want to abort nobody will scorn you for taking that decision.

Being pro-life only restricts women into a system that doesn't allow them to take an informed choice, and that's pretty notorious between ultra conservative folks, which thinks that women are only beings that are useful for reproduction and nothing more.

Besides, if find highly hypocritical that right winged politicians defend the life of an unborn baby, but they do nothing for helping poor people, because most of them care only about maintaining a system that exploits the rest of the population. This is at least clear in Chile, where poor people has a slim chance of getting out of their circle of lack of opportunities.


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Mugino Shizuri said:


> I'm pro-choice, as it gives the freedom to do what you want, if you don't like to abort, you can take that way, but if you want to abort nobody will scorn you for taking that decision.
> 
> Being pro-life only restricts women into a system that doesn't allow them to take an informed choice, and that's pretty notorious between ultra conservative folks, which thinks that women are only beings that are useful for reproduction and nothing more.
> 
> Besides, if find highly hypocritical that right winged politicians defend the life of an unborn baby, but they do nothing for helping poor people, because most of them care only about maintaining a system that exploits the rest of the population. This is at least clear in Chile, where poor people has a slim chance of getting out of their circle of lack of opportunities.


Yeah, but, if I'm not mistaken, Chile is a socialist country. I'm not sure how that's comparable to US conservitive, Pro-life politics....


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

TechGyver said:


> Yeah, but, if I'm not mistaken, Chile is a socialist country. I'm not sure how that's comparable to US conservitive, Pro-life politics....


The current government is right winged, and even if Chile is more left winged in general, the people that controls the economics and the politicians that block changes for legalizing abortion (which became illegal some time before the fall of Pinochet's dictatorship if I recall correctly), are from the Opus Dei and Christ Legionaries, and still you will find really reactionary people in Chile.


----------



## Cossack (Jul 26, 2013)

I thought it was pretty ironic/funny when Wendy Davis filibustered the anti-abortion bill and Rick "Retard" Perry was advocating the preservation of life, Texas executed its 300 prisoner.


----------



## aphinion (Apr 30, 2013)

Pro-choice. Why should I care what other people do? 

Also, if a woman can't back out of being a mother, then a man shouldn't be able to back out of being a father. If we're following the same logic here.


----------



## Mr.Adrian (Oct 11, 2010)

Pro-choice. We have the technology and we are human who make mistakes. 

Furthermore, rapist who make their victim pregnant. I could not imagine someone who wanted to keep the baby. But hey, maybe I will meet such a person today.


----------



## OutZoned (Aug 2, 2013)

Pro-Choice. As a male, I have no standing to actively promote a policy that would force half the population into a choice when I will never be in the exact same position of a woman contemplating an abortion. 

If I was in a relationship, I would be sure to discuss this issue with my partner and find out what her perspective was so that we could come to a mutual agreement as to what course of action we would take together. 

However, no matter the input from men, abortion is by definition a woman's health issue (and by extension a couple's health issue). Who am I to force that on someone?

Also note that pro-choice does not mean "forced abortion" whereas pro-life certainly means "forced birth" no matter the framing. Nobody is going around making laws to force pregnant women to have an abortion. It is entirely possible to live in a society where abortion is legal and you decide not to have the procedure done for yourself. 

Simultaneously, I think abortion is really the last resort in birth control and it would be far more economical and efficient to provide easy access to contraception and better sex education. That would cut down on unwanted pregnancies and help keep people from being in a situation where they would have to make that kind of decision. 

The result would ideally be a system in which abortion is safe, legal and very rare while keeping the option open for people who may need or want it.


----------



## Lilsnowy (Sep 9, 2009)

k3vin said:


> I float either way depending upon the circumstances.
> 
> If you got raped and were impregnated, obviously abortion is the route to go.
> 
> If you have a partner and made a series of ill advised decisions [i.e. drunken, unprotected sex with a partner], then it is selfish to deprive that child life because _you _messed up. That child deserves to live with you having to face the consequences of your actions.


A friend of mine was the product of a rape and she is musically gifted, highly intelligent and loving. I can't imagine the world without her. Her mother loves her deeply. It took time for her mom to heal of the rape, but she has been an wonderful mother. The man was unknown to her mother.


----------



## VamPie (Dec 25, 2012)

Lilsnowy said:


> A friend of mine was the product of a rape and she is musically gifted, highly intelligent and loving. I can't imagine the world without her. Her mother loves her deeply. It took time for her mom to heal of the rape, but she has been an wonderful mother. The man was unknown to her mother.


Yep, there are women who for various reasons want to give birth in such cases. But it doesn't change the fact that a lot of women in such situation wants to abort pregnancy. That's why I think it should be their choice.


----------



## Lilsnowy (Sep 9, 2009)

VamPie said:


> Yep, there are women who for various reasons want to give birth in such cases. But it doesn't change the fact that a lot of women in such situation wants to abort pregnancy. That's why I think it should be their choice.


I can respect your opinion on that; I just wanted to offer that abortion isn't always the "obvious way to go," as K3vin had said. 

A lot of women do not kill their baby, even in the event of a rape.


----------



## Accidie (Jul 11, 2013)

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but I find it interesting that pro-lifers seem to be unconcerned that the #1 cause of death for pregnant women is murder and suicide. And that many women seeking an abortion are in an abusive relationship, and impregnating a woman can be a form of abuse.

Because of this, and for many other reasons, I feel like trying to make abortion illegal is absolutely reprehensible. It's unspeakably cruel to continue to victimize a victim.


----------



## The Dreamer from the Myst (Aug 3, 2013)

pro life . definately.
i love everyone and i hate for something to be hurt , including unborn babies
i respect womans right to choose as long as it doesnt interfere with an unborn babies right to live
after all , isnt it obvious life is more important than convenience ?
thats like saying nazis should have the ability to choose to kill jews if it gives the nazis more money ... after all , its for "convenience"
i hate convenience , and i hate when the blood of the innocent is spilled upon its disgusting , baalist altar of materialsitic convenience and hell


----------



## k3vin (Feb 13, 2012)

Lilsnowy said:


> A friend of mine was the product of a rape and she is musically gifted, highly intelligent and loving. I can't imagine the world without her. Her mother loves her deeply. It took time for her mom to heal of the rape, but she has been an wonderful mother. The man was unknown to her mother.


Hmm, fascinating, what a strong soul that mother must be


----------



## Lilsnowy (Sep 9, 2009)

k3vin said:


> Hmm, fascinating, what a strong soul that mother must be


Yes, and she is not the only one. I have met at least one woman who had a baby after being raped. For some women, the baby is a reminder of the trauma and the violent man, but for others, it is one beautiful thing that comes out of it. Not every woman can raise a child after being raped, but the ones that do are great examples for abortion not being the only option. 

Apart from that, a friend of mine relayed a story about her youth. She gave up her first baby for adoption because she was young. She cried herself to sleep every night for over a year. She has told me, and told all of her children, that she would never have had an abortion. She has an awesome family today and would be open to reconnecting with her firstborn if the opportunity ever arises. But if it doesn't she has peace. 

All the Americans who need children and so many abortions. It's sad to me.


----------



## AiyokuSama (Jul 2, 2013)

Lilsnowy said:


> Yes, and she is not the only one. I have met at least one woman who had a baby after being raped.


I have no doubt you have. But I've met women who weren't that strong. I've seen what being forced to keep an unwanted pregnancy does to them. Please note that this is not limited to women who were raped. A good friend of mine had sex with her fiancee and when she got pregnant, he walked. She was forced by family to carry the child to term and then give it up for adoption. She was on suicide watch for two years. 

It's great that there are woman who can carry the product of rape. It's awesome when they are capable of raising them, but that doesn't mean everyone SHOULD, let alone that they can.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Pro-Choice. But I will say that I find the fact that "pro-life" people also tend to be against the availability of birth control hilarious in all its ironic stupidity.


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Jennywocky said:


> I'm feeling kind of burned out tonight, but I'll at least lob you my initial reaction to this paragraph and see what you do with it.
> 
> I think pregnancy prevention is preferable to abortion. I don't even know who would argue otherwise -- I mean, isn't it always better to not create the problem, than have to resolve a problem after it occurs?
> 
> ...


So, I've given my mind a little time to work out some of the points I wanted to make regarding my Pro-Life stance. Below is a portion, and probably the main bulk of my reasoning, as well as, a more detailed explanation of my rather rash use of the word "irresponsible". I'll admit, it could use a little more polish, but I just don't have the luxury of that kind of time these days....

Here goes:

When it comes down to it, since "morality" is somewhat subjective, as it relates to legislation, both points of view could easily be based on a moral standard. I see no purely objective way to make a decision to legislate either point of view. 
I will say, however, that Pro-Life has the distinct advantage of being the method that nature has chosen. For example, can a mother Polar Bear choose to abort her cubs because her environment does not contain the means to support them? Not at all. After conception, ( with the exception of possible miscarriage) she will carry her cubs until birth. This is the natural process of biology and life. 
It could easily be said, without referencing a religious, theological or "moral" standard, that " The Pro-life point of view falls in line with the natural progression and processes of biology and life. Furthermore, to bypass or tamper with a natural proces, in many cases has ( e.g. Global warming due to excessive carbon emissions or the eradication and extinction of species [animal, plant, insect, ect] for the sake of human convenience or advancement), and in this case could create side effects that would otherwise not exist. Therefore, I would conclude that the Pro-life point of view could be viewed as a logically sound choice"...
With that said, Pro-Choice doesn't have a leg to stand on without making a decision to grant a woman the "right" to choose, which cannot be done without taking a moral stance. 
However, I think to legislate Pro-life would require a moral choice. 

But, pause just a moment and consider the numbers and statistics associated with abortion. Over 40 million abortions occur Worldwide each year.... 40,000,000!.....(Are you IN THE KNOW: Abortion Incidence)
The US accounts for Approximately 1.2 million of these. 1,200,000!.... Lets also consider that the vast majority of abortions are obtained in order to eliminate an unintended pregnancy or as a means of "family planning". In fact, only 1%( approx 12,000), or less, of abortions are obtained as the result of rape/ incest and only about 3%( approx 36,000) due to health risks (I apologize up front for any math errors...) . 
Unfortunately ( in my opinion), about 96%( approx 1,150,000) of abortions are performed for reasons relating to perceived incapability, immaturity and/or life disruption. 
(Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States , Reasons U.S. women have abortions: quan - PubMed Mobile , Abortions In America)

Furthermore, while 1.2 million accounts for only a portion of the 40million world wide, abortion rates are higher in the us than those of other western civilized countries. I find this quote interesting;
"U.S. abortion rates remain high" (about 15-20 per 1000)", however, compared to other countries where abortion is legal. In Belgium and Germany the rates are below 10 per 1,000 women, and in the Netherlands, where abortion is freely available up to 21 weeks, the rate is 5, the lowest in the world. The Dutch have achieved that low rate through widespread education about family planning and easy access to contraception and by inculcating a general understanding that abortion is an irresponsible means of birth control".(Safe, legal and rare | The Christian Century)
Which brings me to my next point. While I agree that easy access to contraceptives can be important, statistics show that contraceptive failure rates are relatively high... "About 1-9% of women who use birth control pills and 2-18% of couples who use condoms experience unplanned pregnancies" Secular Pro-Life Perspectives: Bodily Integrity
( also CDC - Contraception - Reproductive Health)
"Even the most effective form of female sterilization has a 0.3% chance of an unplanned pregnancy". Secular Pro-Life Perspectives: Bodily Integrity
( "Up to 1% of women can become pregnant after tubal ligation". Tubal Ligation (Female Surgical Sterilization) )
A Guttmacher report shows that “54 percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method *usually condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.” These figures are similar to those of a report in Spain showing abortions doubling despite increased family planning promotion.(Report Shows Contraception Failure, 54% Used Before Abortion | LifeNews.com). 
When it comes down to it, it could be said that education is the the only way to repair the issue. However, such education should not focus on the use of contraceptives (since failure rates deem them incapable of preventing unintended pregnancy), but the prevention of conception by awareness of its "cost"( the full weight of the outcome that could result from sexual activity) , the importance of monogamous relationships ( Married women are significantly less likely than unmarried women to resolve unintended pregnancies through abortion.6 National Abortion Federation: Women Who Have Abortions ) and yes, abstinence....
Fundamentally, sex is the human species means of reproduction. 
While an argument (with which I tend to agree) could be made that sex also plays an important role in our overall physical and psychological well-being, short of the complete removal of a females ovaries ( or a males testicles), it's virtually impossible to remove the reproductive aspect from sex.
This being the case, the next question in my line of reasoning would be, " Do women who obtain abortions know that engaging in sexual activity carries the inherent risk of unintended pregnancy?" This is a difficult question to accurately answer or cite reference. However, assuming that a woman attended a public school, and therefore, taking school system Sex Ed programs into account ( e.g. https://www.google.com/search?clien....1.22.mobile-gws-serp..19.32.4640.yVXPavhUsN8)
and , by referring to abortion age statistics, (National Abortion Federation: Women Who Have Abortions), (which show that the majority of abortions are obtained by women of 20 years and older) a rational case could be made that most ( I say "most" in order to avoid generalizing or jumping to conclusions. No question of intelligence on my part!) women who obtain abortions had a knowledge of the reproductive aspect of sexual activities long before the encounter that resulted in their unintended pregnancy took place. 
So then, If a woman knows that sexual activity can result in conception the question then becomes "is abortion ethical?". This is an area where abortion becomes largely questionable... 
While it could be said that forcing a woman, especially one who is a member of a free, democratic society, to carry a child to term is unethical, the question is, is it ethical to allow said woman to choose to terminate the life of a fetus if she was fully aware that the result of her consensual sexual encounter could result in an unintended pregnancy? 
In order to avoid or reduce the questionable ethicality of such a choice, a person must reduce the status of a fetus and remove all human right. In order to do this, one must conclude that a fetus, though living and human, is not a "human being". However, even with the point of "viability" in mind, it is impossible to scientifically verify or prove the point at which a fetus becomes, in essence, a "person". It is completely a matter of philosophy. Furthermore, considering the fact that (with the exception of miscarriage) a fetus would inevitably become a "person" or "human being" with full human status, the only thing separating said fetus from this status is the "choice" of it mother. This "choice" relies solely on moral and ethical justification.
In the case of the abortion of an unintended pregnancy that resulted from consensual sexual activity, in which the woman had an awareness that conception could be a result, by most standards, cannot be justified or is questionable at best. (
Ethics of Abortion: Is it Moral or Immoral to Have an Abortion? ect...)

This is what it comes down to for me. To be honest, I'm sympathetic to the women who have chosen or would choose abortion in the case of rape/incest or health risks. I tend to agree that such cases could be justifiable and think that these decisions should be left to the woman. However, abortion as a means of family planning appears largely unjustifiable. With this said, since the vast majority (approx 96%) of US abortions are obtained as a method of family planning, I "choose" not take a Pro-Choice stance. In my opinion, Pro-Life, while itself flawed in many ways, is the lesser of two evils. 

There are several other arguments I'd like to make ( all above is less than half of what's floating around in my head), but I thought this would bore you enough. However, a good case could be made regarding present and future side effects of legalized abortion in the US. I'll save these for next time.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Well, I already hit problems with paragraph #1:



> I will say, however, that Pro-Life has the distinct advantage of being the method that nature has chosen. For example, can a mother Polar Bear choose to abort her cubs because her environment does not contain the means to support them? Not at all. After conception, ( with the exception of possible miscarriage) she will carry her cubs until birth. This is the natural process of biology and life.


To start with, a good third of human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by Nature (miscarriage), whereas you mention it just as an aside as if it's a negligible number (which it is not). Nature aborts quite a number of conceived "babies" purely on grounds of the mother not being fit to carry the fetus to term (and/or the environment not being good enough to support the pregnant mother), or the fetus being viable to begin with in Nature's eyes.

Nature also hasn't really bequeathed animals with the ability to design abortive medicine to handle issues where the environment is supportive enough to not kill the mother or fetus outright; for animals, the baby will be stillborn, or will starve to death, or fall prey to disease, or be devoured by scavengers (which you seem to suggest is preferable to never being born at all?) However, human beings by Nature are not wholly instinctive creatures, we are conscious creatures and have been given the natural ability to think through situations and prevent ones that don't seem preferable, versus having to force Nature to play "clean up" after our mess so to speak after a baby is born. In the old days, before such medicine was more viable, babies were simply born and left to die out in the cold (if there were not resources to feed them or the baby could live but was severely hampered by defects), or were wiped out by plagues and other hardships if they were not sturdy enough. And of course the midwives DID possess knowledge of natural medicines that could induce miscarriage if taken, although the mother might have been at risk as well -- they had abortion, it was just not as streamlined or targeted. 

So all that is changed is the capability by which we are making said decision, and for some reason you seem to have an idealized sense that "Nature should decide" vs humans taking more direct involvement in whether a baby can somehow survive. In fact, you go as far as to say that it is the "pro-choice" side that is taking a "moral" stance, while meanwhile ignoring a slew of intervention people do regularly to save babies that would not have been viable in the past and Nature would have weeded out as weak and inform. If Nature should decide, maybe we shouldn't be creating elaborate NICU wards and using our science to create concentrated medicines and machinery and equipment and in utero surgeries and whatever else all to the goal of enabling naturally UNVIABLE fetuses to come to term and somehow live. Our choice as a culture to do that is a moral choice as well.

(As a parent of such an "unviable" son who Nature would have killed but has now reached his 17th birthday due to the intervention of moral medicine and wielding my capacity as a parent to not abort our child, obviously I'm not really arguing for either here. I'm simply saying your attempt to somehow attribute a moral status to "Nature" seems a bit of a stretch here. The morality of choice comes through the choice itself and our motivations in making it, versus saying "Nature" is somehow good and "going against Nature" is bad.)

And that is just paragraph one. I can't promise you I'll make it through the rest, but it does seem to me that you are stretching and tugging at the corners of objectivity here to stretch the blanket out of shape enough to satisfy the needs of your argument, at least in your opening statement.


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Jennywocky said:


> Well, I already hit problems with paragraph #1:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps you've misread me. I don't disagree with human interference in this matter in the least! Just to clarify, my sole reasoning behind that statement was to prove that abortion is a choice that can only be made while looking through the lens of a "moral" standard. I'd also like to thank you for further proving this point in a way that is far more eloquent than I could. Your visceral response only further proves this "idealized" view I have.....


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

TechGyver said:


> Perhaps you've misread me. I don't disagree with human interference in this matter in the least! Just to clarify, my sole reasoning behind that statement was to prove that abortion is a choice that can only be made while looking through the lens of a "moral" standard. I'd also like to thank you for further proving this point in a way that is far more eloquent than I could. Your visceral response only further proves this "idealized" view I have.....


I totally agree that abortion is a "moral" issue regardless of pro-choice or pro-life. See, without a human to prioritize concerns, life and death "simply is." They are simply things that happen. They are elements of a self-stabilizing system.

It takes human beings to judge in what circumstances life is good or bad, or death is good or bad.

There is nothing "inherent" that makes one of them good and one of them bad.


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Jennywocky said:


> I totally agree that abortion is a "moral" issue regardless of pro-choice or pro-life. See, without a human to prioritize concerns, life and death "simply is." They are simply things that happen. They are elements of a self-stabilizing system.
> 
> It takes human beings to judge in what circumstances life is good or bad, or death is good or bad.
> 
> There is nothing "inherent" that makes one of them good and one of them bad.


Then we agree...

The comment in your earlier post, "Your comment is merely a moral statement", caused me to consider the moral aspect of abortion in more detail, leading me to realize that there is no aspect of this topic that is without some moral foundation. To be honest, I had never thought of it that way. While, in many cases, this topic seems to be presented as a moral vs immoral argument, it should more accurately be presented as a moral vs moral discussion. That's what I've decided anyway....


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

Pro-choice. I view abortion as a lose-lose situation: if performed, a potential human life is curtailed; but if disallowed, a woman's bodily autonomy is stripped away. Neither outcome is ideal, but nobody has yet been able to convince me (in spite of their a-huffin' and their a-puffin') that one of them is objectively worse than the other. I thus think that both points of view - that abortion is worse and that disallowing abortion is worse - should be allowed. Since pro-life disallows one, and pro-choice disallows neither, I am pro-choice.

At a deeper level, I think that abortion is a question of personhood. Pro-lifers like to say that "life begins at conception." Well, no shit. I've also had pro-lifers insist to me that a fertilized egg is a unique human life - and the way they expound on it, it sounds like they truly believe that that actually means something. I don't see anything particularly special about a human life. I'm more interested in whether it's a person's life.

Living, walking, thinking, breathing human beings? Persons. Koko the gorilla? A person. Dolphins? Probably persons.

Tapeworms? Not persons. Brain-dead humans? Not persons. Zygotes or fetuses with no higher cognitive functions? Not persons.

I prefer not to kill at all, when I can avoid it, but I recognize that killing is necessary (case study: your own immune system). Since I'm a person, and I don't particularly want to be killed, I can sympathize with other persons who don't want to be killed; and since treating others the way you would wish to be treated is a simple rule which yields excellent results, I can fully get behind not killing persons when it can be avoided.

However, I can also sympathize with unwilling mothers who don't want their bodily autonomy violated. If I had a big old tapeworm in my colon, I would want to remove it, even if it meant killing the tapeworm. I feel that women with unwanted pregnancies are in fundamentally the same situation. The line for me is drawn where the unborn child becomes a person: at that point, I should afford it the same rights I would wish to be afforded, otherwise I set a dangerous precedent. If it could ever be reliably demonstrated that a fetus has become a person, I would be 100% behind forbidding the mother to kill that person - except in cases where the mother's well-being is threatened, in which case I support the mother in whatever decision she makes, whether it's risking her own well-being for the sake of her child or sacrificing her child for the sake of her own well-being.

Most people seem to draw that line somewhere around 24 weeks. I don't think forbidding elective abortion after this period tramples women's rights - at this point, they've had probably 18-20 weeks (most women would probably notice their period was wonky after the first four or so) to decide whether or not to allow that little fetus to develop into a person. And curtailing a would-be person, while not ideal, is not the same as killing a person, much in the same way that burning firewood is not arson just because somebody else might have built a house with that wood.

Criticize if you see something egregious - it all fits together nicely in my head, but I'm hardly an impartial observer.


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

geekofalltrades said:


> However, I can also sympathize with unwilling mothers who don't want their bodily autonomy violated. If I had a big old tapeworm in my colon, I would want to remove it, even if it meant killing the tapeworm. I feel that women with unwanted pregnancies are in fundamentally the same situation. The line for me is drawn where the unborn child becomes a person: at that point, I should afford it the same rights I would wish to be afforded, otherwise I set a dangerous precedent. If it could ever be reliably demonstrated that a fetus has become a person, I would be 100% behind forbidding the mother to kill that person - except in cases where the mother's well-being is threatened, in which case I support the mother in whatever decision she makes, whether it's risking her own well-being for the sake of her child or sacrificing her child for the sake of her own





Since you've given permission.....

Would your reaction change if said "tapeworm" we're ingested while eating a decadent dessert, with full knowledge that eating the dessert could result in a "tapeworm" latching onto your colon. Also, lets say that said "tapeworm" if let be, would develop into a full blown human being. We'll also add, your body has the full ability to sustain and give "birth" to the "tapeworm"/"human" with no more side effect than a conventional pregnancy and vaginal birth. 

Would this, or a similar situation, change your sympathies for the unwilling mother?


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

I've still got a few hesitations with the argument that it is COMPLETELY the mother's choice in that matter (since if she chooses yes, the man doesn't get to choose to pay child support). I am pro-choice. Who gets to make the choice is another issue entirely. If she gets full rights to choose, he gets to choose if he helps her or not as he could argue that it was HER choice to have the child and therefore, HER responsibility since HE has no choice in the matter.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

Signify said:


> I've still got a few hesitations with the argument that it is COMPLETELY the mother's choice in that matter (since if she chooses yes, the man doesn't get to choose to pay child support). I am pro-choice. Who gets to make the choice is another issue entirely. If she gets full rights to choose, he gets to choose if he helps her or not as he could argue that it was HER choice to have the child and therefore, HER responsibility since HE has no choice in the matter.


Good point. I might also consider that, if the man does want to have the child, the woman should be required to go through with it. It's just as much his as it is hers after all. However, I'm a bit more conflicted on this point - on the one hand, the woman does lose some control over her body. On the other hand, all pregnancies are joint efforts. What I'm sure of, though, is that if such a thing were to happen the man should be required to take care of it after birth. He wouldn't be allowed to change his mind 8 months into the pregnancy, let alone afterwards.


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

Debaser said:


> Good point. I might also consider that, if the man does want to have the child, the woman should be required to go through with it. It's just as much his as it is hers after all. However, I'm a bit more conflicted on this point - on the one hand, the woman does lose some control over her body. On the other hand, all pregnancies are joint efforts. What I'm sure of, though, is that if such a thing were to happen the man should be required to take care of it after birth. He wouldn't be allowed to change his mind 8 months into the pregnancy, let alone afterwards.


Agreed. That point is also why I'm more inclined to take the stance that the woman should get full choice of her body, but the man get full choice of if he supports it. If we weren't so hesitant about abortions to begin with, they'd be readily available. And trust me, population control would do coming generations all kinds of good.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

My entire view of the topic in 19 seconds:


----------



## Zero One (Nov 30, 2009)

Both. I could see a philosophical argument for life (though few understand why), but a practical need for choice. In the end I feel it comes down to each individual and their situation.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Pro life. Birth control and sex education are needed not abortions. Woman's bodily rights is fine until it involves another life. In the case of rape or the baby threatens the life of the mother then I believe its up to her. Other then those reasons it's undeniably murder. The philosophical arguments are weak and just like moral relativism nobody truly lives by them. So most pro choices are picking and choosing when to use these arguments according to their desire.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> Pro life. Birth control and sex education are needed not abortions. Woman's bodily rights is fine until it involves another life. In the case of rape or the baby threatens the life of the mother then I believe its up to her. Other then those reasons it's undeniably murder. The philosophical arguments are weak and just like moral relativism nobody truly lives by them. So most pro choices are picking and choosing when to use these arguments according to their desire.


It is not "undeniably murder," because many people, myself included, do not consider a group of cells that have not been fully developed and cannot function independently to be a human "life." That's where the debate lies - where does "life" truly begin? Is it the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg (or even before according to the anti-birth control crowd), is it when the fetus becomes capable of sustaining itself outside the womb, or is it not until the actual moment of birth?

And I would say that many pro-lifers are more guilty of "picking and choosing" and not really living by their own moral arguments, because many of them are pro-death penalty, pro-war, anti-healthcare, etc. To quote George Carlin: "If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked!"

Ultimately, because I do not consider a fetus to be an independent human life, I consider the rights of the person carrying it around to be more important. It's their choice to make, not mine. What I would do in that situation I both cannot say as I am not a woman, and more importantly it is not relevant. Since, in my view, no one is really being "murdered," it is none of my business and it is not my place to tell others what to do with their bodies. I can see why religious people who believe in "souls" and such might see things differently.


----------



## JoanCrawford (Sep 27, 2012)

RandomNote said:


> Pro choice.......its their body they can do what they want with it.


... and let's be real. These women will do what they want with their bodies whether it is illegal or not!


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Debaser said:


> It is not "undeniably murder," because many people, myself included, do not consider a group of cells that have not been fully developed and cannot function independently to be a human "life." That's where the debate lies - where does "life" truly begin? Is it the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg (or even before according to the anti-birth control crowd), is it when the fetus becomes capable of sustaining itself outside the womb, or is it not until the actual moment of birth?
> 
> *And I would say that many pro-lifers are more guilty of "picking and choosing" and not really living by their own moral arguments, because many of them are pro-death penalty, pro-war, anti-healthcare, etc. To quote George Carlin: "If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked!"*
> 
> Ultimately, because I do not consider a fetus to be an independent human life, I consider the rights of the person carrying it around to be more important. It's their choice to make, not mine. What I would do in that situation I both cannot say as I am not a woman, and more importantly it is not relevant. Since, in my view, no one is really being "murdered," it is none of my business and it is not my place to tell others what to do with their bodies. I can see why religious people who believe in "souls" and such might see things differently.


first of all those things do not apply to me. 

Now yes the debate where does life begin. Now I say pro choices are picking and choosing because you could just as easily say newborns and servilely disabled can be killed because they are not independent human life. Yet pro choices cringe at that thought. Pro life also is not a religious issue, there are many secular pro life. You mention souls: 

"And if the body were not the soul, what is the soul?" 

- Walt Whitman.

second I say its undeniable murder because the definition of murder means the killing of a human life. The fetus is undeniably human because of its DNA. Does this human have rights? I would say yes it does, I believe human life is inherently special and you don't have to be religious to believe in that.

we could of course get into personhood and all of that but its to subjective and as soon as we humans start arguing over what humans and what isn't its always a disaster.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> first of all those things do not apply to me.
> 
> Now yes the debate where does life begin. Now I say pro choices are picking and choosing because you could just as easily say newborns and servilely disabled can be killed because they are not independent human life. Yet pro choices cringe at that thought. Pro life also is not a religious issue, there are many secular pro life. You mention souls:
> 
> ...


Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of that stuff. You seem reasonable enough; I was just pointing out what I have observed in many other "pro-lifers."

You couldn't really say the same about newborns and the disabled because, although yes they may depend on another to provide for them, they can still at least survive without having to actually live inside another human being. (Though I support voluntary euthanasia as well.) The fact is that all the parts of a person are not fully formed in a fetus, especially early on in the pregnancy. Just a group of cells. The fundamental foundation for human consciousness and sustainability is not there. To put it another way: If I was aborted, I would not have known or cared. I would have had no way whatsoever to know what was happening to me, much less comprehend it, because I wasn't finished yet. And yet people often ask me "What if you were aborted?" as though that has some relevance. If I was aborted, I wouldn't have ever been here to have an opinion on abortion on the first place. It wouldn't matter to me. I couldn't have really "died" if I was never truly "alive" in the first place.

Also, there are many pro-choice people who are religious, so that's not really all that relevant either, except that it is undeniable that many, many "pro-life" people are not only religious, they are "pro-life" precisely because of their religion. And the reason I mentioned "souls" is precisely because of that belief - The reason most "pro-lifers" see abortion as murder is because they see the soul as being already formed in the fetus, not necessarily because they think of the fetus as an independent human being yet - you don't see anybody granting fetuses citizenship or counting them in the census. Rather, they see each person as having an individual "fate" or destiny prepared for their soul, and they see abortion as a disruption of that process - a spiritual "death," even if abortion is not really murder in the technical sense. That is why abortion is so often associated with religion.

Again, there's that word "undeniably" - as I said and even you say, what really defines a "human" is largely subjective. The DNA is merely a recipe for life - it is nothing by itself. All the crucial organs must be fully developed and capable of self-sustainment for the recipe to be finished cooking. That said, you are certainly entitled to your view that the DNA alone is enough to make a human "special" - though I must ask, do you extend this belief to cover each individual sperm? Because if so, every time a male ejaculates millions of potential unique humans are killed according to that logic. And that's my problem with it all - where do you draw the line? For me, it makes more sense to draw it after everything is in place, not while or before it's still a work-in-progress.

However, I definitely agree that the issue is highly subjective and people tend to have strong views on it one way or the other, and yes, trying to get too deep into what really defines a "human" often leads down a bad road. For me, abortion is honestly not one of the "hot" issues that I get too worked up over the way some people do, though. I consider there to be far more important issues out there - namely protecting life that is already, undeniably here - than focusing on figuring out what may or may-not-be human, because again, it's all subjective. But that's just me. If someone strongly believed that abortion was genocide, or conversely that it is one of the most important of all human rights, then I can definitely see from where the passions arise.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Debaser said:


> Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of that stuff. You seem reasonable enough; I was just pointing out what I have observed in many other "pro-lifers."
> 
> You couldn't really say the same about newborns and the disabled because, although yes they may depend on another to provide for them, they can still at least survive without having to actually live inside another human being. (Though I support voluntary euthanasia as well.) The fact is that all the parts of a person are not fully formed in a fetus, especially early on in the pregnancy. Just a group of cells. The fundamental foundation for human consciousness and sustainability is not there. To put it another way: If I was aborted, I would not have known or cared. I would have had no way whatsoever to know what was happening to me, much less comprehend it, because I wasn't finished yet. And yet people often ask me "What if you were aborted?" as though that has some relevance. If I was aborted, I wouldn't have ever been here to have an opinion on abortion on the first place. It wouldn't matter to me. I couldn't have really "died" if I was never truly "alive" in the first place.
> 
> ...


right a fetus is not developed but nether is a 2 year or other children. the arguments for abortion too me sounds like splitting hairs. I personally do see it as a human rights issue, however a fetus doesn't suffer from its death. I do see it as murder but yeah there are human rights issues that need to be taken care of right away. 

people do get heated about it, it happened when I was on the debate board, I made my points and I'm sure I'll get flamed for them but of well. 

I don't judge anyone for their choices, I have family members who aborted their children, but I don't judge them for it. I view abortion as not only murder but as something that retards societies progress. Like I said sex education and birth control are needed, abortion is just unnecessary and I think encourages selfishness.

I try to be religious but I don't force different views on people. even if I wasnt I would still be pro life, I think its the more rational choice.


----------



## Accidie (Jul 11, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> I don't judge anyone for their choices, I have family members who aborted their children, but I don't judge them for it. I view abortion as not only murder but as something that retards societies progress. Like I said sex education and birth control are needed, abortion is just unnecessary and I think encourages selfishness.


This doesn't make any sense at all. You don't judge anyone for their choices, yet you call abortion murder, so are therefore calling women in your family murderers. I'm pretty sure that's a very strong judgment right there, unless you don't believe that murder is wrong.

Even at its best (which it is nowhere near now), sex education and birth control can only reduce the rate of abortion. You can rant all day about individual motivations, but the abortion procedure will _always_ be necessary.

What is selfish is wanting to deny all women one of the most basic rights there are, bodily autonomy, because of your own personal "moral" judgments.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Accidie said:


> This doesn't make any sense at all. You don't judge anyone for their choices, yet you call abortion murder, so are therefore calling women in your family murderers. I'm pretty sure that's a very strong judgment right there, unless you don't believe that murder is wrong.
> 
> Even at its best (which it is nowhere near now), sex education and birth control can only reduce the rate of abortion. You can rant all day about individual motivations, but the abortion procedure will _always_ be necessary.
> 
> What is selfish is wanting to deny all women one of the most basic rights there are, bodily autonomy, because of your own personal "moral" judgments.


I don't believe in judging others. I view killing in war as murder, yet I don't judge my grandfather. your projecting how you view flawed people onto me. I believe abortion is wrong, but I see no reason to judge people for it. especially when society tells them its ok.

and yes I would deny a woman's bodily rights in the light of murder. 

maybe this is just my personal view, however history tells us all it takes is one man's personal view fulled by his conscience can change how view our actions. despite popular opinion. At one time slavery was moral and many argued it was wrong to give blacks rights because of the expense on white salve owners.


----------



## Omniscient (Aug 15, 2013)

Pro-choice!
People who never wanted a baby seem to raise unhealthy children.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

dvnj22 said:


> *right a fetus is not developed but nether is a 2 year or other children.* the arguments for abortion too me sounds like splitting hairs. I personally do see it as a human rights issue, however a fetus doesn't suffer from its death. I do see it as murder but yeah there are human rights issues that need to be taken care of right away.
> 
> people do get heated about it, it happened when I was on the debate board, I made my points and I'm sure I'll get flamed for them but of well.
> 
> ...


Firstly, that's not entirely correct. A two-year-old may not be a fully developed adult, but it is still a fully developed, independently functioning human being, rather than an incomplete group of cells that cannot survive outside of the womb, and are even less close to a finished person early in the pregnancy when most abortions occur. It's not "splitting hairs" if we're talking about the point at which life begins. Philosophically, that's pretty significant, and I hope it explains to you why pro-choice people see a major difference between abortion and murder.

That being said, I completely agree that sex education and birth control are essential, and then could lead to fewer abortions, solving the problem anyway. That's why it amazes me how many people who are anti-abortion also advocate "abstinence" sex-ed and are against the availability of birth control.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Debaser said:


> Firstly, that's not entirely correct. A two-year-old may not be a fully developed adult, but it is still a fully developed, independently functioning human being, rather than an incomplete group of cells that cannot survive outside of the womb, and are even less close to a finished person early in the pregnancy when most abortions occur. It's not "splitting hairs" if we're talking about the point at which life begins. Philosophically, that's pretty significant, and I hope it explains to you why pro-choice people see a major difference between abortion and murder.
> 
> That being said, I completely agree that sex education and birth control are essential, and then could lead to fewer abortions, solving the problem anyway. That's why it amazes me how many people who are anti-abortion also advocate "abstinence" sex-ed and are against the availability of birth control.


 I do want to say that I do know pro choices have good intentions. And are not psychopaths and I can see their point.... there just wrong. Like I said I do view it as murder, however there are definitely degrees by which we view things, even wrong things, people that are pro choice don't view it as murder. Just like a soldier in war. That and society's propaganda. I take that into consideration. 

the "personhood" argument which is what you yourself said is flawed, however it is exactly what we are talking about With the 2 year old. 

I'd like to continue this conversation with you but not here - for it will be taking over the thread.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Honestly, I'm not really sure how to "not judge someone" if at the same time I'm believing that what they are doing is actually "murder" and "retarding society's progress."

Or, looked at from the opposite angle, I think it's pretty messed up to believe someone is murdering someone else and setting back the human race, yet doing _nothing _about it. That would be like watching neighbors kill their kids or parents and doing nothing about it. And ironically, at that point, you are actually endorsing Choice over Life.

If I have any support for "choice" as an option, it's because I don't believe it's murder.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Jennywocky said:


> So what do you consider a "personal attack"?
> 
> From my end, I don't know you at all. So I can't comment about you, nor is there much point in that. My comments here about a seeming inconsistency in your words. If this were a different topic, I'd just be responding to your ideas there as well, either positively or negatively, depending on what you said.


You assumed I was doing something (or nothing) in my personal life and ran with it. You didn't go after anything else other then what you assumed to be true about me. Yet like you said you don't know me, so your trying to argue with me over your fantasy story you made up. And if you read my post correctly you wouldn't see any inconsistency. Because I explained the point you were upset about, to the other poster. I clearly stated that I judge people actions but not the person.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

dvnj22 said:


> You assumed I was doing something (or nothing) in my personal life and ran with it. You didn't go after anything else other then what you assumed to be true about me. Yet like you said you don't know me, so your trying to argue with me over your fantasy story you made up. And if you read my post correctly you wouldn't see any inconsistency. Because I explained the point you were upset about, to the other poster. I clearly stated that I judge people actions but not the person.


Dude, you are the one reading too much into this and now assuming things about MY intent.

I was going by what you said in the thread and criticizing your argument. Your words claimed on one hand to be viewing abortion as murder, but then you also seemed to be making excuses for some of the people involved and not wanting to actually deal with it as if it WERE murder. 

I still think your ideas are highly inconsistent and you haven't been able to support your stance here; but I've been letting it go because it's clear that anything I say regarding that will be sloughed off, so there's nothing else to discuss.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Removed


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Debaser said:


> It is not "undeniably murder," because many people, myself included, do not consider a group of cells that have not been fully developed and cannot function independently to be a human "life." That's where the debate lies - where does "life" truly begin? Is it the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg (or even before according to the anti-birth control crowd), is it when the fetus becomes capable of sustaining itself outside the womb, or is it not until the actual moment of birth?


"The debate" lies there only because demoting the personhood of a fetus is required in order to make abortion, (in the form of family planning, which account for approx 96% of US abortions) plausibly ethical. 

I understand your point, but why is it that so many over look the epic ethical fail of the mother and father who choose to abort a fetus which was conceived as the resulted of a consensual sexual act, in which the mother and father knew conception could occur. 

If the only thing seperating this "clump of cells" from full human status, why should a person in the situation described above be allowed to choose to destroy a would be human when they willingly commited the act in which it was created.... At very least, such behavior trends towards utter irresponsibility. One can't fully conceive the future implications this creates, but I can't see how it will or could turn out for our good, at least not from a moral or ethical perspective. Sure, from a naturalist point of view, the reduction in population could be seen as a good thing, however, this could be done much more efficiently and effectively through sterilization. 

This is where I think the real debate is at. Should I think differently?


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

TechGyver said:


> "The debate" lies there only because demoting the personhood of a fetus is required in order to make abortion, (in the form of family planning, which account for approx 96% of US abortions) plausibly ethical.
> 
> I understand your point, but why is it that so many over look the epic ethical fail of the mother and father who choose to abort a fetus which was conceived as the resulted of a consensual sexual act, in which the mother and father knew conception could occur.
> 
> ...


Yes, because:

1. It is inevitable that people will have sex, regardless of education or contraception.
2. Currently, it is difficult for many people to have access to education and contraception.
3. Even with education and contraception, if not used perfectly or even if used correctly, there is always a risk of failure.
4. Not everybody wants or can afford to go through with a pregnancy.

Therefore, unwanted pregnancies are an inevitable problem. At least until we fix the above problems, and even then they will only be reduced, not entirely eliminated. So for these reasons abortion is not as simple an issue as "Don't have sex, dur." It's more like, is abortion as an act itself basically just belated birth control, or is it murder?


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

TechGyver said:


> Since you've given permission.....
> 
> Would your reaction change if said "tapeworm" we're ingested while eating a decadent dessert, with full knowledge that eating the dessert could result in a "tapeworm" latching onto your colon. Also, lets say that said "tapeworm" if let be, would develop into a full blown human being. We'll also add, your body has the full ability to sustain and give "birth" to the "tapeworm"/"human" with no more side effect than a conventional pregnancy and vaginal birth.
> 
> Would this, or a similar situation, change your sympathies for the unwilling mother?


No. If I ate the decadent dessert with that prior knowledge, but also a prior unwillingness to house the tapeworm, then that is communication enough to whoever cares that no tapeworm is going to be gaining a home because of this decadent dessert, no matter what happens. That tapeworm developing into a full human being would also not change my mind. Both of the above are related to the argument from fetal potential, for which I have very little respect. If I go to a construction yard and take a piece of lumber, then burn it in my fireplace at home, I have not committed arson.

Also, if my body could harbor the tapeworm with no more risk than a "conventional pregnancy"... well, pregnancy is frankly terrifying. Most pro-life rhetoric seems to skip over pregnancy: there's a lot about conception, and there's a lot about birth, but, to listen to most of it, there's nothing in between. Or, if there is something in between, then it's no worse than an "inconvenience." I have a huge problem with this sort of rhetoric; it's just so very... well, _male._ Pregnancy is not a cake-walk, and it's not just an inconvenience. I have an acquaintance who suffered a stroke as a complication of her pregnancy. A _stroke_. If a woman is willing to risk her body in that way for the sake of her unborn child, then I support her in that. If she's not, then I support her in that, too, and I challenge anybody who tells her that she must, willing or not.


----------



## bearlybreathing (Aug 6, 2013)

Pro-Choice. I don't really care much what other people do if it doesn't affect others.

To everyone who uses the "it's murder" argument: Ants, ticks, and fleas are living groups of cells, but we have no problem killing them.


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Debaser said:


> Yes, because:
> 
> 1. It is inevitable that people will have sex, regardless of education or contraception.
> 2. Currently, it is difficult for many people to have access to education and contraception.
> ...


Ok... So, I still think not...

1. True, but since when did " well everyone else was doing it" work. I'm not sure it's wise to provide a means for people to do something ethically questionable just because " they're going to do it anyway"...

2. Your going to have to prove this point....

3. Your absolutely right! Approx 54% of US of abortions are the result of failed contraceptives...
And the fix? " Don't have sex, dur" If your not willing to pay the potential "cost". Same reason you don't buy a house if you can't afford it... Didn't something like that contribute to a rather large economic disaster at some point in the past?...
Why should we enable people to partake in the act of procreation if they're not willing to raise the child that could result from their act? How could releasing them from responsibility be a good thing?


4. Nuff said above...

And just because I like making other random points... Do you get pissed at a police officer if he pulls you for speeding while you knew you were? If so, is it because you were unaware that speeding could result in a fine or because you finally got caught? 

If the former, shame on your drivers Ed teacher, if the latter.... mounds of heaping shame on you..... ( I agree, this point may not be completely relevant, but it does, however, provide a slight bit of comic releif... for me at least)


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

geekofalltrades said:


> If I go to a construction yard and take a piece of lumber, then burn it in my fireplace at home, I have not committed arson.


To be honest, I really didn't understand the other points you were trying to make, but that's probably just because I'm dumb. 
However, if you were to go to a constuction yard and take a peice of lumber, then burn it in your fireplace, though not very knowledgeable in US law, I would assume you could be prosecuted for theft (for stealing the wood from the construction company) and arson (for burning someone else's property).... There's the rub ( in part).. Nothing is free. Things must be earned to be enjoyed...


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

TechGyver said:


> Ok... So, I still think not...
> 
> 1. True, but since when did " well everyone else was doing it" work. I'm not sure it's wise to provide a means for people to do something ethically questionable just because " they're going to do it anyway"...


Before I get started:

*you're
*you're
*you're
*you're

OK:

Sex is not "ethically questionable," nor is it the result of peer pressure. It is instinct. Whether abortion is "ethically questionable" or not depends entirely on your perspective. Something so subjective should not be factored into lawmaking. What is not subjective is that fetuses are not citizens counted on the census and they are not capable of sustaining their own lives. Therefore, by law, they are not persons.



> 2. Your going to have to prove this point....


There's no way to prove it other than to say that "abstinence-only" sex education, which is standard in many states, does not teach about birth control or condoms, that it is difficult for many people especially in low-income areas where unwanted pregnancy is most common to obtain contraception, and that many people still use it incorrectly, because they did not receive proper education.




> 3. Your absolutely right! Approx 54% of US of abortions are the result of failed contraceptives..
> And the fix? " Don't have sex, dur" If your not willing to pay the potential "cost". Same reason you don't buy a house if you can't afford it... Didn't something like that contribute to a rather large economic disaster at some point in the past?...
> Why should we enable people to partake in the act of procreation if they're not willing to raise the child that could result from their act? How could releasing them from responsibility be a good thing?


Oh fuck no, not this shit again. I actually got into an extended debate with someone who brought up that misleading statistic once. Allow me to just copy/paste it because I'm far too lazy to debunk this utter bullshit yet again, except to add that buying a house and fulfilling a basic human need are not even remotely equivalent. So unless you're first in line to chop your balls off, I would suggest you not tell other people not to have sex. Also, the "consequences" of abortion only exist if you buy into the subjective viewpoint that abortion is morally wrong. Otherwise, it's a lot cheaper than having a damn baby, and again, the idea that people should just not have sex at all is so utterly ridiculous it sounds like it's come straight out of the mouth of a puritan.



> *Debaser's Standard Argument Against Stupid "Contraception Does Not Prevent Abortion" Argument:*
> 
> I never said contraception is fail-proof; it isn't. But some types are more effective than others, which is why the most important thing is to educate people on it and make it more accessible. There is a lot of misinformation about the subject floating around, and a lot of people may think they are protected when they actually are not because of it. It is misleading to say that 54% of abortions attempted contraception anyway (if that statistic is accurate; I'm skeptical), because obviously the proper contraception was not used correctly. When the most effective types or a combination of types are used correctly, there is practically no chance of pregnancy and, by extension, abortion. Let's use logic:
> 
> ...






> 4. Nuff said above...
> 
> And just because I like making other random points... Do you get pissed at a police officer if he pulls you for speeding while you knew you were? If so, is it because you were unaware that speeding could result in a fine or because you finally got caught?
> 
> If the former, shame on your drivers Ed teacher, if the latter.... mounds of heaping shame on you..... ( I agree, this point may not be completely relevant, but it does, however, provide a slight bit of comic releif... for me at least)


You're right, it's not relevant at all. Speeding is illegal. Consensual sex and abortion are not, nor should they be in a civilized 21st century society.

But I will say that I hated driver's ed and yeah, I'd be pissed that i got caught, because speeding is fun and I would feel no shame.


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

TechGyver said:


> To be honest, I really didn't understand the other points you were trying to make, but that's probably just because I'm dumb.
> However, if you were to go to a constuction yard and take a peice of lumber, then burn it in your fireplace, though not very knowledgeable in US law, I would assume you could be prosecuted for theft (for stealing the wood from the construction company) and arson (for burning someone else's property).... There's the rub ( in part).. Nothing is free. Things must be earned to be enjoyed...


First of all, burning a log no matter who it belongs to is not "arson." Burning a house down is arson. Second of all, he never said he stole it, though I admit it was poorly worded. Third of all, discussion of the ramifications of lumber theft is hardly relevant to discussion of abortion.

But finally and most importantly, I completely dispute the notion that "things must be earned to be enjoyed." If the hottest woman in the world just walked up to you and started giving you a BJ for free and for no reason, are you telling me you wouldn't enjoy it?


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

TechGyver said:


> To be honest, I really didn't understand the other points you were trying to make, but that's probably just because I'm dumb.
> However, if you were to go to a constuction yard and take a peice of lumber, then burn it in your fireplace, though not very knowledgeable in US law, I would assume you could be prosecuted for theft (for stealing the wood from the construction company) and arson (for burning someone else's property).... There's the rub ( in part).. Nothing is free. Things must be earned to be enjoyed...





Debaser said:


> First of all, burning a log no matter who it belongs to is not "arson." Burning a house down is arson. Second of all, he never said he stole it, though I admit it was poorly worded. Third of all, discussion of the ramifications of lumber theft is hardly relevant to discussion of abortion.


I tend to also think of arson as only burning down buildings, but I think he's technically correct: arson is the burning of someone else's _property._

He's also correct that I've stolen the lumber.

In spite of these points, though, the potentiality argument is still shown flawed: stealing and burning a piece of lumber is a far lesser crime than burning down the whole building that that piece of lumber would have become a part of.


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

geekofalltrades said:


> I tend to also think of arson as only burning down buildings, but I think he's technically correct: arson is the burning of someone else's _property._
> 
> He's also correct that I've stolen the lumber.
> 
> In spite of these points, though, the potentiality argument is still shown flawed: stealing and burning a piece of lumber is a far lesser crime than burning down the whole building that that piece of lumber would have become a part of.


First off, kudos to you Geek for not trying to wiggle your way out of this one! A lesser man would have tried to stretch what he said to make up for a potential blunder. 

High Five!

Anyway.... So, we agree that both cases of arson carry ethical weight. As you hit on, the question now is not " is burning lumber wrong", but, " since both are wrong, is burning the house worse than burning a board"... Perhaps that's where we should focus instead of trying to prove that the board is not a house. 

Also, lest consider the fact that a piece of lumber has the potential to become anything the builder wants it to; a chair, a house or a sushi tray ( I think..). However, a human embryo has the potential become a human. Not a camel, not a tree, not a naked mole rat.... A human, and nothing else! Kinda like comparing apples and wombats in my opinion...







Debaser said:


> But finally and most importantly, I completely dispute the notion that "things must be earned to be enjoyed." If the hottest woman in the world just walked up to you and started giving you a BJ for free and for no reason, are you telling me you wouldn't enjoy it?




Hmmm. Let me answer by asking this.. How many BJ's have you been anonymously given and how many have you had to work for? No offense but maybe you're somehow different than the people I know. We all have to work for the things we want. That requires taking responsibility for ourselves and doing what's required to obtain said thing... 

Sure, that idea looks good on paper but stick men don't breath nor do they receive BJ's ( to my knowledge at least.. No offense if there are any stick men reading this)....

P.S. I'm still going to reply to your earlier post, just don't have stupid time like I used to...


----------



## Debaser (Jul 17, 2013)

TechGyver said:


> Hmmm. Let me answer by asking this.. How many BJ's have you been anonymously given and how many have you had to work for? No offense but maybe you're somehow different than the people I know.


Oh believe me. I am.

But no seriously, my point was (somewhat in jest) that your notion that something "must" be earned to be enjoyed is false. It is *possible *​to get something for free and enjoy it, that much is certain.


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

So _THIS_ is the place to start dead baby jokes, yes?

:crazy:


----------



## DylanA (Apr 25, 2013)

Pro-choice. I'm not American, but I think in the U.S. that right is guaranteed under the 9th amendment. More than that though, there are too many useless parents having useless kids, it's not helping anyone.


----------



## kay002 (Jun 18, 2013)

It's a bullshit useless society that produces useless PEOPLE. Its an intergenerational motherfucker. One which produces a bullshit health care system, a fucked up education system and one where some children will have to face huge debts, sexism and racism - a hell of a life. 
Abortion rights is especially necessary for those who are poor, have single-parent status and lack general social support...but of course, its the people who are not poor, who don't have uterus's and other burdens that ought to be making all the decisions right?! 

Those people who just looooooove to see themselves as "compassionate" when actually shit tons of their self-aggrandizement is spewing out. Disconnected as fuck. "Pro-life" my ass. Like, its actually embarrassing because anti-choice is the better descriptor.


----------



## DrJakeyll (Nov 11, 2012)

So now you're just being a moral relativist, which is such a nihilistic an humanistically hedonistic philosophy that there is NO WAY for me to continue a logical discussion. You can't be rational if you think that there is NOTHING that is clearly wrong or right; I could just murder someone, and say "Well, there are no inherent morals, so it's fine."


----------



## TechGyver (Jul 24, 2013)

Debaser said:


> Before I get started:
> 
> *you're
> *you're
> ...



Well, sorry for the late reply.... For some reason people expect me to be productive and put others needs before mine..... Ah, the adult life. 

Anyway, its kinda jumbled but here is my reply. Sorry if I didn't address your points to the fullest degree...


*your
*your
*your
*your absolutely right! I used "your" when I should have used "you're". 
Keen aye you halve they're.... Grammar and I don't always get along but I still somehow manage to get out of bed every morning anyway....

Now, for the reason we're here...

1.
Perhaps this is where, what could be considered as, the failure of your point lies... Maybe sex actually is "ethically questionable", and if decidedly not, perhaps it should be, at least, as it relates to its potential reproductive aspect.
Sex, instinctive? Only in primal human nature with the sole objective of reproduction. If modern human were to live in terms of what is instinctive, we wouldn't be having this conversation.... If a woman were to follow her natural instinct, she would naturally and instinctively carry a fetus to term and rear and protect her young, even at risk of her own life. However, to choose to have an abortion is largely un-instinctive and unnatural. It is a purely "moral" based decision. Furthermore, if abortion is a moral, un-instinctive decision, to engage in sexual activity without intention of procreation is also a morally based, un-instinctive decision. Therefor, sex could very well be "ethically questionable", especially when the destruction of a "potential" human is in question. It's the choice to give into a desire, not fulfill a need...
Also, prove to me that your opinion isn't "subjective"! To decide that a fetus is not a person is completely a subjective decision. There is no logical, completely objective way to know when a fetus becomes a person. It's a "read between the lines" situation on both sides of the fence...
Am I wrong?

I also disagree that fetuses are not legally considered as persons. Though I faintly see your census point, Im not sure that using a census to prove the thought that a fetus is not legally a person is a good idea. 
As far as it concerns a census, from the time the census is taken to the time it's processed, the actual numbers will be different due to births and deaths. Even from the counting of the first person to the counting of the last, the total number will have changed. People are born and people die. Should we consider the person who died seconds after being counted as a person? How about the the child who is born seconds after he/she would have been counted, is he/she any less of a person? With this thought in mind, the census could only be concerned with numbers at the present moment. If a dying man is counted, though he won't live, and a child is born while not being counted, before the census is even completed, why should we think the census is concerned with personhood. Furthermore, if a would be child were counted, would that mean the total number would be inaccurate? If anything, it would be more accurate... It's just a means of simplification, not a determination of personhood. 

Also, lets consider the US federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act ( Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
Here we can clearly see that, as far as US law goes, there is a clear legal determination on a fetuses right, as a person, to live. In light of this, the census point is invalid....





2.
Still don't fully understand how you can accurately say this. Suppose I would need to see studies or statistics in order to know that this is, in fact, the case...

3....
Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of the word "need". I don't see how sex is a human need, except in the case of reproduction. A person will die if he doesn't eat, drink or breath, but he has no problem surviving without sex ( while you might rather die...  ). I don't disagree that some aspects of sex could provide a health benefit, however, it is not a fundamental need for mankind except for reproduction. 

Again, "subjective" point of view??? And, see the point below on abortion "consequences". 

I don't disagree with the the use, distribution or proliferation of contraceptives, in fact, my wife and I use them successfully (she is also very knowledgeable of her fertility cycle, which plays a large factor in how we use contraceptives) , however, they are not a substitute for the responsibility a person should take for their ability reproduce. 

According to Pro-Choice statistical information, this is an accurate number... Allow me to copy and paste from my earlier post on this thread ( though not in the same cool/fancy way you did... Still learning the ropes)...

"In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.(http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html)"

Also:

"A Guttmacher report shows that “54 percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method *usually condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.” These figures are similar to those of a report in Spain showing abortions doubling despite increased family planning promotion.(http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/11/report-shows-contraception-failure-54-used-before-abortion/)."

As you stated, lets fully consider the overall failure rate of contraceptives: 

"While I agree that easy access to contraceptives can be important, statistics show that contraceptive failure rates are relatively high... "About 1-9% of women who use birth control pills and 2-18% of couples who use condoms experience unplanned pregnancies" Secular Pro-Life Perspectives: Bodily Integrity
( also CDC - Contraception - Reproductive Health)
"Even the most effective form of female sterilization has a 0.3% chance of an unplanned pregnancy". Secular Pro-Life Perspectives: Bodily Integrity
( "Up to 1% of women can become pregnant after tubal ligation". Tubal Ligation (Female Surgical Sterilization) )"

I agree that contraceptives, when used correctly, can prevent conception. The problem is, even when used correctly, they do fail!
According to the statistic, even while attempting to prevent conception by using contraceptives, these women conceived anyway. They trusted what people like you tell them and end up pregnant because of it. Now they must decided to carry the child or abort the "fetus". 

You cannot say that the 54% would inevitably end in abortion. If these women were responsible enough to attempt to prevent pregnancy, its also possible that they would have though twice before having been sexually active if they didn't have contraceptives to "rely on" to "prevent" conception. While I'll agree, its possible that many of these woman may still have obtained an abortion, its just as plausible to assume that many may have reduced their sexual activity, and therefore reduced their odds of becoming pregnant, or only engaged in activity while in a situation in which a child could be supported. It's also clear that abortion lowers the "cost" of sexual activity, only compounding the situation further. Women know that even if contraceptives fail they can always just terminate the pregnancy. This only further encourages sexual activity, therefore, increasing conception due to contraceptive failure and, subsequently, the number of abortions obtained. It could also be said, due to today's "sex positive" society, that ,while the "cost" of sexual activity has decreased, the "cost" of rejecting sexual advances has increased, adding another dimension to the situation. To your earlier point, perhaps it could be said that sex can be a result of "peer pressure", if by no one but society itself....

Also, there are studies that have shown a correlation between an increase in STD transmission and the legalization of abortion. These studies regard the "decreased cost of sexual activity" to be the fundamental cause of STD increase. The increase seems pretty substantial and is a clear indicator that abortion has in fact lowered the cost of sexual activity and, therefore, increased sexual encounters. 
" We find that gonorrhea and syphilis incidences are significantly and positively correlated with abortion legalization. According to our estimates, abortion legalization might account for as much as one third of the average disease incidence".
http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/02-11.pdf
Study - Effect of Abortion Legalization on Sexual Behavior: Evidence from Sexually Transmitted Diseases

A similar argument could be made for contraceptive use, as well...
Studies: Birth Control, Contraception Don't Cut Abortions | LifeNews.com



Furthermore, abstinence is, in fact, natural. For example, most animals have breeding seasons in which they are "sexually active", but remain abstinent during the rest of the year. These seasons correspond with times that their environment can better sustain their offspring. 
With that said, contraceptives are undoubtedly unnatural... 
How could the argument that "abstinence is unnatural, therefore, we should use contraceptives" be relevant, since contraceptives are wholly unnatural and abstinence could be?


A Puritan, huh? BAHAHAHA.... I guess I've been called worse. I really don't care what you call me as long as I'm right! If you need to call me names in order to make or your stance appear more valid, you have my compassion and permission. I'll just (attempt to) let the facts and ration speak for mine....

4.
True, sex is legal and speeding is not. 
However, rhetorically and metaphorically, if sexual activity were like "speeding", conceiving would be like getting pulled by a police ( the fetus). Furthermore, like you, most people would be pissed at the cop because they got caught, not because they were unaware of their actions.... 
(It's not a perfect analogy, but its better than the log vs house spiel.... LOL!


----------



## redneck15 (Mar 21, 2011)

These debates can get pretty involved.


----------

