# Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life Relation to MBTI



## Faygo

I'm wondering if a person's view on this topic has anything to do with MBTI personality types.


----------



## Maegamikko

NT, pro life all the way.


----------



## Violator Rose

NF, pro-choice


----------



## JTHearts

ENFJ and pro-choice


----------



## Lemxn

INFJ: Pro-Choice.


----------



## friendly80sfan

ENFJ - Pro-life


----------



## hailfire

SP, pro-choice.


----------



## Im FiNe

NF, opposing abortion as a form of last-minute birth control and as a response of devaluing a person who may not be perfect :crying:

If you need help, please, PM me.


----------



## PaladinRoland

Too serious for me.  
It depends... 
But Im neutral. :ninja: 

(INFP=Neutral/Undecided)


----------



## Sixty Nein

I'm pro-choice. Living is not something that all people can be blessed with, but everyone deserves the privilege to choose.

I accidentally choose pro-life. So there is -1 less NF prolife then that.


----------



## miss. potato

Pro-life, because the baby can't make a choice, and I think it would choose life, don't you?

ENTJ btw.


----------



## iemanja

Pro choice! 
I'd attach more value to the life of a person who is already established in the world, has people who worry and care for her and has already used resources to build a skill set for which she could be useful.


----------



## FakeLefty

xSTP

Pro-choice.


----------



## piscesfish

INFJ. Pro-choice in the sense that you never know what someone's circumstance could be, and it would be unfair to _pass a law_ that would take away that woman's choice. If I were ever in a situation where I would be considering abortion, I would likely have the baby anyways, but I wouldn't want to take away the option from someone who really needed it.


----------



## skycloud86

NT and pro-choice. I advocate the right for a woman to have access to abortion clinics and have autonomy over her own body. However, more needs to be done to encourage people to use contraceptives, as abortion should really be a last resort.


----------



## hircine

NT - choice.


----------



## Helweh18

NT - Pro-Choice. People always fail to realize that having to have an abortion is not always due to careless behavior. There are medical reasons; cysts, ectopic preganancies etc. and of course there are victims of rape.


----------



## mirrorghost

NF, pro-choice all the way, forever and always, in every situation.


----------



## Antipode

I believe if a woman's life is in danger (no, I don't allow "I just don't want to" as danger -_-), then she potentially has the right to get the abortion to save her own life.

If it's anything other than that, I'm (not pro-choice or pro-life, since those are such stupid terms, as if anyone is against either life or choice), for the baby being born in spite of the mother's discomfort, even because of facebook social ramifications or new time-consumer.


----------



## Hikikomori

NT. Pro-death.


----------



## Zombie Devil Duckie

SJ - Pro Choice.


----------



## athenian200

I'm pro-choice, and I think that pro-life people just attribute value to something because it's genetically human and has "life." More attention needs to be paid to sentience/consciousness in determining such things.

Many people also don't understand what having a baby does to a woman's mind, let alone her body. Once the pregnancy reaches a certain point, it kicks off a series of chemical switches that can force the woman to feel compelled to nurture the baby and neglect her own desires. If she wants to live for herself and retain her own personality, she needs to get that abortion. It can destroy the person she was before.

This is about more than just the physical issues and risks with having a child, this is about something that often alters a woman's personality and identity. By denying a woman the right to an abortion, you deny her control over her own mind and identity, as well as her body.


----------



## KateMarie999

NF, pro-life all the way. Wanted to go to March for Life but was unable due to weather and car issues.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr

esfp, pro-life (consistent life ethic)
would like to see better education, more effective birth control, and more respect for life from society. life is a beautiful gift...


----------



## aphinion

ENTP, pro-choice.


----------



## Blazy

Pro-life. Many people these days need to control themselves and not always rely on abortion. You get a baby, then keep it bitch. Embrace safe sex.


----------



## Violator Rose

Wh1zkey said:


> Pro-life. Many people these days need to control themselves and not always rely on abortion. You get a baby, then keep it bitch. Embrace safe sex.


Because women who are raped were unable to control themselves, right? -_-





Sent from my HTCPO881 Sprint using Tapatalk


----------



## mirrorghost

yeah, we're just bitches. 

1. one can have safe sex and still get pregnant. contraception is not 100% foolproof. 
2. many poor communities don't have good education about safe sex either. 
3. men are half the equation here. don't blame women because of the anatomy we are born with. what is this, the dark ages??


----------



## Mee2

INFP pro choice, but I accidentally voted pro-life. Oops. Is there any way that I can change it?


----------



## SuperDevastation

SP, pro-life.


----------



## SuperDevastation

iemanja said:


> Pro choice!
> I'd attach more value to the life of a person who is already established in the world, has people who worry and care for her and has already used resources to build a skill set for which she could be useful.


You should know those who are in the world were once fetuses.


----------



## SuperDevastation

Helweh18 said:


> NT - Pro-Choice. People always fail to realize that having to have an abortion is not always due to careless behavior. There are medical reasons; cysts, ectopic preganancies etc. and of course there are victims of rape.


A lot of people also fail to realize the reason for most abortions is for convenience, not the womens health, incest, or rape.


----------



## SuperDevastation

mirrorghost said:


> NF, pro-choice all the way, forever and always, in every situation.


Something's wrong with you.


----------



## SuperDevastation

delphi367 said:


> I'm pro-choice, and I think that pro-life people just attribute value to something because it's genetically human and has "life." More attention needs to be paid to sentience/consciousness in determining such things.
> 
> Many people also don't understand what having a baby does to a woman's mind, let alone her body. Once the pregnancy reaches a certain point, it kicks off a series of chemical switches that can force the woman to feel compelled to nurture the baby and neglect her own desires. If she wants to live for herself and retain her own personality, she needs to get that abortion. It can destroy the person she was before.
> 
> This is about more than just the physical issues and risks with having a child, this is about something that often alters a woman's personality and identity. By denying a woman the right to an abortion, you deny her control over her own mind and identity, as well as her body.


First fetuses are sentient/conscious, they're just not fully developed yet, second we were all fetuses once, third it's not that bad for most women to give birth, only for some.


----------



## Blazy

Violator Rose said:


> Because women who are raped were unable to control themselves, right? -_-


Nah, couldn't care less for rape victims. It's a lot of teenagers/college students these days that need to be taught a lesson the hardest way possible. Discipline to the max. Don't party too much; open your textbooks instead-type of stuff. You see people getting used to the idea of having the option of abortion available. They take that for granted and have sex carelessly. That behavior becomes a habit eventually and won't help this nation at all. If you have a brain then you'd agree with me. Also, you didn't need sarcasm to make a point. It makes you sound immature and not to be taken seriously. Replying to your post would seem like a waste of time and energy, but my previous post didn't have more information so I'm taking this chance to drill my thoughts into your head. Anyway, I'm done here, not interested in amateur debating. Take care.


----------



## will-o'-wisp

Wow! Really?! However that's meant....seriously or otherwise ^


----------



## Dewymorning

INTJ

Pro-not-needing-an-abortion-in-the-first-place


----------



## Mee2

Wh1zkey said:


> *Nah, couldn't care less for rape victims.* It's a lot of teenagers/college students these days that need to be taught a lesson the hardest way possible. Discipline to the max. Don't party too much; open your textbooks instead-type of stuff. You see people getting used to the idea of having the option of abortion available. They take that for granted and have sex carelessly. That behavior becomes a habit eventually and won't help this nation at all. *If you have a brain then you'd agree with me.* Also, you didn't need sarcasm to make a point. It makes you sound immature and not to be taken seriously. *Replying to your post would seem like a waste of time and energy,* but my previous post didn't have more information so *I'm taking this chance to drill my thoughts into your head. Anyway, I'm done here, not interested in amateur debating. Take care.*


Maybe I'm alone here, but I've always found it very hard to take someone's opinion seriously when they're unwilling to engage in any discussion about it and have their ideas open to criticism. Of course, you don't have to back up your opinion if you don't want to, but it sounded to me like you wanted your post to be taken seriously, so I thought you might be interested to know why that's not going to happen (for me, at least).


----------



## iemanja

SuperDevastation said:


> You should know those who are in the world were once fetuses.


You should know that you didn't get my point.


----------



## NChSh

NT - Pro-Choice (in all things, really).


----------



## Violator Rose

Mee2 said:


> Maybe I'm alone here, but I've always found it very hard to take someone's opinion seriously when they're unwilling to engage in any discussion about it and have their ideas open to criticism. Of course, you don't have to back up your opinion if you don't want to, but it sounded to me like you wanted your post to be taken seriously, so I thought you might be interested to know why that's not going to happen (for me, at least).


I stopped taking his post seriously when he said "Nah, couldn't care less for rape victims."



Sent from my HTCPO881 Sprint using Tapatalk


----------



## Helweh18

[No message]


----------



## Helweh18

Question, Those of you that are Pro-life do you believe in the morning after pill?

If society eliminated legal abortions it wouldn't stop illegal abortions in unsafe conditions from happening. Woman can still intentionally miscarry by throwing themselves down flights of stairs, getting punched in the stomach, or using wire hangers. This is what woman did before abortion clinics were readily available.


----------



## Violator Rose




----------



## Helweh18

Violator Rose said:


>


Hilarious! Soooo True!


----------



## mirrorghost

SuperDevastation said:


> Something's wrong with you.


something's wrong with people who want to control women's lives and their bodies. other women condoning it is even more sad.


----------



## Chesire Tower

Wh1zkey said:


> It's a lot of teenagers/college students these days that need to be taught a lesson the hardest way possible. Discipline to the max. Don't party too much; open your textbooks instead-type of stuff.


I'm sure that you're referring to BOTH sexes, correct?


----------



## Jennywocky

Helweh18 said:


> Wow! That shows the level of research you have actually done on the topic. Maybe you should volunteer in a women's clinic or hospital like I have, or maybe even read a few medical journals and find out possible medical complications that go along with pregnancy. Oh wait I just noticed you are a man, so you are partially forgiven for your ignorance.



I did a quick search for statistics / questionnaires on that topic.

One link is here (with tables of the answers and percentages).
Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

More general stats by CDC for 2008 are here: 
Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2008

There's probably tons more out there.



Helweh18 said:


> Question, Those of you that are Pro-life do you believe in the morning after pill?
> 
> If society eliminated legal abortions it wouldn't stop illegal abortions in unsafe conditions from happening. Woman can still intentionally miscarry by throwing themselves down flights of stairs, getting punched in the stomach, or using wire hangers. This is what woman did before abortion clinics were readily available.


I expect their argument is, "well, that's their choice and they shouldn't do that."


----------



## Chesire Tower

I am an INFJ; I am pro-choice and pro-life. I believe that a woman ought to have control over her own body and I am opposed to capital punishment.


----------



## Im FiNe

Helweh18 said:


> Question, Those of you that are Pro-life do you believe in the morning after pill?


The use of the "morning after" pill is a form of chemical abortion. I view IUDs, also, as passive mechanical abortion inducers.


----------



## Dashing

Pro-life is semantically incorrect.



Wh1zkey said:


> Pro-life. Many people these days need to control themselves and not always rely on abortion. You get a baby, then keep it bitch. Embrace safe sex.


Such bitterness, pretend all you want that you care about life and that every fetus deserves a chance. Your real reasons come from emotions like hatred and wanting to force your own ideals / handicaps upon others.


----------



## Curiously

NF - Pro-Choice, don't even get me started.


----------



## Helweh18

For those of you that subscribe to HBO there is an excellent documentary on abortions available on demand. It has excellent real life stories the documentary is called "Abortion".


----------



## Mee2

Whoa! According to those statistics, the reason for ~1% of abortions is, "husband or partner wants her to have abortion." I am very bothered by this. That number really needs to be zero.


----------



## SuperDevastation

mirrorghost said:


> something's wrong with people who want to control women's lives and their bodies. other women condoning it is even more sad.


Which is what liberals are trying to do. And women have no right to kill the fetus for their convenience, if they don't want to get pregnant they shouldn't have sex in the first place. It's also quite sad people like you support abortion even when the women wasn't raped nor did she get it on with a family member (very foolish). Also there aren't any women condoning control over woman, you made that up to protect and feed your ego.


----------



## SuperDevastation

Helweh18 said:


> Wow! That shows the level of research you have actually done on the topic. Maybe you should volunteer in a women's clinic or hospital like I have, or maybe even read a few medical journals and find out possible medical complications that go along with pregnancy. Oh wait I just noticed you are a man, so you are partially forgiven for your ignorance.


Can't stand the truth so you make assumptions about me and attempt to troll me, typical liberal. And if I was a woman you'd say the same thing so don't pretend it's because I'm male, sexist pig. Also why don't you volunteer to help women with those problems? Oh that's right you don't care.


----------



## SuperDevastation

Helweh18 said:


> Question, Those of you that are Pro-life do you believe in the morning after pill?
> 
> If society eliminated legal abortions it wouldn't stop illegal abortions in unsafe conditions from happening. Woman can still intentionally miscarry by throwing themselves down flights of stairs, getting punched in the stomach, or using wire hangers. This is what woman did before abortion clinics were readily available.


Pro-lifers aren't at fault for the stupid decisions pro-abortion women make.


----------



## Violator Rose

SuperDevastation said:


> Pro-lifers aren't at fault for the stupid decisions pro-abortion women make.


What I can't understand is how you can claim to be "pro-life" and yet not care about the lives of these women.



Sent from my HTCPO881 Sprint using Tapatalk


----------



## SuperDevastation

Violator Rose said:


> What I can't understand is how you can claim to be "pro-life" and yet not care about the lives of these women.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my HTCPO881 Sprint using Tapatalk


Don't project yourself onto me, it doesn't make you a better person, in fact it makes you worse.


----------



## iemanja

I love how so called 'pro life' protestors have shot and given death threats to abortion doctors (who can save lives...)

hypocrites!


----------



## iemanja

SuperDevastation said:


> Don't project yourself onto me, it doesn't make you a better person, in fact it makes you worse.


In other words: @Violator Rose you stumped him/exposed his logical inconsistencies so now he would like to launch a personal attack at you.


----------



## snail

NF and pro-life.

I believe every person has a right to exist free from violence. I believe unborn children are people. If one would not kill an infant or deprive him/her of what s/he needs to survive, then his/her location, size, and stage of development should not change that. 

I believe that pregnant individuals also have rights and should be supported in every way possible, treated compassionately, accommodated, and aided whenever beneficial. I am not using the pro-life label as an excuse to be a misogynist, as some do. I am not merely anti-choice. I believe in giving women better options. To be pro-life without also being a feminist is dangerous and potentially harmful to the women victimized by coercion or trapped in difficult situations. I do not think the women victimized by abortion should be treated like criminals. As someone who has been in that situation, and as someone who did the wrong thing for what seemed like unavoidable reasons, I don't see it as celebrating the freedom to make a choice. I see it as a horrible tragedy that we should be working together as a society to eliminate by creating a stronger system of support for women in desperate situations and for the children who survive.


----------



## SuperDevastation

iemanja said:


> In other words: @Violator Rose you stumped him/exposed his logical inconsistencies so now he would like to launch a personal attack at you.


Other way around, get it right.


----------



## SuperDevastation

iemanja said:


> I love how so called 'pro life' protestors have shot and given death threats to abortion doctors (who can save lives...)
> 
> hypocrites!


You're not very good at lying. And show a picture or video of me shooting at an abortion clinic/doctor, if that's even possible. Also I know you're kind doesn't give a damn about abortion doctors, you just want them around for your convenience.


----------



## Realpeopleonly

Nf-pro choice


----------



## Jennywocky

[No message]


----------



## Jennywocky

Well, this thread went to hell. Anyone wanna talk statistics again?

Here's another link to study of survey on reasons for women who did get abortions:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

synopsis:


> CONTEXT: Understanding women’s reasons for having abortions can inform public debate and policy regarding abortion and unwanted pregnancy. Demographic changes over the last two decades highlight the need for a reassessment of why women decide to have abortions.
> 
> METHODS: In 2004, a structured survey was completed by 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large providers, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 38 women at four sites. Bivariate analyses examined differences in the reasons for abortion across subgroups, and multivariate logistic regression models assessed associations between respondent characteristics and reported reasons.
> 
> RESULTS: The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were
> unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.
> 
> CONCLUSIONS: The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons. The themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study.
> 
> Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118


----------



## mirrorghost

SuperDevastation said:


> Which is what liberals are trying to do. And women have no right to kill the fetus for their convenience, if they don't want to get pregnant they shouldn't have sex in the first place. It's also quite sad people like you support abortion even when the women wasn't raped nor did she get it on with a family member (very foolish). Also there aren't any women condoning control over woman, you made that up to protect and feed your ego.


oh you're not actually a woman, i misread! my mistake. 

there are pro-choice conservatives, by the way.

maybe the men these abortionists have sex with shouldn't have sex either. or masturbate. because those sperm could become babies someday.

haha. anti-abortion men really are the worst. so scared of women having actual freedom to have personal control their own lives and bodies.


----------



## Violator Rose

mirrorghost said:


> maybe the men these abortionists have sex with shouldn't have sex either. or masturbate. because those sperm could become babies someday.


"Hey, hey, if they really want to get serious, what about all the sperm that are wasted when the state executes a condemned man, one of these pro-life guys who's watching cums in his pants, huh? Here's a guy standing over there with his jockey shorts full of little Vinnies and Debbies, and nobody's saying a word to the guy. Not every ejaculation deserves a name." 
-- George Carlin


----------



## Helweh18

SuperDevastation said:


> Can't stand the truth so you make assumptions about me and attempt to troll me, typical liberal. And if I was a woman you'd say the same thing so don't pretend it's because I'm male, sexist pig. Also why don't you volunteer to help women with those problems? Oh that's right you don't care.


Actually I'm not a liberal... But with your infinite wisdom you are assuming that I am liberal. I am a person that basis my opinions on logic and reason.


----------



## Helweh18

*Posted twice*


----------



## Fievel

INFJ and I'm pro-life. I don't think abortion is right nor is it the right solution to several legitimate personal and social issues. I derive this conclusion in part from a working of logic stipulating that life is an end in itself, not a means to an end. Aristotle probably summarized this position best: _"And life: since, even if no other good were the result of life, it is desirable in itself."_


----------



## Arya

delphi367 said:


> I'm pro-choice, and I think that pro-life people just attribute value to something because it's genetically human and has "life." More attention needs to be paid to sentience/consciousness in determining such things.
> 
> Many people also don't understand what having a baby does to a woman's mind, let alone her body. Once the pregnancy reaches a certain point, it kicks off a series of chemical switches that can force the woman to feel compelled to nurture the baby and neglect her own desires. If she wants to live for herself and retain her own personality, she needs to get that abortion. It can destroy the person she was before.
> 
> This is about more than just the physical issues and risks with having a child, this is about something that often alters a woman's personality and identity. By denying a woman the right to an abortion, you deny her control over her own mind and identity, as well as her body.


If it alters a woman's personality it is usually for a very short period of time. The women around me who have children have never gone through rapid personality change. There may be a slight difference, but it's generally very small. And I've yet to meet many women who neglect themselves after having children. Again, maybe for a short period of time like the first several months when the baby needs the most care, but most of them bounce back very quickly and are back to doing what they love. So I think you're way over exaggerating. Having a child does not permanently change who you really are. I've never seen a type five mom, for instance, change into a type two after having a child. They may become more nurturing to an extent, but they are still themselves. And some women are so happy to take care of their children that they do change direction completely but so what? If they're happy then it doesn't matter.


----------



## athenian200

Arya said:


> They may become more nurturing to an extent, but they are still themselves. And some women are so happy to take care of their children that they do change direction completely but so what? If they're happy then it doesn't matter.


Well, I never said that it matters to everyone. But it does matter to me. I think that the increased nurturing tendency DOES change who they are. It weakens unique aspects of their personality and pushes them towards a certain way of being that is generally associated with mothers. They don't become that way entirely, they have a lifetime of knowledge anchoring their personalities to an extent... but it influences them enough to be disturbing.

I really don't expect to convince anyone of my perspective. If someone feels that life is an absolute good and that loss of self is outweighed by the good of the baby, there isn't much I can say that's going to change their mind. We all know the arguments all too well, and we've all decided what our own consciences find acceptable. There's little more to be said.


----------



## Arya

delphi367 said:


> Well, I never said that it matters to everyone. But it does matter to me. I think that the increased nurturing tendency DOES change who they are. It weakens unique aspects of their personality and pushes them towards a certain way of being that is generally associated with mothers. They don't become that way entirely, they have a lifetime of knowledge anchoring their personalities to an extent... but it influences them enough to be disturbing.
> 
> I really don't expect to convince anyone of my perspective. If someone feels that life is an absolute good and that loss of self is outweighed by the good of the baby, there isn't much I can say that's going to change their mind. We all know the arguments all too well, and we've all decided what our own consciences find acceptable. There's little more to be said.


I'm not even arguing pro life or pro choice here. I just don't think personalities are that changeable. Who you truly are inside just doesn't change like that. Maybe hidden for a while, but it's still there. You might add more to yourself as well. But then any life experience can add to you or slightly change how you acted before, so I'm not sure why it's disturbing. It's the same as any other process in life. I'm certainly not exactly the same as I was two years ago and I haven't had children. Slight changes are basically inevitable. Living your life thinking I must stay the exact same way my whole life would be silly. It's not going to happen, and you'll just hold yourself back from experiencing the moment. Nobody would say I refuse to ever have a friend or date a guy because they might change my life slightly and weaken who I think I am. Or most people wouldn't.... Out of curiosity, are you a type four? I only ever seem to have arguments like this with type fours.


----------



## athenian200

Arya said:


> I'm not even arguing pro life or pro choice here. I just don't think personalities are that changeable.
> Who you truly are inside just doesn't change like that.


I guess it's just that some women I've seen have kids seem to get this kind of mindless happiness and babble on about boring details related to their kids, when before they liked to have interesting conversations. And I have heard about research saying that the hormonal changes associated with pregnancy might modify the way their minds work, explaining this phenomenon, though I didn't see a lot of concrete evidence. 

One of the more unnerving things that sometimes happens, is that they become very boring, practical people who want to live in the suburbs and resist change all the time, because they're paranoid it might somehow adversely affect their kid. Even if they were like, ENTPs before or something. 



> Or most people wouldn't.... Out of curiosity, are you a type four? I only ever seem to have arguments like this with type fours.


I'm curious about that myself. I actually have a thread going right now, asking people about that. I'm really uncertain as to what my Enneagram type might be, because I'm sort of oblivious to my internal motivations a lot of the time.


----------



## Arya

delphi367 said:


> I guess it's just that some women I've seen have kids seem to get this kind of mindless happiness and babble on about boring details related to their kids, when before they liked to have interesting conversations. And I have heard about research saying that the hormonal changes associated with pregnancy might modify the way their minds work, explaining this phenomenon, though I didn't see a lot of concrete evidence.
> 
> One of the more unnerving things that sometimes happens, is that they become very boring, practical people who want to live in the suburbs and resist change all the time, because they're paranoid it might somehow adversely affect their kid. Even if they were like, ENTPs before or something.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious about that myself. I actually have a thread going right now, asking people about that. I'm really uncertain as to what my Enneagram type might be, because I'm sort of oblivious to my internal motivations a lot of the time.


It's probably partially a new parent thing y'know? Like nobody wants to ruin their child, and they're all excited at first cause it's so new to them. Not that I have kids, but I've noticed that new parents are very uptight about being the perfect parents and older parents are kinda relaxed and do their own thing a lot of the time. Of course, that's not always true all the time. There are very uptight older parents as well. I guess I'm just used to my parents. My mom is an INTJ type five and you'd have to kill her before she'd become the sort of mom who carts her kids everywhere and doesn't have her own interests. And then my dad is an INTP type nine, who is just sort of relaxed most of the time. Heck, even my ISTJ grandma, who is an Si dom worked her whole life doing what she loved. Maybe I'm just around weird people.  She's 68 now and she still works the same types of jobs. do you have a link for your thread?


----------



## RainyAutumnTwilight

I'm an INFJ and pro-life ^_^


----------



## Riptide

Pro choice. It is their body their decisions.6


----------



## INFJRoanna

INFJ - Pro Life.

I won't go into my opinion at length, as I don't really care for confrontation and this is a bit of a heated subject - but if you have an abortion you are wiping away someone's entire life, an innocent life.


----------



## TheBlueRainWolf

Sixty Nein said:


> I'm pro-choice. Living is not something that all people can be blessed with, but everyone deserves the privilege to choose.
> 
> I accidentally choose pro-life. So there is -1 less NF prolife then that.


Same. -1 NT for pro-life :frustrating:


----------



## Mee2

TheBlueRainWolf said:


> Same. -1 NT for pro-life :frustrating:


Me too! (NF). "Pro life"... It sounds like such a nice term. I guess my brain struggles to match such a nice term to a concept that I disagree with completely.


----------



## Devrim

Pro-Choice,
Not the prettiest option,
But by far the most practical.


----------



## lib

Pro-choice INTJ.
Before voting I suspected that Sensors were more likely than iNtuitors to be "pro-life". I also suspected that Feelers were more likely than Thinkers to be "pro-life". The tendencies are too weak and the number of votes too limited to draw any conclusion.
I suspected that most/all the "*pro-lifers*" were Americans (religion) and went on to check the first 3 pages for "pro-lifers" and found 9 of which 8 informed nationality: *all Americans*! Less than half the PerC members, that have informed nationality, are Americans. Religion is definitely an element!
While checking this I also checked for sex (male/female), sexual orientation and Fi <> Fe but didn't find any clear tendencies. However, there was something I hadn't been looking for: the "pro-lifers" gave far fewer "thanks" than they received though I have no conclusion to this observation.



Im FiNe said:


> NF, opposing abortion as a form of last-minute birth control and as a response of devaluing a person who may not be perfect :crying:
> 
> If you need help, please, PM me.


It is possible to oppose abortion and yet not want to make it illegal/criminal for others to have it done. 



piscesfish said:


> INFJ. Pro-choice in the sense that you never know what someone's circumstance could be, and it would be unfair to _pass a law_ that would take away that woman's choice. If I were ever in a situation where I would be considering abortion, I would likely have the baby anyways, but I wouldn't want to take away the option from someone who really needed it.


Thanks! It is apparently difficult for a lot of people to distinguish between: this is wrong/this should be illegal. This is not limited to abortion. I think it's wrong to smoke...both tobacco and marijuana, drink alcohol, etc. nor do I have any interest in same sex sex and yet, I would never dream of trying to make any of it illegal/criminalize. 



Antipode said:


> I believe if a woman's life is in danger (no, I don't allow "I just don't want to" as danger -_-), then she potentially has the right to get the abortion to save her own life.
> 
> If it's anything other than that, I'm (not pro-choice or pro-life, since those are such stupid terms, as if anyone is against either life or choice), for the baby being born in spite of the mother's discomfort, even because of facebook social ramifications or new time-consumer.


The names are just words. It's the meaning given that matters.
"Pro-life": not only against abortion for yourself and others but want to make it illegal/criminalize it.
"Pro-choice": may or may not be against abortion for yourself or others but doesn't want to take the choice away from others/criminalize it.



Wh1zkey said:


> Pro-life. Many people these days need to control themselves and not always rely on abortion. You get a baby, then keep it bitch. Embrace safe sex.


Misogynist!


----------



## Helios

Pro-Choice all the way.


----------



## Im FiNe

lib said:


> It is possible to oppose abortion and yet not want to make it illegal/criminal for others to have it done.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! It is apparently difficult for a lot of people to distinguish between: this is wrong/this should be illegal. This is not limited to abortion. I think it's wrong to smoke...both tobacco and marijuana, drink alcohol, etc. nor do I have any interest in same sex sex and yet, I would never dream of trying to make any of it illegal/criminalize.


Hi, lib.

To clarify I oppose abortion morally, idealistically, and legally, meaning that I believe that state and federal governments should protect the lives of the marginalized who cannot speak for themselves in defense of this most basic human right. In short I see this complicated, complex issue as involving the intertwined lives of two people rather than one person and some cells/tissue/extension. 
[_N.B. __I'm not talking about gametes, but I am talking about developing human beings whether zygotes, blastulae, gastrulae, etc., up through fetus and beyond_._ I don't see the stages of development as making the person less than a person in the same manner as a girl is no less a person than a woman is.__ This would also include concern for invitro-fertilized zygotes in cryostorage and their eventual outcome._]

Now if I were to believe that humans become humans when they become air-breathers (or some similar definable developmental event), then you certainly have a point that I shouldn't interfere with the only person's rights (the pregnant woman) involved. Conversely and reiterating I see two people necessarily involved: the pregnant woman and the developing child. The class of things wrong in which this belongs is on a higher level of import than smoking, to use one of your examples. This is wrong and due to its nature must be illegal (as being in the class with murder and manslaughter rather than the class of drinking an alcoholic beverage or smoking).

That's half of my concern. The second half is this: the woman who does not want to be pregnant. Some Pro-Life people see only half of the living people involved and get fired up to support the voiceless. They may forget to support the women, too, to be willing to walk with them and share with them. We all make mistakes or have bad, undesirable, and unexpected things happen to us, and all need each other in one way or another throughout our lives.


----------



## Osytek

NT pro-life


----------



## deftonePassenger

The "taking away an innocent life" argument is invalid. You can't take something away from someone who has never had it. I was an accident. Had I, the accident, never happened, I wouldn't have cared because I would never have lived to care about life or death.

Furthermore, a fetus is not legally nor scientifically defined as alive. Beating heart =/= alive.

Let's end the misogyny. 

- Pro-choice NT


----------



## Osytek

deftonePassenger said:


> a fetus is not legally nor scientifically defined as alive.



I read that there is no unequivocal definition of life in biology.

It can be defined as alive.

It can be defined as not alive.

You choose what you want to choose but the opposite statement doesn't need to be inconsistent with science. (It's more philosophy or something else here than science)

I think science is quite limited, it can be easy to mix science and philosophy (scientists can do this too).

I personally like this definition of mammalian life:
"The defining characteristic of mammalian life, including human life, is the continuous process of development, which starts at fertilization and ends at death."


----------



## SlightlyEccentric

INTJ and pro-choice, although others may certainly disagree as a male I personally don't feel I can deny something or be against something that I cannot experience like abortion so I think by default I'm pro-choice anyway. I'm not physically capable of ever being pregnant let alone having an abortion so I don't feel I am in any place to judge or be against it, if I was speaking as a utilitarian the ends would justify the means (if the child would make the family or mothers life worse then an abortion would be the better option if for example it's the result of a rape or the mother could die etc), I also tend to be of the thinking that something is not alive until it has been born and breathed oxygen by itself not that it is theoretically possible it could survive on its own but that it actually has but that may sound cruel to some. Just my personal opinion of course.


----------



## Nightchill

What baffles me, what gives people liberty to control body and life of one (woman) for the sake of another (fetus). It's okay if they do it to her, but not if she does it to the fetus. Double-faced and corrupt.


----------



## KraChZiMan

INFP and pro-choice.

Not a woman but I am pretty convinced that when woman is not ready to raise a child, then there isn't any point on giving birth to one. Every child deserves to have parents that love their child, not the kind of parents who can say to a child "I wish that condom wasn't broken" and not feel horrible regret for saying it afterwards. Fetus is about as much human being as egg compared to a chicken and the rooster. Do you feel like a murderer when you're making a full british breakfast?


----------



## EricFisher

Definitely pro-choice. However, I definitely don't think abortion is something to be taken lightly and would be a very difficult decision to make.


----------



## proudtobeme

snail said:


> NF and pro-life.
> 
> I believe every person has a right to exist free from violence. I believe unborn children are people. If one would not kill an infant or deprive him/her of what s/he needs to survive, then his/her location, size, and stage of development should not change that.
> 
> I believe that pregnant individuals also have rights and should be supported in every way possible, treated compassionately, accommodated, and aided whenever beneficial. I am not using the pro-life label as an excuse to be a misogynist, as some do. I am not merely anti-choice. I believe in giving women better options. To be pro-life without also being a feminist is dangerous and potentially harmful to the women victimized by coercion or trapped in difficult situations. I do not think the women victimized by abortion should be treated like criminals. As someone who has been in that situation, and as someone who did the wrong thing for what seemed like unavoidable reasons, I don't see it as celebrating the freedom to make a choice. I see it as a horrible tragedy that we should be working together as a society to eliminate by creating a stronger system of support for women in desperate situations and for the children who survive.



Standing ovation for this. 

NF and very pro life. I would accept some compromise I would accept special cases but some people want abortion as birth control, people want to minimize the human inside by calling it fetus or other things, the truth is after the 12th week the baby has a central nervous system and is able to feel pain. I would make anything after the 12th week extremely illegal. Before that I would make it easy for every woman to get support, options and all the help they might need depending on the circumstances. This might include mandatory sexual education for the careless pregnancies. 

The fact that ANYONE would support partial birth abortions as a way to push a silly idiotic feminist agenda is appalling. I'm very pro women, not pro feminist. They just have all their priorities screwed up. Spend 1/3 of the money you give to planned parenthood developing a better adoption system, that will help a lot more. No more couples going to central america or eastern Europe because they can't adopt in the US. I hate it that when people speak of "options", they never mention adoption.


----------



## malphigus

ENTP, pro choice man.

No matter what the circumstance is. Raped or "the condom broke!" or whatever else, think of the child. You seriously want the kid to be raised by someone that potentially doesn't love him, and only does because she has to?

This doesn't mean I condone abortion after you didn't use a condom. That just means you're a douchebag.


----------



## Nightchill

proudtobeme said:


> Standing ovation for this.
> 
> NF and very pro life. I would accept some compromise I would accept special cases but some people want abortion as birth control, people want to minimize the human inside by calling it fetus or other things, the truth is after the 12th week the baby has a central nervous system and is able to feel pain. I would make anything after the 12th week extremely illegal. Before that I would make it easy for every woman to get support, options and all the help they might need depending on the circumstances. This might include mandatory sexual education for the careless pregnancies.
> 
> 
> The fact that ANYONE would support partial birth abortions as a way to push a silly idiotic feminist agenda is appalling.



Incorrect, most likely. They are able to feel stimulus, but for nervous pathways to enable fetus to feel pain stimulus has to reach cerebral cortex. It's purely based on spinal cord reflex. Until there are no fibers between cortical plate and cerebral cortex, reaction is purely based on spinal cord reflex. (24-26 weeks). 


The further question is whether cerebral cortex is able to consciously perceive pain.
EEG measurements in newborns show a difference between the response to touch and the response to the pain of a heel prick only as of thirty-five to thirty-seven weeks.


Not only do anencephalic babies respond to physical stimulus by recoiling, but brain-dead adults in vegetative comas whose cerebral cortex is entirely destroyed also respond in the same way.


Make surein the future that the' knowledge' your pro-birth agenda is based on isn't idiotic. 

The fact that anyone would push any agenda on other people is appalling, but that's part of the existence. The will to power. Feminists are annoying, but so is this self-righteous baby fetishism. The moment you manipulate life of another - mother or fetus, your honor is stained. The only question is that of your preference.


----------



## proudtobeme

Nightchill said:


> Incorrect, most likely. They are able to feel stimulus, but for nervous pathways to enable fetus to feel pain stimulus has to reach cerebral cortex. It's purely based on spinal cord reflex. Until there are no fibers between cortical plate and cerebral cortex, reaction is purely based on spinal cord reflex. (24-26 weeks).
> 
> 
> The further question is whether cerebral cortex is able to consciously perceive pain.
> EEG measurements in newborns show a difference between the response to touch and the response to the pain of a heel prick only as of thirty-five to thirty-seven weeks.
> 
> 
> Not only do anencephalic babies respond to physical stimulus by recoiling, but brain-dead adults in vegetative comas whose cerebral cortex is entirely destroyed also respond in the same way.
> 
> 
> Make surein the future that the' knowledge' your pro-birth agenda is based on isn't idiotic.
> 
> The fact that anyone would push any agenda on other people is appalling, but that's part of the existence. The will to power. Feminists are annoying, but so is this self-righteous baby fetishism. The moment you manipulate life of another - mother or fetus, your honor is stained. The only question is that of your preference.



So? If your science adds up simply adjust what I said to the 26th week mark. Simple. I don't have a baby fetish, I just have a tiny little feeling in my stomach about MURDER.


----------



## bettiepage

NT, pro-choice. 
I really dislike abortion, but I think it should be legal and a woman should be allowed to have one regardless of the circumstance. I'm always upset by the people who say "it's irresponsible to abort a baby just because you were irresponsible about birth control." I think the opposite is true. Furthermore, if a couple who does not want a child is irresponsible enough to not use birth control diligently, I don't think they would make responsible parents. I may or may not believe that embryos are life, but even if the embryo is alive, so is the mother. And the mother shouldn't have to be burdened and incubate a child she does not want, especially if she's pressured to keep it, thus altering her life greatly and dehumanizing her (She's not a human, she's just a child shoot and brood raiser. That's her purpose whether she wants it to be or not.)


----------



## emmylouise

SJ Pro-Choice.

I wouldn't say I 'advocate' abortions but at the end of the day it's the woman's choice and just because it isn't something that I would personally do, doesn't make it wrong.


----------



## Brightwing

Female NT.
Pro-choice, with caveats. 

- Abortion should *NOT* be used as an excuse to be irresponsible (i.e. practicing unsafe sex, having "second thoughts" halfway through pregnancy)
- However, it should be available as an option to those that can demonstrate a need, request to abort an undesired pregnancy that occurred _out of their control in the first place_, inability to care for the child; any legitimate reason. A "responsible abortion," if you will.
- I agree with the use of biological definitions of life/stage of development to determine abortion eligibility. 
- The life/choice of the mother > the growth of an embryo. Again, centering on how late into the pregnancy we're talking.


----------



## VIIZZY

NT pro choice and body autonomy.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

I don't know anymore


----------



## Kavik

SP Pro-choice. No woman should be denied an abortion or guilt tripped out of one.


----------



## School

Pro-Choice. 
The kid is going to die someday anyways, so you might as well be able to choose whether you bother raising it up or not.


----------



## Spades

"Pro-life" is misleading because it's often "anti-choice".

I'm pro the life of the mother and her ability to make autonomous decisions about her body. The fetus is not an autonomous being.


----------



## Doll

NF, Pro-Choice.

And I agree that I dislike the term "Pro-Life". When someone first asked me if I was Pro-Life, I said "yes!!" because it seemed stupid to say no, but I had no idea what it meant at the time.


----------



## tanstaafl28

NT Pro choice.


----------



## kimpossible119

INTJ, pro-life.


----------



## Sunn

Pro-choice because as a 'freedom' based american society, everyone deserves a right to the way they live their life.

Not to mention the fetus is there by consent' not right. Both of the partners consented to the conception and giving the fetus more rights to the womans body defeats the purpose of personal freedom.

You're not even allowed to remove organs from a deceased body without permission of the deceased so essentially by Pro-Lifer's logic you give the Fetus more rights then your own Corpse.


----------



## Sunn

Spades said:


> "Pro-life" is misleading because it's often "anti-choice".
> 
> I'm pro the life of the mother and her ability to make autonomous decisions about her body. The fetus is not an autonomous being.


This, I can agree with. :happy:


----------



## Sybyll

I had to look up the definition of 'pro-life':laughing:
I was like, I'm all for the life of the pregnant woman; if having a baby would ruin it somehow, she should be free to not carry it for 9 months. World is already overpopulated, why force other people to add to it?

To be clear, I'm 'pro-choice' and ENTP.


----------



## AbsurdBlackBear

Interesting topic, interesting to see if there is a clear correlation here. I am a pro-life INFP. I'm guessing this question is solely on abortion, though I believe in consistent life ethic as a whole.


----------



## Destiny Lund

ENFP Pro-Life


----------



## cyber_apathy

Pro - choice INFJ. =D


----------



## onyxbrain

INTP, pro-choice.

Unsettling the religious preoccupations & malformed "morals" of strangers is not more devastating than the outcome of a child being brought into this world against it's mother's will.


----------



## Nightchill

proudtobeme said:


> So? If your science adds up simply adjust what I said to the 26th week mark. Simple. I don't have a baby fetish, I just have a tiny little feeling in my stomach about MURDER.


 I have the same, but terribly amplified feeling of life, psyche and body of a fully self-aware being bended to make someone else feel more comfortable and at ease with themselves.


----------



## somnuvore

To be fair, the dichotomy between the two doesn't highlight the real issue: men and women having children when they shouldn't, as the risk to doing so is minimized (I'll explain soon.) Neither stance will solve anything; pro-life implies making the mother or child's life a living hell against both of their wills (that's bound to produce a healthy, non-criminal adult), pro-choice implies people should suffer no consequence for their imprudence.

These are great to have and they add character to an individual, but functionally they serve no good; the real issue here is that families are being funded through taking from other families in taxes and redistributing to the "less fortunate". People know this to be true, and know, if they have a child, it will not be the end of the world; the woman can collect welfare from the state and, if she wanted, collect child-support and sometimes alimony. In other words, women are paid to have children. This removes the natural disincentive to have unprotected sex, which means either more killed human beings in the event of a pro-choice society, or higher crime rates and national plundering from abused, neglected, unloved children in the event of a pro-life society. Neither are ideal, and it's not so much a matter of personal preference as much as it is recognizing why it's an issue to begin with.

You can guess the solution easily: stop giving incentives to produce children on a whim. What's hard is accepting that you cannot simply decide to stop being taxed, which leads to yet greater moral conundrums.


----------



## Quernus

somnuvore said:


> To be fair, the dichotomy between the two doesn't highlight the real issue: men and women having children when they shouldn't, as the risk to doing so is minimized (I'll explain soon.) Neither stance will solve anything; pro-life implies making the mother or child's life a living hell against both of their wills (that's bound to produce a healthy, non-criminal adult), pro-choice implies people should suffer no consequence for their imprudence.
> 
> These are great to have and they add character to an individual, but functionally they serve no good; the real issue here is that families are being funded through taking from other families in taxes and redistributing to the "less fortunate". People know this to be true, and know, if they have a child, it will not be the end of the world; the woman can collect welfare from the state and, if she wanted, collect child-support and sometimes alimony. In other words, women are paid to have children. This removes the natural disincentive to have unprotected sex, which means either more killed human beings in the event of a pro-choice society, or higher crime rates and national plundering from abused, neglected, unloved children in the event of a pro-life society. Neither are ideal, and it's not so much a matter of personal preference as much as it is recognizing why it's an issue to begin with.
> 
> You can guess the solution easily: stop giving incentives to produce children on a whim. What's hard is accepting that you cannot simply decide to stop being taxed, which leads to yet greater moral conundrums.


I mean the social issues here are real, but what I don't understand about this is why unintentional pregnancy is anything that someone needs to be judged or punished for? Safe sex is ideal, but unintentional pregnancy can still happen. And regardless, my thing is like... if someone makes a choice that doesn't affect anyone else in any way... who... cares?

I mean I guess if you think a foetus is a baby that's one thing, but an important premise to pro-choice thinking is that a foetus is a collection of cells, not a human being, and science hasn't proven otherwise. If your definition of "human being" is faith-based, then science doesn't NEED to prove anything, but an ideology not based in concrete fact shouldn't generally be forced onto everyone. Also, abortion is not an easy procedure (though it's getting better, as it should). It's painful and expensive. If we are just gonna be so gung-ho about making sure others suffer for their choices, even if it's just that someone happens to get unluckier than others doing the same thing, well... abortion is in fact a consequence. It's just one that puts and end to further needless suffering... instead of allowing the situation to progress in a way that WOULD begin to affect other people (the foetus once it becomes a baby and is born, the mother and possibly father if he feels like bothering, society, etc).


----------



## laura palmer

infj, extremley pro choice
opinions on abortions are like nipples, everyone has them but womens are more importent


----------



## So Long So Long

ENTP and pro-choice.


----------



## proudtobeme

Zibziby said:


> infj, extremley pro choice
> opinions on abortions are like nipples, everyone has them but womens are more importent


50% of the abortions are against women. Why doesn't ANYONE ask those defenseless miniature women how they feel about it? Also, when debating, if you want to be taken seriously, you really need to know how to not misspell words as simple as important.


----------



## laura palmer

proudtobeme said:


> 50% of the abortions are against women. Why doesn't ANYONE ask those defenseless miniature women how they feel about it? Also, when debating, if you want to be taken seriously, you really need to know how to not misspell words as simple as important.


oh boohoo. correcting someone's spelling online must make you feel sooooo smart and superior. Do you live in a world where English is everyone's first language, and no one has issues with dylexia? because that must be nice.
And yah you spelled defenceless wrong... 
And women are not defenceless...


----------



## proudtobeme

Zibziby said:


> oh boohoo. correcting someone's spelling online must make you feel sooooo smart and superior. Do you live in a world where English is everyone's first language, and no one has issues with dylexia? because that must be nice.
> And yah you spelled defenceless wrong...
> And women are not defenceless...


In the US we spell defenseless with an S. About the 50%, I meant the women who are murdered Iin the womb by their mothers. Why doesn't anyone ask those women what they think about being grabbed with forceps and butchered?


----------



## laura palmer

proudtobeme said:


> In the US we spell defenseless with an S. About the 50%, I meant the women who are murdered Iin the womb by their mothers. Why doesn't anyone ask those women what they think about being grabbed with forceps and butchered?


They arent women. They are sacs of cells. 
If that is your argument, imagine this. So, in one hand, you have like, an embryo in a petri dish. Its the same thing thats in a women when she is 6 weeks prego, so just come cells for now. In the other hand, you hold a fresh born baby. So, you are saying they are the same thing right? If someone told you that you had to drop on off the cliff, which one would you drop? probably the petri dish of cells, and not the baby.


----------



## TTIOTBSAL

INFJ - pro choice


----------



## proudtobeme

Zibziby said:


> They arent women. They are sacs of cells.
> If that is your argument, imagine this. So, in one hand, you have like, an embryo in a petri dish. Its the same thing thats in a women when she is 6 weeks prego, so just come cells for now. In the other hand, you hold a fresh born baby. So, you are saying they are the same thing right? If someone told you that you had to drop on off the cliff, which one would you drop? probably the petri dish of cells, and not the baby.


You know... classic cluster of cells argument... first off. I agree that earlier stages of pregnancy are actually in fact all about a cluster of cells or a little thing not far from a tadpole with no central nervous system. A lot of people waving religious flags would defend those too. While in private, I also do. In a public debate I'm willing to compromise, not everyone has to get 100% their way. It's impossible. Now, when do you suggest (considering your extensive research (sarcasm intended)) that a fetus is no longer a fetus and becomes a human? Is it the act of birth that turns a fetus into a human? That's horribly simplistic, blind, and plainly stupid! Is it the beginning of the 3rd trimester? If that's the case then pro choicers and pro lifers should all agree on one point of no return, after all, it would take a remarkably challenged woman to not notice a pregnancy in 5 or 6 months. Would you be willing to agree on a point of no return? Or are you going to keep waving the stupid "my body my choice flag". I have news for you, once you have a body inside your body, it's no longer your body alone. And trust me, at one point in the early 3rd trimester, the fetus is already a human. I've even heard of 5 month premature babies who make it (those are very rare of course). Tell me then, what is it going to be?

Also, in case those well intended or not so much, people out there are thinking that I care more about a baby, or cluster of cells, or fetus, or whatever term you choose to feel better about these horrible acts, than I care about a fully grown woman... guess again. I know for a fact that the psychological trauma that an abortion causes, regardless of the circumstances is very hard to overcome. That kind of trauma often stays for decades. I sure don't wish any women that kind of thing. Also, I understand some women aren't ready to be mothers, but we have adoption people. Let's work on improving the adoption and foster care system so it doesn't suck. Not trying to push liberal agendas that advocate even late term abortions (including partial birth). It's just barbaric.

Not to mention how wrong abortion is as a form of birth control which is something a lot of women end up doing.


----------



## laura palmer

dont tell me you are a "mens rights activist"
ps. men get 0 say in abortions
lots of women have had abortions, you probably know someone who has had an abortion!


----------



## Sporadic Aura

proudtobeme said:


> *50% of the abortions are against women. *Why doesn't ANYONE ask those defenseless miniature women how they feel about it? Also, when debating, if you want to be taken seriously, you really need to know how to not misspell words as simple as important.


Yeah? Full grown women are being aborted? Didn't know that! That's a tragedy.


----------



## laura palmer

pro lifers would always protest outside my high school, like literally on the high school grounds next to thr cross walk you use to get to the 7/11
like really, yall are protesting by a canadian high school of all places?


----------



## Sporadic Aura

This statement...


Zibziby said:


> ps. men get 0 say in abortions


is just as dumb as....


proudtobeme said:


> 50% of the abortions are against women.


This one...

Sorry.


----------



## LandOfTheSnakes

Zibziby said:


> dont tell me you are a "mens rights activist"
> ps. men get 0 say in abortions
> lots of women have had abortions, you probably know someone who has had an abortion!


Men should be able to commit a financial abortion if abortion is legal and a man doesn't want the child. Aside from one that is a result of rape, pregnancy is something the man and woman should be equally responsible for. Why do women get to make the ultimate decision? I get that it's their body but if a woman really doesn't want a child, she should take birth control and make sure her partner uses a condom when she has sex. This also brings up another issue which is that all forms of birth control should be fully covered and free to obtain for any person at any age, no questions asked. If you make it about a woman's body, you need to take into account what she did _before_ getting pregnant, too. But it's only fair to give men an equal option.


----------



## Residual Deviance

Far and away the most important takeaway from this poll is than intuitors are far more likely to care about this shit than sensors, and apparently they are more likely to be pro-reason? I mean, pro-choice, sorry.

Any of you NFs who are anti-choice want to enlighten me about oh who am I kidding you're oh-so-willing to do so with 10-foot murals of miscarriage that you disingenuous shits call abortions in plain sight in front of children because violence and gore is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO important to indoctrinate in pre-pubescent children young (but if you have sex, willingly or not, you're a slut, OBVIOUSLY).


----------



## Residual Deviance

proudtobeme said:


> In the US we spell defenseless with an S. About the 50%, I meant the women who are murdered Iin the womb by their mothers. Why doesn't anyone ask those women what they think about being grabbed with forceps and butchered?


Wow. Impressive non-sequitur there, attacking the spelling of "defen[s/c]e" in an argument such as this. It makes your incredible spelling of in with both capital and non-capital letters, and with 3 letters instead of two, so much more believable, you know?

And the reason no one asks these embryos (which is to say, non-developed females) the absurd question you posit? Because language skills tend to develop, in humans, at about age 3-4, so unless you're considering a 12th trimester abortion, good fucking luck explaining this to (~>50% him, %~<50 her).

Never mind, of course, those who share your opinion here being so misogynistic that I'm laughing my ass off that you're pretending to care about females of any level of devleopment in your argument. Some girls rape easy? Rape babies are a gift from God? Womens' bodies have a way of shutting [that sort of thing] down?


----------



## proudtobeme

Residual Deviance said:


> Wow. Impressive non-sequitur there, attacking the spelling of "defen[s/c]e" in an argument such as this. It makes your incredible spelling of in with both capital and non-capital letters, and with 3 letters instead of two, so much more believable, you know?
> 
> And the reason no one asks these embryos (which is to say, non-developed females) the absurd question you posit? Because language skills tend to develop, in humans, at about age 3-4, so unless you're considering a 12th trimester abortion, good fucking luck explaining this to (~>50% him, %~<50 her).
> 
> Never mind, of course, those who share your opinion here being so misogynistic that I'm laughing my ass off that you're pretending to care about females of any level of devleopment in your argument. Some girls rape easy? Rape babies are a gift from God? Womens' bodies have a way of shutting [that sort of thing] down?



You don't know me. You're quoting me out of contest. You're an idiot.

The defense thing was as a reply to someone else's criticism.


----------



## pianodog

NF Pro Life

I believe that every human life is sacred, I personally don't care how developed it actually is. If and only if, the mother will die if an abortion is not preformed, then I will say that it can be accepted. Needless to say, I feel sorry for women who are raped, and if I was in that situation with a friend, it would be hard to choose if they asked me what they should do. I feel differently if a woman just doesn't want a baby, and is a slut or something. I mean, you can put children up for adoption. 

That being said, I know people aren't perfect and sometimes girls get pregnant from their boyfriends or whatever. I understand that that is a hard thing, it's not like I don't consider the other's feelings. 

I think life is something we shouldn't get to alter, I am against capital punishment as well so my belief stands on humans shouldn't get to decide about who lives and dies. I dunno if anyone else has this opinion?


----------



## Amaryllis

INFJ Pro choice



pianodog said:


> NF Pro Life
> 
> I believe that every human life is sacred, I personally don't care how developed it actually is. If and only if, the mother will die if an abortion is not preformed, then I will say that it can be accepted. Needless to say, I feel sorry for women who are raped, and if I was in that situation with a friend, it would be hard to choose if they asked me what they should do. I feel differently if a woman just doesn't want a baby, and is a slut or something. I mean, you can put children up for adoption.


Always cool to begin the day with some nice slut-shaming...

(Okay don't take everything I'll say as a personal attack, I don't hate you, I just disagree with you)

Seriously, do you have any knowledge of the adoption system? Like how bad it is? Trusting the system with your kid is a BAD idea, a kid who'll have a nice life start to begin with by the way, the first thing he'll know about himself: my mother didn't want me.

And don't say "Oh but at least the baby would still be alive, that's better! If the baby could speak he would say that he wanted to live you monster!" During the abortion time limit, at an early stage of the pregnancy, the FOETUS is a freaking speck of dust with no conscience whatsoever (there is a reason why there is a time limit!) And don't say either "But the foetus has a soul! It's a creature of god!" That's only for you christians, until you can prove that one has a soul, don't force non believers to give up the right to choose what they do with their own body. And I'm sure even some christians are pro choice, because they know better.

And concerning rape babies, the real monster wouldn't be the woman or girl who aborts, but you for forcing her to have the child of her rapist. What a way to get over the trauma of your rape and move on with your life!

I'll leave you with the wise words of Adam Buckley, listen in particular to the second half of the video.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

Residual Deviance said:


> Far and away the most important takeaway from this poll is than intuitors are far more likely to care about this shit than sensors, and apparently they are more likely to be pro-reason? I mean, pro-choice, sorry.


Well I think that's mostly just because there are way more intuitives on this site to begin with. All the types favor pro-choice, intuitives types just have greater numbers on both sides. 

It's intersting though that NT's seem to very heavily support pro choice while NF's are a little more split. If you actually go by %'s, NF's are the most split out of all the types.


----------



## ChocolateBunny

NT and pro-life  whether or not the baby is inside or outside the mothers body, it's still alive.


----------



## niss

pianodog said:


> I dunno if anyone else has this opinion?


Basically, yes.

I am ISTJ and pro-life; SWMBO is ENFP and is pro-life.


----------



## ephemeralparadox

ISFP, undecided.

I believe that people have the right to make whatever choices they want to make (free will and all) and that it's not in my (or anyone else's) place to make the choice for them (regardless of differences in moral stances), but I also believe that a zygote (or embryo or fetus) that has the potential of becoming a conscious human being also has the right to live. 

So needless to say, I'm conflicted.


----------



## Residual Deviance

proudtobeme said:


> You don't know me. You're quoting me out of contest. You're an idiot.
> 
> The defense thing was as a reply to someone else's criticism.


So your argument is part of a contest now? Awesome. You should start by explaining your spelling of "context" here, if you want to have a fucking chance in hell of winning this context. I mean, contest. Fuck.

Defenceefense::Contest:Context. Literally. In that, they are pairs of 7-letter words where the sixth letter is in question.

And now that this diversion is out of the way...

And, no I don't know you. But, I very much appreciate your conclusion that I'm an idiot, with your hypothesis being that "I don't know you."

So, how do you know, for a fact beyond any reasonable doubt, that "I'm an idiot." Because you know me oh-so-fucking-well, but I don't know a damn thing about you.

Hypocrite. But it's not like I expect anything more reasonable from the rabid pro-life crowd or anything.


----------



## Residual Deviance

also: "You're an idiot." +1Thank.

I think there's a damn good reason I left this board.


----------



## niss

Residual Deviance said:


> So your argument is part of a contest now? Awesome. You should start by explaining your spelling of "context" here, if you want to have a fucking chance in hell of winning this context. I mean, contest. Fuck.
> 
> Defenceefense::Contest:Context. Literally. In that, they are pairs of 7-letter words where the sixth letter is in question.
> 
> And now that this diversion is out of the way...
> 
> And, no I don't know you. But, I very much appreciate your conclusion that I'm an idiot, with your hypothesis being that "I don't know you."
> 
> So, how do you know, for a fact beyond any reasonable doubt, that "I'm an idiot." Because you know me oh-so-fucking-well, but I don't know a damn thing about you.
> 
> Hypocrite. But it's not like I expect anything more reasonable from the rabid pro-life crowd or anything.





Residual Deviance said:


> also: "You're an idiot." +1Thank.
> 
> I think there's a damn good reason I left this board.


Ya know, I read your initial response to @proudtobeme and saw your error. But he had already issued a rebuttal and had called you an idiot - which I disagree with, in spite of your error in comprehension and vitriolic rant directed at him.

But you did make the error and you ranted on foolishly, not comprehending your error.

Now you're back and doing more of the same. Slow down and take the time to understand what is going on.

Another poster had questioned proudtobeme's argument based on his spelling of "defenseless" and proudtobeme was merely pointing out that spelling the word with an "s" is acceptable in this country. But you obviously missed the prior post and just jumped in the middle of a discussion that really didn't concern you. And you did so with a great deal of vitriol. 

So while I agree that he shouldn't have called you an idiot, I also see how he might feel that you were not acting in a reasonable manner.

It might be good now, if you just let the discussion drop. I'm guessing you are both headed for infractions if this doesn't cool off.


----------



## WardRhiannon

NF and pro-choice.


----------



## Autumn_Fairy

looks like Im way out numbered on the NT pro-life side. 

To add to the correlations or lack thereof outside of MBTI - I am not pro life due to association with Christianity or Republican politics, only due to my own independent convictions. 

At the same time, I do not like judge others for their choices (though I catch myself doing so anyway). ..so does that make me pro-choice in a way? What I mean is, I realize that this is an issue of opinion/morality and that my stand is not inherently right therefor, I would not look down upon anyone who chooses to have an abortion.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

ENFP both 
essentially, I believe that abortion is wrong, but it's far too situationally complicated for me to want to say "this should be illegal in any circumstance". 

on another note, I think this subject has absolutely _nothing_ to do with women's rights. the issue is "is the fetus alive or not?". if it's not, then you should have the right to choose; if it is, killing it is wrong. either way, gender is irrelevant


----------



## Bricolage

I notice a lot of Fi users are pro-choice and pro-suicide* in the sense of supporting the individual's rights.

*As in supportive of someone's choice to end their life; not as in "jump off the bridge right now."


----------



## Bricolage

I also don't feel males should have much of a say except where things like abortion and birth control are funded by taxes. Since males pay taxes, they should have somewhat of a say how their tax money is spent. I get that many Republicans use this tack as a lever to restrict abortion rights but that's not my problem. As long as abortion and birth control receive public funds, males will continue to have an opinion on women's rights issues.


----------



## Vast Silence

INFP - Pro Death

Babies are parasites and life is never worth living.
Stop being in denial and go back to sleep.

Also, babies are annoying, drooling, ugly little noise makers that smell aweful and destroy your life.
Please do the responsible thing and give birth into a toilet. 

PS: don't forget to flush. Nobody wants to see your shit.

How's that for an alternate point of view?


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove

I am not an American so my point of view of this issue is probably rather different, and I don't have much knowledge about the discourse and tactics of Conservatives/Democrats, so I might not adress the issues that are important in that specific discussion. 

First of all everyone must notice that getting an unwanted child is deeply problematic both to the woman and baby. A young woman's life and plans will be altered or transformed instantly, she might not be ready, she might drop out of her education, it can make relationships with friends, family and others harder or impossible, she might just not want it right now. This creates a stress response that affects the child poorly and it might thus not develop properly inside the womb. Also just being a young mother taking care of a child you aren't ready for is stressful and thus bad for the kid as well. On the level of society it creates inequality, unhappy families, unhappy individuals, kids that aren't mentally prepared for school. It is imperative to prevent such social imbalance and tragedy, and the simple obvious solution in this case is to just let abortion be legal and not tabooed. 

When a fetus becomes "human" seems to me to be mostly a religious discussion. Does consciousness make a human, does a soul, does human DNA, or is it when it can burb in an adorable way? It is never a practical discussion, it has to do with feelings, belief, and throws in intangible and slightly unknowable concepts like consciousness and soul into it. All in all it is a crazy, individual discussion meant for philosophy classes, not something an 18-year-old girl should have to worry about or be the judge of in such dire circumstances.


----------



## chicklit

ENFJ and pro-choice all the way. An embryo/fetus shouldn't have more rights than a woman.



Katfeatherfoot said:


> INFP - Pro Death
> 
> Babies are parasites and life is never worth living.
> Stop being in denial and go back to sleep.
> 
> Also, babies are annoying, drooling, ugly little noise makers that smell aweful and destroy your life.
> Please do the responsible thing and give birth into a toilet.
> 
> PS: don't forget to flush. Nobody wants to see your shit.
> 
> How's that for an alternate point of view?


----------



## Christian Exodia

INFP undecided.

I believe that abortion is definitely a defence for early pregnancies or if it comes as either a rape case or an endangerment of the mother and/or child, but also I believe that babies should be cherished and it is the fault of the parent for getting pregnant and letting it go to term; there are a multitude of families without children or even simply want another child that would happily adopt.


----------



## Aquamarine

If living in Earth is like living in paradise and all babies are self-sufficient upon birth, I would be 100% pro-life. However, in life, life will be hard during your first 20 years if you have a parent who is not willing to raise a child (who will most likely be a negligent parent). 

Also, living is tough after the first 20 years for most people (and especially so for children with disabilities, serious illnesses and/or mental retardation), so if you're going to bring a child into such a world where things are likely to get worst than today, you must take responsibility for your decision, at least for their early life until they're self-sufficient/has found another caretaker to take over. If not, don't bring them into this world at all.


----------



## Persephone

Pro-choice. This is not a position I ever envision myself deviating from.



Christian Exodia said:


> there are a multitude of families without children or even simply want another child that would happily adopt.


That line of reasoning is invalid, because there are, as of present, far too many orphans who are left unadopted and eventually have to leave the system. You have a good chance if you're white or biracial or Latino, but check this out: http://www.npr.org/2013/06/27/195967886/six-words-black-babies-cost-less-to-adopt It's a sad picture.



> *Each year, over 27,000 youth “age out” of foster care
> *without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. This number has steadily risen over the past decade. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.


http://www.ccainstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=25&Itemid=43


----------



## Christian Exodia

Persephone said:


> Pro-choice. This is not a position I ever envision myself deviating from.
> 
> 
> 
> That line of reasoning is invalid, because there are, as of present, far too many orphans who are left unadopted and eventually have to leave the system. You have a good chance if you're white or biracial or Latino, but check this out: Six Words: 'Black Babies Cost Less To Adopt' : NPR It's a sad picture.
> 
> 
> 
> Facts and Statistics


Oh God... My first stance, as it occasionally occurs, was a tad blinded. I will read into this a bit more and see where my idea went wrong. I really want to believe that there would be a family waiting for orphans or kids that can't be taken care of by their family... But this, this changes a lot.

I don't like being one to judge, but I still am a tad undecided. I don't believe in the idea of a late-term abortion, because that is essentially the death of an infant.


----------



## Flaming Bassoon

NF and pro-choice because women should have autonomous control of their bodies but I'm too lazy to go beyond that because this subject has been argued to death.

...No pun intended.


----------



## Muteki

NF and 100% pro-life
maybe because I have found myself yet in the situation where a decision had to be made and now I can't imagine anything else as being "right" anymore.


----------



## Nightchill

proudtobeme said:


> In the US we spell defenseless with an S. About the 50%, I meant the women who are murdered Iin the womb by their mothers. Why doesn't anyone ask those women what they think about being grabbed with forceps and butchered?



Because it's tasty and people don't care, never did


----------



## tanstaafl28

Interesting how NT and NF seem to be the largest pro-choice grouping of the entire poll, by a surprising margin.

I'm pro-choice.


----------



## SweetPickles

Extremely pro-choice, its more about a woman having the option to make decisions based on her own body. I see it as a woman's right issue, a very personal issue that no one else should make that decision for them. I use to judge women who did this, had a close friend who went through this...the last thing she needed was to be judged and condemned, she's a good person. It's really no one else's business.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

So pretty much all MBTI types have around the same proportion of pro life/pro choice. Thats kind of interesting. And pro choice beats out pro life for all MBTI types on here, which isn't surprising, as PerC tends to lean liberal.


----------



## MalibuIsACruelWorld

I'm not strong about a lot of modernized topics; but I will always choose life! When I am pondering over discussions like these I always put myself in that other human's situation. How would you feel If you were that child? That defenseless child whom didn't ask to be in this world. Think about it, your parents could decided to kill you; but did they? No. There aren't many right or wrong answers to different topics; but this topic only has one correct answer. And that is pro-life! If you can honestly look in that child's eyes and imagine your life as they were dead then, YOU are the one whom needs to reevaluate themselves.


----------



## Delicious Speculation

INTJ, and staunchly pro-choice. It's an individual decision that must be left to the person who is pregnant and their healthcare provider.


----------



## Socratic1

NT or NF (voted NT), undecided. Too many good arguments both ways. Legally, though, I'd lean towards pro-choice; precisely because it's so difficult to really be sure which is the objectively better stance, it's better left up to individuals to decide for themselves. But I have great respect for women (and the husbands/boyfriends of women) who decide to give birth due to strong pro-life convictions.


----------



## rambleonrose

NF - Pro-Choice.


----------



## UraniaIsis

NF, Pro-choice. I may not know the reason for the decision, but I would rather abortion be an option than not.


----------



## oheyErin

Stumbled across this on the web and thought it was perfect for this forum. I personally am pro-life but I think given valid reasons can accept others being pro-choice. They'd have to be some insane reasons though. There has been too much research proving that the fetus no matter how small is very much alive.

Anyway here's the story...


"A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: 

'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together.' 

So the doctor said: 'Ok and what do you want me to do?' 

She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.'

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.' 

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request. 

Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.' 

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!' 

'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.' 

The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. 

He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!"


----------



## Aelthwyn

I have a feeling things other than personality will have a stronger influence on this - such as upbringing, personal experiences, religion, the stance of people you know/your area or community, what information you've seen, etc.

personally I think you're a person the moment you're conceived and I just can't see the justification of killing someone for the reason that it's inconvenient for them to be born right now. The only case I can see is when the mother's life is actually in danger, if there are other people (esp. other children) who are already relying on her then I can see a justification for saving the mother rather than the child, as unfortunate as that is, but otherwise it feels wrong to me.


----------



## stripedfurball

INFP, pro-choice. A friend of mine lost a pregnancy in her sixth month due to a congenital abnormality in a very much wanted baby. I was pro-choice before that incident, but it really drove home the point that the option to choose should be between a woman and her physician, and not dictated by legislators that have never had to face dealing with a high-risk pregnancy that results in tragedy. If she had not had that option, what would have happened is that the baby would have passed away and her body would have theoretically gone into labor, but the risk of sepsis would have been increased vs. a surgical abortion. There are too many ifs in that situation to assuage someone else's moral struggles.


----------



## GoosePeelings

Not sure about whether I'm SP or NT, IxTP for now, I'm mostly pro-choice.


----------



## Introvertia

SJ. Pro-choice.


----------



## Zora

NT, Pro-choice.


----------



## katemess

NT. Absolutely pro-choice.


----------



## Highway Nights

ESTP
Pro-Choice


----------



## Consistently Inconsistent

ENTP and (mostly) Pro-Choice.


----------



## A Temperamental Flutist

NT and pro-life. Humanity is evident from conception.


----------



## Scott Ruthless

INFP here, and gently pro-life. What I mean by this is, if someone were to approach me personally for advice as to whether or not they should get an abortion, I would always gently urge them to keep the child. I believe life is a beautiful, miraculous gift that should not be wasted. However, I would also let them know that if they were to choose abortion, I would not think any less of them and would still be there for them if they needed me. I don't believe in insulting or shaming someone who chooses to have an abortion, as we are not in their shoes and it is often a very difficult choice to make.


----------



## AlanMonTap

A Temperamental Flutist said:


> NT and pro-life. Humanity is evident from conception.


Do you support the use of birth control?


----------



## SimplyRivers

NT pro-life personally, but I wouldn't force people to go through a pregnancy if they did not want to.


----------



## A Temperamental Flutist

AlanMonTap said:


> Do you support the use of birth control?


I do. It is one thing to prevent conception, but another to terminate the life of a human being.


----------



## AlanMonTap

maurere said:


> NF, Pro-life most definitely. I believe that adoption is a great alternative if someone can't support a child. Life is such a miraculous gift I know the child wouldn't want to have it terminated.


What if the mother simply doesn't want to suffer the changes that would occur to her body? What if she simply doesn't want to go through the pain of childbirth? What if she simply doesn't want to radically change her diet for 9 months? Why do you only think about the fetus?



maurere said:


> It also appears from looking at the polls that being pro-life or pro-choice is based on nurture and not nature (mbti types)


 Elaborate on that. "It also appears from looking at the polls" is not something I'd be prone to take seriously.


----------



## DandelionWine

AlanMonTap said:


> What if the mother simply doesn't want to suffer the changes that would occur to her body? What if she simply doesn't want to go through the pain of childbirth? What if she simply doesn't want to radically change her diet for 9 months? Why do you only think about the fetus?
> 
> Elaborate on that. "It also appears from looking at the polls" is not something I'd be prone to take seriously.


So you're saying that physical scarring is worse than mental scarring? Is it more important to focus on what a woman looks like that she would go through with it? And I was making an observation that wasn't really linked to what I previously said. However, I have learned that what beliefs you are raised with generally stick with you, and mbti types don't really affect that.


----------



## katemess

maurere said:


> So you're saying that physical scarring is worse than mental scarring? Is it more important to focus on what a woman looks like that she would go through with it? And I was making an observation that wasn't really linked to what I previously said. However, I have learned that what beliefs you are raised with generally stick with you, and mbti types don't really affect that.


Mental scarring to whom? The potentially-sentient-but-not-yet fetus, or the woman who has decided to abort?


----------



## AlanMonTap

maurere said:


> So you're saying that physical scarring is worse than mental scarring? Is it more important to focus on what a woman looks like that she would go through with it? And I was making an observation that wasn't really linked to what I previously said. However, I have learned that what beliefs you are raised with generally stick with you, and mbti types don't really affect that.


Who said anything about physical scarring and image? You missed the point. Also, there shouldn't be mental scarring. The process of an abortion should be done maturely and responsibly, so I don't know why you would even talk about mental scarring.

I think it's more mentally scarring to give up your child for adoption. Adopted children usually have long term identity issues. An abortion is less damaging, just look up the effect legalized abortion made on crime.


----------



## Lerena

I'm an INTP. I'm pro-choice. I respect people that are pro-life, but not every woman can handle the physical pain of childbirth. I personally would not make a good parent even if I could tolerate it.


----------



## Miniblini

Pro-Birth control, pro-life.


----------



## Sparkling

ISFP, pro - life
I do not understand why it is called pro - choice, when it should be named pro - murder. Because, technically abortion is a murder (=killing a living human being). You cannot change defintion basing on different contexts or situations. Murder is murder. You can kill from different reasons, like self - defence, revenge or act of passion. However, it is always murder - explanation of reasons does not change definition. Abortion is murder, no doubt.


----------



## Molkiern

ENTJ - Pro life (if I can use that term) and also pro contraception.

It's pretty simple: if you fuck (excuse my French) then you have to accept the responsabilities. 
I can't understand people who talk about snuffing out a life for the cause of freedom. A child can't defend itself. To be pro choice is to either :
a) Be selfish.
b). Not understand the importance of something because you can't see it (lack abstract thought).
c). Argue that it is not a baby until 21 weeks, so its ok to kill the 'cells' . To which my question is so 20 weeks, 6 days and 23hours is ok?
d). You got raped, that is a really hard question, and I don't know, because the baby is innocent but I understand the mental trauma. 

At the end of a day, a life is a life, after reading crazy things like "I can't be a good parent" or "I can't handle the pain of childbirth" I wonder what one would say if I said: i can't handle the pain of YOUR existence so I will kill you. What makes a child less important because it has not come out of his/her mother to one that has walked/crawled 1 year on this planet or 20 for that matter?


----------



## Wild

Molkiern said:


> ENTJ - Pro life (if I can use that term) and also pro contraception.
> 
> It's pretty simple: if you fuck (excuse my French) then you have to accept the responsabilities.
> I can't understand people who talk about snuffing out a life for the cause of freedom. A child can't defend itself. To be pro choice is to either :
> a) Be selfish.
> b). Not understand the importance of something because you can't see it (lack abstract thought).
> c). Argue that it is not a baby until 21 weeks, so its ok to kill the 'cells' . To which my question is so 20 weeks, 6 days and 23hours is ok?
> d). You got raped, that is a really hard question, and I don't know, because the baby is innocent but I understand the mental trauma.
> 
> At the end of a day, a life is a life, after reading crazy things like "I can't be a good parent" or "I can't handle the pain of childbirth" I wonder what one would say if I said: i can't handle the pain of YOUR existence so I will kill you. What makes a child less important because it has not come out of his/her mother to one that has walked/crawled 1 year on this planet or 20 for that matter?


I think the spectrum needs to be acknowledged here.

We seem to respect life more or less because of its sentience. I kill millions of bacteria every day when I wash my hands, but killing one turtle for no reason would probably make many people respect me significantly less. What if I killed a dog though? That would be even worse. And so on as the chain goes up to organisms that have greater capacity to experience suffering.

With a newly-formed blastocyst, you don't have the same sentience value as a baby. Babies can experience pain, they can be hurt, and they already have highly functional brains. Human beings all have these things in common as you go higher up in age. Late-term fetuses can be hurt too once their brains/nervous systems have developed, so those are also deserving of protection. But a blastocyst? You're really gonna sit there and tell me a blastocyst, with no more sentience than a rock, has the same value as a fully grown human?

The sequencing of our DNA isn't what gives us value. It's what comes out of that - our huge capacity for empathy, advanced thoughts, emotions, and suffering. That's the thing that humans respect so much in life. Yes, a new fetus has the capacity to have those things one day, but so does every egg that a woman doesn't use every month.


----------



## Molkiern

Dear Wild, 

Thank you for the response. I think you are right, sentience seems to be an important aspect in our understanding of grave killings, or at least the possibility of sentience.

Thank you for teaching me a new word (blastocyst). So you are using the cells argument, I agree, the blastocyst isn't worth much on face value. However, if left alive (for what life it has) then it will develop into a baby (unlike every egg a woman has). Let us for the sake of argument say that it is ok to destroy this cell that will develop into a baby. When does it become more than a blastocyst exactly? 




Wild said:


> I think the spectrum needs to be acknowledged here.
> 
> We seem to respect life more or less because of its sentience. I kill millions of bacteria every day when I wash my hands, but killing one turtle for no reason would probably make many people respect me significantly less. What if I killed a dog though? That would be even worse. And so on as the chain goes up to organisms that have greater capacity to experience suffering.
> 
> With a newly-formed blastocyst, you don't have the same sentience value as a baby. Babies can experience pain, they can be hurt, and they already have highly functional brains. Human beings all have these things in common as you go higher up in age. Late-term fetuses can be hurt too once their brains/nervous systems have developed, so those are also deserving of protection. But a blastocyst? You're really gonna sit there and tell me a blastocyst, with no more sentience than a rock, has the same value as a fully grown human?
> 
> The sequencing of our DNA isn't what gives us value. It's what comes out of that - our huge capacity for empathy, advanced thoughts, emotions, and suffering. That's the thing that humans respect so much in life. Yes, a new fetus has the capacity to have those things one day, but so does every egg that a woman doesn't use every month.


----------



## Philipthestone

Pro choice ENTJ


----------



## SicIndigo

Pro choice ENTP


----------



## Juliet14

ISFP (I think) Pro-life. I expected more SJ's to be pro-life, lol.


----------



## lavendersnow

NF pro-choice.


----------



## Juliet14

AlanMonTap said:


> So... you're Pro-Full DNA, not Pro-Life.


I'm kind of wondering if you're just trolling, honestly. If not then I just don't know what to say.


----------



## Silent Knight

Without life, there can be nothing else. Life is one of the greatest gifts, and produces the most innocent beings who are dependent on us for their survival.

Pro-life all the way. There isn't any way to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without protecting life.


----------



## Nortez

NT- pro choice. 

It's funny how one person thinks that they have influence on another person's life. Procreating a human life is a serious deal, and if you're in a situation where your life just started and you're on your first step to adulthood, raising a baby will diminish everything you've worked for. With all of these interest groups trying to abolish abortion, it won't happen.


----------



## Molkiern

Nortez said:


> NT- pro choice.
> 
> It's funny how one person thinks that they have influence on another person's life. Procreating a human life is a serious deal, and if you're in a situation where your life just started and you're on your first step to adulthood, raising a baby will diminish everything you've worked for. With all of these interest groups trying to abolish abortion, it won't happen.


So killing a baby is not having an influence on it life?  Sorry mate but that is such a self-centered argument.


----------



## SpectrumOfThought

NT, pro-life.


----------



## Nortez

Ok first of all, babies do not have the ability to have influence in their own life. They are _literally_ incapable of controlling their own minds. How can a fetus have influence in their own life?
Yes, I agree that my argument is selfish, but being vain in certain cases is alright. It's the mothers right to choose if she wants to labor or not. The best solution is to give birth then give it up for adoption, but in those 9 months is unwanted pain. It is a faithful commitment if the woman wants to go through pregnancy. Frequently, there are cases in which a woman is raped and a fetus is beginning its first stages.
My goal is not to change your mentality and tradition, but this is purely my opinion.


----------



## katemess

Molkiern said:


> I have never thought about that. Si purely out of my hat, I would say it is ok to take the person off life support because their body is maintained only by machines and there is no chance of them living. But I probs need to give it more thought.


And a fetus is maintained only by the body in which it exists. Without the body, it would not survive.


----------



## Molkiern

There lies the error in logic. 

The fetus lives and can develop, it is not dead. It (the fetus) depends on the mother, not a machine - to relate women to machines is a dangerous path, it can make you see them only as breeders, motherhood is far more than a breeding machine.
So a fetus is the promise of development and life, the dead man hooked up to machines is not.


----------



## Juliet14

katemess said:


> @Molkiern said that it doesn't look human.
> 
> Virtually my entire post was in response to the other person, but you also questioned why I was asking the hypothetical, so I just included you in the same post. And yes, a woman's life is going to be impacted much more by her decision to have a baby (or to have an abortion); a non-sentient, non-viable fetus does not have the consciousness to have a thought one way or the other, and to suggest that it does is absurd.


But you implied that the fact he said it looked less human meant it _was_ less human. Also, you've yet to tell me how the hypothetical makes any sense here. I guess I'll just have to disagree with you on the whether _taking away a baby's life_ affects the baby more than having the baby would affect the mother. Whether or not the baby is currently sentient doesn't take away the fact the abortion ends any chance it had at life. Anyway, as a user above said, this point of this poll wasn't made with the intention for people to debate their sides, so this will be my last post here.


----------



## katemess

Molkiern said:


> There lies the error in logic.
> 
> The fetus lives and can develop, it is not dead. It (the fetus) depends on the mother, not a machine - to relate women to machines is a dangerous path, it can make you see them only as breeders, motherhood is far more than a breeding machine.
> So a fetus is the promise of development and life, the dead man hooked up to machines is not.


A fetus is not the promise of development and life; it is still dependent on the woman, and there is no guarantee that it will reach the point of viability (or beyond). 

I like that you think it's dangerous to liken a woman to a machine because you don't want her to be seen as a breeding machine, but you think a fetus' life is more valuable than a sentient woman's choice.


----------



## katemess

Juliet14 said:


> But you implied that the fact he said it looked less human meant it _was_ less human. Also, you've yet to tell me how the hypothetical makes any sense here. I guess I'll just have to disagree with you on the whether _taking away a baby's life_ affects the baby more than having the baby would affect the mother. Whether or not the baby is currently sentient doesn't take away the fact the abortion ends any chance it had at life. Anyway, as a user above said, this point of this poll wasn't made with the intention for people to debate their sides, so this will be my last post here.


The point of the hypothetical was to see if you would admit that you value the life of one human more than you value the life of another, and, as expected, it was answered in a way that showed just that.


----------



## RubiksCubix

Violator Rose said:


> Because women who are raped were unable to control themselves, right? -_-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my HTCPO881 Sprint using Tapatalk


Everyone knows that the vast majority pro-life or pro-life leaning individuals believe in an exemption for minors, rape victims, and a serious health threat to the mother.

But go ahead and argue against straw men. Fight windmills, like Don Quixote. That's your prerogative.

But if you're honest with yourself, were you really making a legitimate argument? Or just looking for an excuse to get on your sanctimonious high horse?


----------



## RubiksCubix

katemess said:


> A fetus is not the promise of development and life; it is still dependent on the woman, and there is no guarantee that it will reach the point of viability (or beyond).
> 
> I like that you think it's dangerous to liken a woman to a machine because you don't want her to be seen as a breeding machine, but you think a fetus' life is more valuable than a sentient woman's choice.


Of course a life is more valuable then a woman's choice, the foundation of all ethics is the idea that individuals have a worth which transcends all personal choice. That is central to our very conception of rights. Otherwise they wouldn't be rights, would they? Right's could be auctioned off by majority rule.


----------



## katemess

RubiksCubix said:


> Of course a life is more valuable then a woman's choice, the foundation of all ethics is the idea that individuals have a worth which transcends all personal choice. That is central to our very conception of rights. Otherwise they wouldn't be rights, would they? Right's could be auctioned off by majority rule.


But a sentient woman's life is more valuable than a potentially-sentient-in-the-future fetus' life. It's ridiculous to suggest that a sentient woman should have her entire life turned on end for something that she doesn't WANT, just because you think a pre-12 week old, non-sentient, non-viable fetus is somehow equal to a sentient person. 

Thank fuck I live in a country where it's legal, easily accessible, and accepted by the majority.


----------



## Molkiern

To have a child does not mean you die, to end the existence of something you don't want is far more definite. Stop being so selfish and live with your actions (on a side note abortions can cause huge psychological trauma for the rest of your life).
The whole point is that it is not up to us to decide who lives and dies based on our own subjective understanding of who is worthy. So even if I value one life over another does not give me the right to kill either. 
If you had to chose between killing me or your mother, who would you chose? And you have to chose one...
You would chose your mother of course, but just because YOU place a value on one life over another, does that make the other life less valuable in general, objectively? No.

With regards to the fetus not being a baby and therefore ok to kill... Let us compare it to the greatest of all things in the world: the world's biggest cookie !!
Now you have got the cookie dough ready and are placing it in a huuuge oven... when it comes out, it will be a giant cookie ! however, evil me I take it out of the oven after only 3 min (oh no!) and through it in the toilet.... I have just destroyed the ccookie dough ! But I think you will say to me that I destroyed your cookie, not only that, but I destroyed what would have been the biggest cookie ever in the whole history of the universe !!! Oh the humanity!

Now I realise that the comparison is silly, but the point is that that cookie dough could have been a cookie, when you lose it, you are not losing just the dough, but the whole concept of the cookie. Can you make another one ? sure, will it be exactly the same ? No.

To end this conversation I think we need to ask two simple questions: What is it that makes us human, and what is it to be human?


PS: IN my country abortion is legal too, and lots of people think it is fine. But just because a majority think one thing does not make it right. As Nietzsche said "madness is the exception in the individual and the rule in the group". But let us go with your insinuation that the majority is right, then on earth, the majority of the population think that having an abortion is wrong.





katemess said:


> But a sentient woman's life is more valuable than a potentially-sentient-in-the-future fetus' life. It's ridiculous to suggest that a sentient woman should have her entire life turned on end for something that she doesn't WANT, just because you think a pre-12 week old, non-sentient, non-viable fetus is somehow equal to a sentient person.
> 
> Thank fuck I live in a country where it's legal, easily accessible, and accepted by the majority.


----------



## Molkiern

I like your eloquence good sir !



RubiksCubix said:


> Of course a life is more valuable then a woman's choice, the foundation of all ethics is the idea that individuals have a worth which transcends all personal choice. That is central to our very conception of rights. Otherwise they wouldn't be rights, would they? Right's could be auctioned off by majority rule.


----------



## Liminis

NF, pro-choice. I prefer it be seen as a last resort, but how are women truly equal if we can't control our own bodies?


----------



## Molkiern

Liminis said:


> NF, pro-choice. I prefer it be seen as a last resort, but how are women truly equal if we can't control our own bodies?


...Wait what?! How does abortion become a feminist argument? Men can't have babies, women can, you have an extra bond with a child a man can never have, you are therefore better and superior, you win! 

Also we are not talking about control over your own body, we are talking about control of another human being's life.


----------



## Liminis

Molkiern said:


> ...Wait what?! How does abortion become a feminist argument? Men can't have babies, women can, you have an extra bond with a child a man can never have, you are therefore better and superior, you win!
> 
> Also we are not talking about control over your own body, we are talking about control of another human being's life.


The first bit is completely assuming the woman wants the aforementioned child. A guy risks STDs from unprotected sex, a girl risks all of that plus a lifelong burden. We're talking about control over your own body for the 9 months of pregnancy and your life every year thereafter. If that was unplanned, if that was unchosen, it is a humongous pressure that a guy would not have to face. It's a tremendous impediment to even workplace equality, to say nothing of broader social equality. It's also not good for the unwanted child, who will very likely not be treated as well as he or she should be.

Abortion has been a feminist argument from day one.


----------



## Aurus

Molkiern said:


> ...Wait what?! How does abortion become a feminist argument? Men can't have babies, women can, you have an extra bond with a child a man can never have, you are therefore better and superior, you win!
> 
> Also we are not talking about control over your own body, we are talking about control of another human being's life.


Not necessarily, another human being's life is you in relation to me. Not a womb in the relation of *it's* mother. Because wanting or not, *a womb is an it, not a he/she.* And obviously when you are already 5 months pregnant you probably already know that you are pregnant and you accepted this fact, but still it's her body, she can do whatever she want with it. And we also need to understand the mother's side, if you want to solve an equation you need to look at it's both sides., in this case the mother's side and the society's side. And ,wanting or not, the variable is in the mother's side, not society's. So the decision is up to her. 
None of the less, is it really worth living under the tutelage of someone who never wanted you to exist? Sounds better not to even be born in my opinion.


----------



## Molkiern

Liminis said:


> The first bit is completely assuming the woman wants the aforementioned child. A guy risks STDs from unprotected sex, a girl risks all of that plus a lifelong burden. We're talking about control over your own body for the 9 months of pregnancy and your life every year thereafter. If that was unplanned, if that was unchosen, it is a humongous pressure that a guy would not have to face. It's a tremendous impediment to even workplace equality, to say nothing of broader social equality. It's also not good for the unwanted child, who will very likely not be treated as well as he or she should be.
> 
> Abortion has been a feminist argument from day one.


So you are pissed because men and women are made different?

You clearly don't have a child to call it a 'lifelong burden' and as for the child not being treated well, I think having the opportunity to live is already better than being killed by a selfish mother.
If the mother really doesn't want the child she can give it up to adoption. 

There is more in this world than you living your american dream


----------



## Aurus

Molkiern said:


> So you are pissed because men and women are made different?
> 
> You clearly don't have a child to call it a 'lifelong burden' and as for the child not being treated well, I think having the opportunity to live is already better than being killed by a selfish mother.
> If the mother really doesn't want the child she can give it up to abortion.
> 
> There is more in this world than you living your american dream


Dude, how can you put your self in the place of a womb? A womb doesn't even have conscience. I think that a womb couldn't care less about what it's mother think about it's existence.


----------



## Molkiern

Aurus said:


> Not necessarily, another human being's life is you in relation to me. Not a womb in the relation of *it's* mother. Because wanting or not, *a womb is an it, not a he/she.* And obviously when you are already 5 months pregnant you probably already know that you are pregnant and you accepted this fact, but still it's her body, she can do whatever she want with it. And we also need to understand the mother's side, if you want to solve an equation you need to look at it's both sides., in this case the mother's side and the society's side. And ,wanting or not, the variable is in the mother's side, not society's. So the decision is up to her.
> None of the less, is it really worth living under the tutelage of someone who never wanted you to exist? Sounds better not to even born in my opinion.


It is her womb, you are right, but it is what is inside the womb that is not hers, at least not hers in the same sense as the womb. 

You underestimate the love of a mother and her daughter, people who want abortions are people who are scared, who think their life would be better without a child, ask mothers who have just given birth and are holding the baby in their arms, and you shall see if they are miserable. 
To want to abort a chld is simply a fear of change, a fear of responsibility (generally speaking).


----------



## Molkiern

Aurus said:


> Dude, how can you put your self in the place of a womb? A womb doesn't even have conscience. I think that a womb couldn't care less about what it's mother think about it's existence.


I think you are mixing womb and fetus....

A fetus is not sentient... I already had this conversation with someone else on the same thread, I suggest you read the previous posts.


----------



## Liminis

Molkiern said:


> So you are pissed because men and women are made different?


I am uncomfortable with social and economic inequality forced through no failing of one's own, yeah. I don't think women should have to face serious burdens that men do not, which reinforce a lower place in the social hierarchy.

Guys do not have the "what if I get pregnant?" impediment to fulfilling their dreams. Women do, if abortion is not safe and legal. That's a problem.



> You clearly don't have a child to call it a 'lifelong burden' and as for the child not being treated well, I think having the opportunity to live is already better than being killed by a selfish mother.


I actually grew up in an abusive home. Not necessarily, if you aren't even conscious of the "killing."



> If the mother really doesn't want the child she can give it up to abortion.


Hence why the option, the choice, exists.



> There is more in this world than you living your american dream


I wasn't aware we were calling socioeconomic equality "the American dream" now. If so, America's come an awfully long way. Oh beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain....


----------



## Molkiern

Liminis said:


> I am uncomfortable with social and economic inequality, yeah. I don't think women should have to face serious burdens that men do not, which reinforce a lower place in the social hierarchy.
> 
> 
> I actually grew up in an abusive home. Not necessarily, if you aren't even conscious of the "killing."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother really doesn't want the child she can give it up to abortion.[/qupte]
> Hence why the option, the choice, exists.
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware we were calling socioeconomic equality "the American dream" now. If so, America's come an awfully long way. Oh beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain....
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really want to discus feminism with you as it is another subject all together. I will just say that the wage gap is a myth, and that has been proven by numerous studies. As for social inequality, that is up to your perception on the matter, I think men and women are equal in their difference, that is to say they are different and complete each other, can only be the best of themselves thanks to the other half. But there is a biological and psychological difference between the sexes. I think it is beautiful, it is sad that you don't.
> 
> I am sorry if you grew up in an abusive home, I don't want to start speculating on how this made you a feminist so I won't. But I am glad you are here today and we are having this conversation.
> 
> I mistyped I meant adoption, not abortion, I edited the post, but it was already too late.
> 
> As for the american dream, I was talking about the vision of you in your thirties having your child behind the white picket fence. The idea that a child that comes early and 'destroy' that dream (even though it probably won't) being the reason to get the abortion. My point was that there were more beautiful things in life than you living a materialistic satisfaction. Again I don't want to go into feminist arguments here.. on a different thread with pleasure
Click to expand...


----------



## Aurus

Molkiern said:


> It is her womb, you are right, but it is what is inside the womb that is not hers, at least not hers in the same sense as the womb.
> 
> You underestimate the love of a mother and her daughter, people who want abortions are people who are scared, who think their life would be better without a child, ask mothers who have just given birth and are holding the baby in their arms, and you shall see if they are miserable.
> To want to abort a chld is simply a fear of change, a fear of responsibility (generally speaking).


You are a male, so you never had the opportunity to be in the place of a "scared" mother. And i am sorry, but "parental love" is what drives mom's around the world to do that most of the times, not fear. And if they are afraid they are right to stop their pregnancy, if she regrets it later it's her's problem. Society can't put stick they're nose into that, neither does religion.
True parental love is the capacity to do anything in your power to make your prospect's life better, we see people in TV putting their child in the doorstep of other people and we criticise that because "the parent doesn't love the kid". And, as 90% of the time, society is wrong about that. That parent loves their prospect so much that they put their attachment away (the toughest thing to do for every parent) and leave his/hers prospect in the hands of someone who can provide for it. Sometimes it is plain selfishness and/or sociopathy of the parent to abandon the kid, but a lot of times it isn't. And i can assure you of that. How? My younger sister is adopted, and her mother cared for her, but she couldn't have her due to financial conditions and life issues, so she left her at the hospital in the care of a foster's company and moved on with her life. So my family adopted her, and i can assure you she is better off with us. Because we love her more than anything in this world, we provide for her ad we care. Her mother knew she wouldn't love her to the fullest and she couldn't provide for her. She had seven kids, my sister would be the eighth. 
So you can't simply put yourself in other shoes and criticise them if you don't know how their shoes feel like.

And never, for a single second, doubt my esteem for love.



Molkiern said:


> I think you are mixing womb and fetus....
> 
> A fetus is not sentient... I already had this conversation with someone else on the same thread, I suggest you read the previous posts.


Oh yea, my bad. But either way, imo it's up for the mother to decide.


----------



## Molkiern

Liminis said:


> I am uncomfortable with social and economic inequality forced through no failing of one's own, yeah. I don't think women should have to face serious burdens that men do not, which reinforce a lower place in the social hierarchy.
> 
> If you really want to stick it to us guys and be sure never to have to suffer the inhumanity of having a child I suggest you become a lesbian is that is not already the case.
> 
> But on a more serious note, do you think that somebody has more merit to be born intelligent? beautiful? ambitious? These are all just random things that define the life of a human being. But we are covering so many topics here, if you like we can start a personal chat and cover everything?


----------



## Liminis

Molkiern said:


> As for social inequality, that is up to your perception on the matter, I think men and women are equal in their difference, that is to say they are different and complete each other, can only be the best of themselves thanks to the other half. But there is a biological and psychological difference between the sexes. I think it is beautiful, it is sad that you don't.


I don't see how women facing a serious burden men do not have to face is "beautiful." Or "equal."



> I mistyped I meant adoption, not abortion, I edited the post, but it was already too late.


Statistically, adopted children are rarely treated as well as "natural-born" ones. That they aren't the parent's own flesh and blood generally does end up leading to favoritism towards natural children, and higher rates of abuse for adopted ones. Plus, if they aren't adopted in early childhood they are most likely to spend their formative years going from foster home to foster home, generally a chaotic and deeply uncertain environment. 

I wouldn't want to force that on any child, so adoption to me is, like abortion, a last resort. A choice that should be available for parents who want it, but not something I'd ever actively encourage.



> As for the american dream, I was talking about the vision of you in your thirties having your child behind the white picket fence. The idea that a child that comes early and 'destroy' that dream (even though it probably won't) being the reason to get the abortion. My point was that there were more beautiful things in life than you living a materialistic satisfaction. Again I don't want to go into feminist arguments here.. on a different thread with pleasure


I'd say social equality depends on economic equality. We no longer live in feudalism and don't yet live in socialism, our society is built around commerce; money is power, economic norms become social norms. To have gains in the broader cultural world, gains in economic life are thus essential. So, the ability to have that economic equality doesn't go far enough for me, but it's a necessary starting point.

Feminism, and my reasons for being a feminist (desire for fair treatment), are exactly why I'm pro-choice. If you're uncomfortable discussing that, then we probably don't have much to talk about here. I also find it curious how, on the one hand, you argue a child probably would not be an impediment to that socioeconomic equality. (Huge time sink, by the way.) On the other hand, you jump into "there's more to life than materialism," as if saying women having that socioeconomic backseat is a-okay. Which is it?


----------



## Molkiern

Aurus said:


> You are a male, so you never had the opportunity to be in the place of a "scared" mother. And i am sorry, but "love" doesn't matter in a situation like this. True parental love is the capacity to do anything in your power to make your prospect's life better, we see people in TV putting their child in the doorstep of other people and we criticise that because "the parent doesn't love the kid". And, as 90% of the time, society is wrong about that. That parent loves their prospect so much that they put their attachment away (the toughest thing to do for every parent) and leave his/hers prospect in the hands of someone who can provide for it. Sometimes it is plain selfishness and/or sociopathy of the parent to abandon the kid, but a lot of times it isn't. And i can assure you of that. How? My younger sister is adopted, and her mother cared for her, but she couldn't have her due to financial conditions and life issues, so she left her at the hospital in the care of a foster's company and moved on with her life. So my family adopted her, and i can assure you she is better off with us. Because we love her more than anything in this world, we provide for her ad we care. Her mother knew she wouldn't love her to the fullest and she couldn't provide for her. She had seven kids, my sister would be the eighth.
> So you can't simply put yourself in other shoes and criticise them if you don't know how their shoes feel like.
> 
> 
> Oh yea, my bad. But either way, imo it's up for the mother to decide.



Wow, calm your horses my good sir. I agree with everything you said about a mother's love giving her baby up so she can have a better life. Society can be a real judgmental bitch sometimes. Well done on your parents for haivng such big hearts as to include someone else into your family. 
I have nothing against adoption, i think it is sad that not all parents can care for their children, but your family is a prime example of the apology of life and love. Well done! 
Abortion is a different matter, no human can own another human's life. That is how we justified slavery (by saying that the blacks were not really human, so not equal, ergo they were treated like dirt and sometimes killed). A fetus is not sentient YET, but it will become.... Your sister could never have met your sister if her biological mother had chosen to abort, I assume you and your sister and both happy she chose life.


----------



## Liminis

Molkiern said:


> If you really want to stick it to us guys and be sure never to have to suffer the inhumanity of having a child I suggest you become a lesbian is that is not already the case.


I'm bi. But "lawl if you don't want to be pregnant, instead of abortion being available, you can be gay." That's totally convincing.



> But on a more serious note, do you think that somebody has more merit to be born intelligent? beautiful? ambitious? These are all just random things that define the life of a human being. But we are covering so many topics here, if you like we can start a personal chat and cover everything?


Studies pretty consistently show intelligence is mostly not heritable, and largely has to do with upbringing. If you take twins, the environments they grow up in determine their success and IQ rate much, much more than who their parents were. That would also cover ambition. I think everyone deserves loving parents and enough leisure time growing up to pursue intellectual curiosities.

Beauty has a strong element of cultural standards to it, but symmetry is a thing. So I don't see how to entirely make it fair for those who are unattractive. Fostering an environment of tolerance and loosening cultural standards are the best we can do, and that's a shame. But it also makes it an unfair comparison to feminism, where there are clear-cut pathways to equality. One of which, though by no means the main one, is abortion.


----------



## Molkiern

Liminis said:


> I don't see how women facing a serious burden men do not have to face is "beautiful." Or "equal."
> 
> 
> 
> Statistically, adopted children are rarely treated as well as "natural-born" ones. That they aren't the parent's own flesh and blood generally does end up leading to favoritism towards natural children, and higher rates of abuse for adopted ones. Plus, if they aren't adopted in early childhood they are most likely to spend their formative years going from foster home to foster home, generally a chaotic and deeply uncertain environment.
> 
> I wouldn't want to force that on any child, so adoption to me is, like abortion, a last resort. A choice that should be available for parents who want it, but not something I'd ever actively encourage.
> 
> 
> I'd say social equality depends on economic equality. We no longer live in feudalism and don't yet live in socialism, our society is built around commerce; money is power, economic norms become social norms. To have gains in the broader cultural world, gains in economic life are thus essential. So, the ability to have that economic equality doesn't go far enough for me, but it's a necessary starting point.
> 
> Feminism, and my reasons for being a feminist (desire for fair treatment), are exactly why I'm pro-choice. If you're uncomfortable discussing that, then we probably don't have much to talk about here. I also find it curious how, on the one hand, you argue a child probably would not be an impediment to that socioeconomic equality. (Huge time sink, by the way.) On the other hand, you jump into "there's more to life than materialism," as if saying women having that socioeconomic backseat is a-okay. Which is it?



I will first jump to your last point: What I was trying to say is that if you are scared that a child can hinder your materialist progress you shouldn't be, people have, continue to and will carry on being successful while having children. Plus having a child when you are 30 could arguably be worse for your career than having one when you are 16, 20, 22 etc. After that I state that there is more to life than materialism anyway (that stands for men and women). Be careful not to overestimate the importance of work over family, I don't think that is a recipe for happiness. 

I am not uncomfortable discussing any issue with you, I find you to be very interesting, and would love to debate these hot topics with you via PM. I am sure you and I disagree on most social and economic topics, so it could be very stimulating to debate with you.

Adoption is a last resort for me too, this we agree on, however I don't know about you, but I am happy to be alive, and like that kind chap called Aurus pointed out, his family adopted a child, and from what he says they seem to be very happy


----------



## Aurus

Molkiern said:


> Wow, calm your horses my good sir. I agree with everything you said about a mother's love giving her baby up so she can have a better life. Society can be a real judgmental bitch sometimes. Well done on your parents for haivng such big hearts as to include someone else into your family.
> I have nothing against adoption, i think it is sad that not all parents can care for their children, but your family is a prime example of the apology of life and love. Well done!
> Abortion is a different matter, no human can own another human's life. That is how we justified slavery (by saying that the blacks were not really human, so not equal, ergo they were treated like dirt and sometimes killed). A fetus is not sentient YET, but it will become.... Your sister could never have met your sister if her biological mother had chosen to abort, I assume you and your sister and both happy she chose life.


Lol it's okay, I'm not mad xD
The last sentence might have come out wrong, i can sound passive aggressive sometimes. I'm so so sorry, really. Geez i can have the temperament of a bitch sometimes xD 
I'm truly sorry. 
Btw, that is a really good argument. I just don't agree on the fact that you are taking away the benefit of choice in such a life changing matter. Yes, you could have the child and put them on foster care, but the mother shouldn't be forced to be put on such situations because of the society. Who would welcome a mother that put her baby on foster care with open arms? I think that a human being should be free to chose about every matter. 
Imagine me saying this in a conversational tone. I'm not angry at all, i am perfectly calm and i actually like you xD
So sorry if i sounded like a bitch :/


----------



## Molkiern

Liminis said:


> I'm bi. But "lawl if you don't want to be pregnant, instead of abortion being available, you can be gay." That's totally convincing.
> 
> 
> Studies pretty consistently show intelligence is mostly not heritable, and largely has to do with upbringing. If you take twins, the environments they grow up in determine their success and IQ rate much, much more than who their parents were. That would also cover ambition. I think everyone deserves loving parents and enough leisure time growing up to pursue intellectual curiosities.
> 
> Beauty has strong elements of cultural standards to it, but I don't see how to entirely make it fair for those who are unattractive. Fostering an environment of tolerance and loosening cultural standards are the best we can do, and that's a shame. But it also makes it an unfair comparison to feminism, where there are clear-cut pathways to equality. One of which, though by no means the main one, is abortion.


I am glad you got my humour 

That is strange that you found studies demonstrating that intelligence was educational rather than genetical, I have read studies that say the exact opposite. Could you post me a link of those studies you speak of?
As for ambition, I have not read any studies on the matter, but my ambition is very different from my brother and my friends who were all educated in the same environment, pointing towards something more random. Case and point would be Napoleon Bonaparte who grew up in a modest family to become Emperor of France. If everything were socioeconomical that could never have happened. 

Clearly your vision of the world is very linked to feminism, I didn't want to have the conversation here, but what the heck eh? 
Why are you a feminist? Deep down, before you started going on feminist blogs that justified that it was right the be a social justice fighter (I think that's what they are called). 
Feminism is a beautiful thing, it gave women the right to vote and denounced violence against women in a big way, I think that feminism was a positive force for the West. Feminism is still needed in places like Africa and South Asia, however feminism has outgrown its purpose in Europe and the US, and now is latching on to more extreme perspectives, alienating a vast majority of the population. It has become a dirty word (outside feminist circles). What I reproach to contemporary feminism is this idea that being a stay at home mother is somehow a bad thing (and please don't deny that feminism does that). Also I dislike the aggressive stance it takes vis a vis men and their appreciation of women. If I think a lady is beautiful I would like to tell her so without being charged of rape. Of course there are polite and non polite ways of saying a lady is beautiful, but that is a question of manners rather than the intention of telling a lady you think she is beautiful.

PS: lucky you for being bi, the whole world is your oyster


----------



## Molkiern

Aurus said:


> Lol it's okay, I'm not mad xD
> The last sentence might have come out wrong, i can sound passive aggressive sometimes. I'm so so sorry, really. Geez i can have the temperament of a bitch sometimes xD
> I'm truly sorry.
> Btw, that is a really good argument. I just don't agree on the fact that you are taking away the benefit of choice in such a life changing matter. Yes, you could have the child and put them on foster care, but the mother shouldn't be forced to be put on such situations because of the society. Who would welcome a mother that put her baby on foster care with open arms? I think that a human being should be free to chose about every matter.
> Imagine me saying this in a conversational tone. I'm not angry at all, i am perfectly calm and i actually like you xD
> So sorry if i sounded like a bitch :/


Hahahaha, No worries, I can understand that conversations like these may make the blood boil, and it is even harder to judge the tone of someone when all we have to judge are words.

You seem to angry that society judges women who give up their children. I agree that this is deplorable and should be changed, I think it is already becoming better, and hopefully will continue to do so. 
A human should be free to chose every matter concerning themselves, and only themselves, also i would add that every human being has an obligation to make sure that their choices don't affect others negatively. 
Abortion is the extermination of a non sentient life form that can and will become a human being (you were one, i was one, your sister was one etc etc) , if you accept that every human being is different (biologically, personality wise) then you have to concede that killing a fetus is killing a human being. 
This point relates to philosophical questions such as what is it that makes us human and what is a human being? The ultimate question is 'what is our purpose?'
By killing a fetus you are taking the choice away from that being, a choice it can't yet make.

PS: I like you too


----------



## Liminis

As far as your "you can succeed even with a kid at 16-22" and "many adopted kids are very happy" arguments, sure. I'm speaking in terms of averages. On average, having a child at a young age leads to significantly lower chances of socioeconomic success, which if not chosen (e.g. by abortion services being unavailable) damages womens' clout in the workplace and thus society. While the average adopted child is not abused, adopted children are significantly more likely to be than non-adopted.



Molkiern said:


> That is strange that you found studies demonstrating that intelligence was educational rather than genetical, I have read studies that say the exact opposite. Could you post me a link of those studies you speak of?


Gladly. The Heritability of Intelligence: Not What You Think - Scientific American Blog Network That throws a monkey wrench into older research, largely pre-90s, claiming to "prove" IQ's "mostly heritable" nature. There was also a famous study involving twin rats, which found that their problem-solving abilities (IQ) depend much more on their environment growing up than who raised them. It was done by taking one twin from various pairs and having them raised in a separate environment, then measuring the time it takes for each to solve mazes and other basic problem-solving measures.



> As for ambition,


Probably relatively easy to measure by success, which again appears to be mostly environmental rather than in-born..



> Case and point would be Napoleon Bonaparte who grew up in a modest family to become Emperor of France. If everything were socioeconomical that could never have happened.


The House of Buonaparte were Corsican aristocrats and his father was an attorney in the court of Louis XVI, hardly a "modest family." Bill Clinton would be a better example for your case, considering his poor socioeconomic status growing up. But then, I come back to the fact that we're looking at averages rather than X specific case or Y specific case. Even if you want to delve into specific examples and ignore averages: why were the Clintons impoverished if intelligence is so inheritable? Should they have not broken out of that generations earlier?



> Clearly your vision of the world is very linked to feminism, I didn't want to have the conversation here, but what the heck eh?
> Why are you a feminist? Deep down, before you started going on feminist blogs that justified that it was right the be a social justice fighter (I think that's what they are called).


I'm a feminist because, looking at the world, I see women do have a lesser place in the social hierarchy compared to men. We're less likely to be taken seriously. Men are seen as the standard, women are seen as the other, provable by such things as how many movies fail the Bechdel Test. Masculine traits are prized over feminine ones given our competition-driven society. I'd refer to it as a form of social class. I don't think that's just, and don't see any unearned form of social class as just.



> and now is latching on to more extreme perspectives, alienating a vast majority of the population. It has become a dirty word (outside feminist circles).


Who it alienates or does not alienate has no bearing on whether or not the statements made by its adherents are true. John Brown alienated and shocked the vast majority of American society in fighting directly against slave-holders. I'm a Marxist, I alienate people by dint of even saying that. That doesn't have any bearing on whether or not looking at economic relations in terms of workers' rights relative to the owner class is right. 



> What I reproach to contemporary feminism is this idea that being a stay at home mother is somehow a bad thing (and please don't deny that feminism does that).


I do deny that "feminism" does that. "Feminism' isn't a person, it has internal splits like any other group. I don't deny that certain specific feminists do, and disagree with that tendency. That's a choice as valid as any other, and is as much effort and of as much importance as any full-time job. Women should have full support in pursuing that if they so choose, and contrary to the traditional Leave it to Beaver set-up it should be socially equal to someone who goes out into the world and works outside the home.

I do, however, think women should have opportunities available beyond that. I don't think unwanted pregnancy should force women who don't want that life into it.



> Also I dislike the aggressive stance it takes vis a vis men and their appreciation of women. If I think a lady is beautiful I would like to tell her so without being charged of rape.


Nobody's going to do that, so I'm not sure where you're getting it from. You literally can't be charged with rape for it, and the normal response would be a polite "thank you." If you're harassing her and she wants you to leave her alone, that's her right as a human being and she'll tell you that. If you keep persisting, yeah, that's wrong.


----------



## katemess

Molkiern said:


> I think you are mixing womb and fetus....
> 
> A fetus is not sentient... I already had this conversation with someone else on the same thread, I suggest you read the previous posts.


Exactly... 

Do you understand what sentient means?


----------



## Molkiern

Thank you for the studies, I shall look into them... At best we can agree to disagree vis a vis intelligence (studies proving and disproving in equal measure.

Bonaparte was from a small noble family, nothing to write home about, at the time leaping from small nobility to emperor was near impossible in one generation. Proving my point that ambition is due to luck. I shall turn your Clinton argument against you, I don't think Clinton was very intelligent (probably above average, but not really intelligent- though very good with crowds), but he was ambitious and he seized the right time and place to project himself to the White House. All his friends did not, again social background not meaning much.

Your point about alienating people is true. Well said. If you are a Marxist, then that tells me you are very ideological, want a utopian world, and that is fine in theory, in theory I agree with you, but as someone with a masters degree from the London School of Economics I can assure you that in practice Marxism fails. Be it simply due to human nature or more complex economic factors. 
I have no problem with your view of feminism, i think it is what already exists today and I am happy with it. 

I disagree with you on unwanted pregnancy, there is another human being to take into consideration other than the woman who got knocked up. 

You would be surprised how many rape claims there are of women who said it was rape when it clearly wasn't, illustrating the aggressive feminism I disapprove of (think of me saying : 'tut tut' when I see that one the news 



Liminis said:


> As far as your "you can succeed even with a kid at 16-22" and "many adopted kids are very happy" arguments, sure. I'm speaking in terms of averages. On average, having a child at a young age leads to significantly lower chances of socioeconomic success, which if not chosen (e.g. by abortion services being unavailable) damages womens' clout in the workplace and thus society. While the average adopted child is not abused, adopted children are significantly more likely to be than non-adopted.
> 
> 
> Gladly. The Heritability of Intelligence: Not What You Think - Scientific American Blog Network That throws a monkey wrench into older research, largely pre-90s, claiming to "prove" heritable IQ. There was also a famous study involving twin rats, which found that their problem-solving abilities (IQ) depend much more on their environment growing up than who raised them. It was done by taking one twin from various pairs and having them raised in a separate environment, then measuring the time it takes for each to solve mazes and other basic problem-solving measures.
> 
> 
> Probably relatively easy to measure by success, which again appears to be mostly environmental rather than in-born..
> 
> 
> The House of Buonaparte were Corsican aristocrats and his father was an attorney in the court of Louis XVI, hardly a "modest family." Bill Clinton would be a better example for your case, considering his poor socioeconomic status growing up. But then, I come back to the fact that we're looking at averages rather than X specific case or Y specific case. Even if you want to delve into specific examples and ignore averages: why were the Clintons impoverished if intelligence is so inheritable? Should they have not broken out of that generations earlier?
> 
> 
> I'm a feminist because, looking at the world, I see women do have a lesser place in the social hierarchy compared to men. We're less likely to be taken seriously. Men are seen as the standard, women are seen as the other, provable by such things as how many movies fail the Bechdel Test. Masculine traits are prized over feminine ones given our competition-driven society. I'd refer to it as a form of social class. I don't think that's just, and don't see any unearned form of social class as just.
> 
> 
> Who it alienates or does not alienate has no bearing on whether or not the statements made by its adherents are true. I'm a Marxist, I alienate people by dint of even saying that. That doesn't have any bearing on whether or not looking at economic relations in terms of workers' rights relative to the owner class is right.
> 
> 
> I do deny that "feminism" does that. "Feminism' isn't a person, it has internal splits like any other group. I don't deny that certain specific feminists do, and disagree with that tendency. That's a choice as valid as any other, and is as much effort as any full-time job. Women should have full support in pursuing that if they so choose, and contrary to the traditional Leave it to Beaver set-up it should be socially equal to someone who goes out into the world and works outside the home.
> 
> I do, however, think women should have opportunities available beyond that. I don't think unwanted pregnancy should force women who don't want that life into it.
> 
> 
> Nobody's going to do that, so I'm not sure where you're getting it from. You literally can't be charged with rape for it, and the normal response would be a polite "thank you." If you're harassing her and she wants you to leave her alone, that's her right as a human being and she'll tell you that. If you keep persisting, yeah, that's wrong.


----------



## Molkiern

Liminis said:


> Studies pretty consistently show intelligence is mostly not heritable, and largely has to do with upbringing. If you take twins, the environments they grow up in determine their success and IQ rate much, much more than who their parents were. That would also cover ambition. I think everyone deserves loving parents and enough leisure time growing up to pursue intellectual curiosities.


Sorry for the second post, but I would like to get back on point, that is to say there are people who are more intelligent, ambitious, beautiful etc, that is just part of life. Is it fair? No. But that is my point, the world does not make everybody equal, c'est la vie. 

I can understand why you ascribe to the Marxist thought, again I agree with you that it would be nicer if everybody had 3 apples, worked the same, looked the same, smelt the same, thought the same... Oh no, actually I don't  But I was exaggerating, I am sure you believe in a more subtle marxism, all power to you !


----------



## Liminis

Molkiern said:


> Bonaparte was from a small noble family, nothing to write home about, at the time leaping from small nobility to emperor was near impossible in one generation. Proving my point that ambition is due to luck.


He also lived in a time of tremendous social upheaval. The French Revolution happened. France was industrializing at a fast pace and growing its empire in response. I wouldn't say that's "luck," any more than anything is random chance. If you want to assume any causation exists at all, the conditions were ripe for a moderate-reformist military dictator. That he was from a noble family with presence in the royal court of Louis XVI makes his rise all the easier. If he were some random average guy named Joe (or Jacques), I seriously doubt he would have risen that quickly, when even the Revolution's leaders were all well-educated men from fairly prosperous backgrounds. Mostly the children of merchants. Average Random Guy Jacques works on a farm somewhere.



> I don't think Clinton was very intelligent (probably above average, but not really intelligent- though very good with crowds), but he was ambitious and he seized the right time and place to project himself to the White House. All his friends did not, again social background not meaning much.


That all sounds pretty "intelligent" to me, so I'm curious as to what you mean by intelligence now. Certainly this was a guy who was able to get into: Georgetown, Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law School.



> Your point about alienating people is true. Well said. If you are a Marxist, then that tells me you are very ideological, want a utopian world,


I'm not a utopian socialist, so no. I don't think you can just implement socialism on some commune somewhere, absent the right socioeconomic conditions for it, in any lasting way. I think the ever-increasing debt inherent in capitalism absent newer and larger-scale production, like Marx, makes capitalism an impermanent system. I'd go one further from Marx and say that an exchange-value, short-term-profit driven system has made a crisis even more pressing than the long-term debt one; an environmental one. Socialism which solves its inherent flaws is one possible reaction, barbarism/social breakdown is another. 

Looking at history in a broader sense, rigid class structures have progressively broken down, so my hope is eventually for a stateless, classless society. Even that would be imperfect though, we can't predict exactly what it would look like. I just think it'd be fairer than what we have now. 



> and that is fine in theory, in theory I agree with you, but as someone with a masters degree from the London School of Economics I can assure you that in practice Marxism fails. Be it simply due to human nature or more complex economic factors.


How does economics prove a theory of history and sociology fails "in practice"? Marx didn't prescribe any specific economic model, and models of socialism fall all over the map. He laid out where he felt flaws in the capitalist model were and what these could potentially lead to.

However, I will say that in spite of human rights problems often existing, Marxist-led regimes have done a great job at industrializing feudal nations, providing universal education/literacy, and propelling people out of poverty. None have existed in a situation where feudalism, rather than capitalism, wasn't the prevailing socioeconomic system. They've managed to do hundreds of years of development in the West in one generation, and sadly in the process often retain some cultural/political elements of the brutal and bureaucratic tsardoms they've replaced.



> I disagree with you on unwanted pregnancy, there is another human being to take into consideration other than the woman who got knocked up.


I feel it should be generally seen as a last resort for that reason. But ultimately, either you have body integrity or you don't. Either you have control over your own bodily decisions and faculties, or you don't. Safe and legal abortion is the only way to really have it. A fetus, by definition, cannot have bodily integrity or autonomy.



> You would be surprised how many rape claims there are of women who said it was rape when it clearly wasn't, illustrating the aggressive feminism I disapprove of (think of me saying : 'tut tut' when I see that one the news


Rape is actually underreported, not over. Have there been a few false claims? Sure. Assholes who can justify a thin strawman argument exist everywhere. But there have been many more women who were raped and said nothing, for fear of social shame. It's a painful thing to go through.



> Is it fair? No. But that is my point, the world does not make everybody equal, c'est la vie.


But should it not be as fair as possible, within grounds of merit? Meaning, for things you cannot control, should fair treatment not exist? Otherwise, what you're dealing with is one group of people being put over another. In a word, oppression.

I think the ideal world is one where any hierarchies that do exist are due to choice, due to effort. Merit. Making them based on inborn differences actively impedes that.


----------



## Molkiern

First off let me thank you for an interesting debate, I have only met a marxist such as yourself once and our conversation was quite short due to external factors. 

A quick note on the French Revolution coming from a small french bourgeois/noble family myself, I can assure you that those times were very turbulent and not easy to navigate, think about it this way, in a time when the King had been killed by the people, the ability to declare yourself emperor right after was quite ballsy. My ancestor went on to be a general in the Grande Armée, but that is for another time (quite proud of it though haha).

On the real topic now: Marxism. Marxism is a socioeconomic theory/analysis. Lenin was a big fan (if I may use that term) of the theory,and endorsed the idea in a time that was ripe for Russia. The Soviet Union was the poster child of communism made real (with Lenin's socialist revolution). Cuba is another example of communism. I know these are not perfect states, and I am sure you can explain to me why they failed and how a new bolshevik revolution could work. But humans are not made for equality. In fact any form of socialism diminishes competitiveness and innovation, ergo progress and production is slow(er). If production is slower, then income is lower, if income is lower then that means lower living standards as the state (a socialist one) must break the piggy bank to pay for new roads, hospitals, food for a growing population etc.
Oh and some European countries that were swallowed by the Soviet Union were not feudal at the time. If you ask any polish people today what they think of communism/socialism I am pretty sure it won't be positive. 
Now I am not saying that Marx was wrong all the time (especially at the time he was writing). 

With regards to Capitalism: Is it perfect? No. But its the best we have. Debt isn't important (from a state's perspective), in fact it can be a positive thing so long as it promotes further exchange. I agree with you that we need a responsible capitalism, but that is no fault of capitalism, but rather of the demand-for let's say more wooden flaws. Capitalism at its core is simply about demand and supply. I would argue for a social responsible capitalism, where the market favours social responsibility. The good news is that this is happening. I would recommend you read Porter and Kramer's work on shared value. 
I don't think capitalism can die out, necessity is the mother of invention and demand is/can be a necessity. Demand will never die out due to the fact that we are humans and are always striving for something.

So long as there is an exchange mechanism capitalism is better for living standards than extreme socialism.

That said I am not a pure capitalist, I believe in free education and free health care as I believe that those are human rights and are necessary to promote human dignity. 

For the abortion argument, we can't agree as I believe that just because something is growing within you does not make it your body and you do. For me it is a weak being that needs protection and care. 

The world should be as fair as possible, but we are all different, look we have even got 16 types haha  By the way what is your type ? INFP? INTP?

I think that we are all different, and I love out differences. The world can be cruel and I believe in fighting that cruelty with whatever means we have. Education is a must for us to be at our best. I am not a big fan of individualism and capitalism, I think that the individual should think of himself as part of a family (short view) and society (long view) while of course not forgetting his needs, he should not focus on them solely. Here is an example you might agree on: Not having a 10 minute shower because you understand that helps the planet, or making sure you don't buy blood diamonds, or (and this is extreme) not killing yourself if you have a family that relies on you and that loves you - you might not agree with my last point 




Liminis said:


> He also lived in a time of tremendous social upheaval. The French Revolution happened. France was industrializing at a fast pace and growing its empire in response. I wouldn't say that's "luck," any more than anything is random chance. If you want to assume any causation exists at all, the conditions were ripe for a moderate-reformist military dictator. That he was from a noble family with presence in the royal court of Louis XVI makes his rise all the easier. If he were some random average guy named Joe (or Jacques), I seriously doubt he would have risen that quickly, when even the Revolution's leaders were all well-educated men from fairly prosperous backgrounds. Mostly the children of merchants. Average Random Guy Jacques works on a farm somewhere.
> 
> 
> That all sounds pretty "intelligent" to me, so I'm curious as to what you mean by intelligence now. Certainly this was a guy who was able to get into: Georgetown, Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law School.
> 
> 
> I'm not a utopian socialist, so no. I don't think you can just implement socialism on some commune somewhere, absent the right socioeconomic conditions for it, in any lasting way. I think the ever-increasing debt inherent in capitalism absent newer and larger-scale production, like Marx, makes capitalism an impermanent system. I'd go one further from Marx and say that an exchange-value, short-term-profit driven system has made a crisis even more pressing than the long-term debt one; an environmental one. Socialism which solves its inherent flaws is one possible reaction, barbarism/social breakdown is another.
> 
> Looking at history in a broader sense, rigid class structures have progressively broken down, so my hope is eventually for a stateless, classless society. Even that would be imperfect though, we can't predict exactly what it would look like. I just think it'd be fairer than what we have now.
> 
> 
> How does economics prove a theory of history and sociology fails "in practice"? Marx didn't prescribe any specific economic model, and models of socialism fall all over the map. He laid out where he felt flaws in the capitalist model were and what these could potentially lead to.
> 
> However, I will say that in spite of human rights problems often existing, Marxist-led regimes have done a great job at industrializing feudal nations, providing universal education/literacy, and propelling people out of poverty. None have existed in a situation where feudalism, rather than capitalism, wasn't the prevailing socioeconomic system. They've managed to do hundreds of years of development in the West in one generation, and sadly in the process often retain some cultural/political elements of the brutal and bureaucratic tsardoms they've replaced.
> 
> 
> I feel it should be generally seen as a last resort for that reason. But ultimately, either you have body integrity or you don't. Either you have control over your own bodily decisions and faculties, or you don't. Safe and legal abortion is the only way to really have it. A fetus, by definition, cannot have bodily integrity or autonomy.
> 
> 
> Rape is actually underreported, not over. Have there been a few false claims? Sure. Assholes who can justify a thin strawman argument exist everywhere. But there have been many more women who were raped and said nothing, for fear of social shame. It's a painful thing to go through.
> 
> 
> But should it not be as fair as possible, within grounds of merit? Meaning, for things you cannot control, should fair treatment not exist? Otherwise, what you're dealing with is one group of people being put over another. In a word, oppression.
> 
> I think the ideal world is one where any hierarchies that do exist are due to choice, due to effort. Merit. Making them based on inborn differences actively impedes that.


----------



## Liminis

Molkiern said:


> First off let me thank you for an interesting debate, I have only met a marxist such as yourself once and our conversation was quite short due to external factors.


You're welcome.  Though, I only brought that up because you asked where I was coming from. If you want a full debate on Marxism, let's take it to PM? If it's becoming the focal point of the debate, it's off-topic from the thread.



> On the real topic now: Marxism. Marxism is a socioeconomic theory/analysis.


It's actually better described as a socio-historical theory, based on an economic analysis. Economically, Marx analyzed capitalism's structure, flaws, and potential long-range prospects. He barely discussed what he felt socialism, if it led to that rather than barbarism, would look like. Which is whhy you see it ranging from everything to eurocommunist market socialism, to decentralized workers' councils, to ossified bureaucratic structures.



> Lenin was a big fan (if I may use that term) of the theory,and endorsed the idea in a time that was ripe for Russia. The Soviet Union was the poster child of communism made real (with Lenin's socialist revolution). Cuba is another example of communism.


The Soviet Union claimed to be socialist, it never claimed to have reached communism, a stateless/classless society. And many modern communists dispute whether it, or Cuba, reached socialism. Certainly the goal was to progress to it, but Russia was predominantly a feudal country and Cuba was semi-feudal outside of Havana as well. It needed industrial development first, capitalism itself was still coming in. You can't have socialism without a laboring class with experience organizing, to take the managerial reins from the capitalist owners. Extant socialist-led countries have focused on building that laboring class, with varying (often very small) degrees of bottom-up control by what little laborers existed. Thus, what you got in the USSR, and in Cuba today, is a conservative bureaucratic middle-ground 



> But humans are not made for equality.


Most of human existence was spent in a communal atmosphere. Every observed hunter-gatherer society has little in the way of hierarchy, because they have little division of labor. Civilization and the division of labor that enables it is a very recent development in human history.



> In fact any form of socialism diminishes competitiveness and innovation, ergo progress and production is slow(er). If production is slower, then income is lower,


Firstly, forms of socialism with market competition exist. Tito's Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union under the New Economic Policy of Lenin. Secondly, while many lost their lives exactly because of how quickly it was implemented, production certainly wasn't slower in Stalin's USSR or Mao's China. Industrialization took place at lightning speed. I don't hail that as an example to follow, but certainly it did build modern Russia and China, and the prosperity they enjoy today can be attributed to the industrial policy followed then.



> Oh and some European countries that were swallowed by the Soviet Union were not feudal at the time. If you ask any polish people today what they think of communism/socialism I am pretty sure it won't be positive.


Or, ask a Russian. The Communist Party of Russia does best among older people who remember at least having healthcare, at least having a guarantee of not starving. They also remember authoritarian rule, but Russia is getting that anyway. And they remember the takeover by the mafiya and cataclysmic depression in the wake of the USSR's fall.



> Now I am not saying that Marx was wrong all the time (especially at the time he was writing).


I'd say most of his analysis is observably even more true today. My critiques are just: he failed to predict the environmental crisis coming first, though Engels to his credit did not. And his work on imperialism did need some updating, it wasn't the boon for the exploited population he suggested.



> Debt isn't important (from a state's perspective), in fact it can be a positive thing so long as it promotes further exchange.


Agreed, but on a large scale ever-increasing debt leads to social collapse. Absent technological advances that enable more wealth production to pay off said debt, the tendency is for it to continually increase. The response has been to continually centralize banking instruments to coordinate repayment. Starting with national banks, and now there's the push for a European bank to deal with the PIIGS situation. But these are all just holding measures. What happens when it hits breaking point and you already have a global coordinating system? There's no other level of austerity. You've reached a wall.



> Capitalism at its core is simply about demand and supply.


As defined by Adam Smith, it's private ownership of the means of production. That's the usual definition, and thus the one I'm using. Supply and demand are extant in socialism as well, and even in feudalism



> For the abortion argument, we can't agree as I believe that just because something is growing within you does not make it your body and you do. For me it is a weak being that needs protection and care.


I could parse words and say "so what about cancers growing in people?", but that would be massively disingenuous. So instead, I'll say that I think a woman has a right to control her body. A fetus is a dependent of her body. She should not be forced to care for it. I also think, in a broader social sense, imposing that on a woman who does not want it is an example of and reinforcement of patriarchal social hierarchy.

Once it's viable outside of the womb, you have a different argument. If economically viable, sure, I'd love it if keeping late-term fetuses alive outside of the womb were publicly funded and thus a more serious option for women who aren't ridiculously wealthy. But the vast majority of abortions are not late-term. The later in the pregnancy it is, the less likely they become.



> The world should be as fair as possible, but we are all different, look we have even got 16 types haha  By the way what is your type ? INFP? INTP?


Hm, why do you guess P? I'm pretty sure I'm INFJ, and I'd probably consider INTJ second.



> I think that we are all different, and I love out differences.


I do too, but I think those differences that are inborn rather than based on choice should not impose hierarchy. I don't think we should be oppressed for our differences, precisely because I value them. 



> The world can be cruel and I believe in fighting that cruelty with whatever means we have. Education is a must for us to be at our best. I am not a big fan of individualism and capitalism, I think that the individual should think of himself as part of a family (short view) and society (long view) while of course not forgetting his needs, he should not focus on them solely.


Agreed with all of the above, though I'd also focus on the broader societal family instead of just the singular atomistic unit. "It takes a village," et cetera.



> Here is an example you might agree on: Not having a 10 minute shower because you understand that helps the planet, or making sure you don't buy blood diamonds, or (and this is extreme) not killing yourself if you have a family that relies on you and that loves you - you might not agree with my last point


Nope, agreed with most of the above. Though in the last situation, you have to weigh your own pain against that of your family, and whether the pain is surmountable long-term, in making that decision. That's a complicated situation to be in, with so many questions at play.


----------



## Molkiern

Ok great, so I shall PM you about Marxism, but just so this thread stays on topic I shall respond to your pro-choice stance.

You say a woman should not be forced to care for a fetus she does not want. What about the fetus? What rights does it have? 
By having unprotected sex (or just sex) two human beings are accepting the fact that they can create life, why should the fetus be punished by the parents irresponsibility? More so, you are talking about the destruction of life and comparing it to the comfort of the mother, those are two very different playing fields.

I'm off to sleep now, good night or good day to all !


----------



## RubiksCubix

katemess said:


> But a sentient woman's life is more valuable than a potentially-sentient-in-the-future fetus' life. It's ridiculous to suggest that a sentient woman should have her entire life turned on end for something that she doesn't WANT, just because you think a pre-12 week old, non-sentient, non-viable fetus is somehow equal to a sentient person.
> 
> Thank fuck I live in a country where it's legal, easily accessible, and accepted by the majority.


If forced to choose between the worth of the two lives merely on face value then I would also agree with you that more worth should be placed on the mother's life. Absolutely. However, both human lives are invaluable. And equating the worth a woman's life to an affect on her lifestyle is a false comparison, however significant such an affect may be.

That being said, that is not the issue at hand, except for under .2% of abortions. 93% of abortions are done for "social reasons". In other words, we are morally weighing the worth of a child's affect on the mother's lifestyle versus the elimination of the child's life entirely. 

I'm am a believer in individual rights and individual responsibilities and so I would never support a policy which penalized minors or women who were raped/didn't consent in the child's creation. But if a women knowingly and consensually has sex and happens to get pregnant, she is responsible for the consequences of her actions, especially as they affect the rights of others, namely the right to life.

In the words of Edmund Burke: 

_" Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure—but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, callico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and *those who are to be born.* "_


----------



## Kerik_S

In to say I'm against abortion unless it's a physiologically life-saving (physical mortality, immediate complications) operation,

and especially to say that I'm not going to argue about it because this is a poll.


----------



## Aurus

Molkiern said:


> Hahahaha, No worries, I can understand that conversations like these may make the blood boil, and it is even harder to judge the tone of someone when all we have to judge are words.
> 
> You seem to angry that society judges women who give up their children. I agree that this is deplorable and should be changed, I think it is already becoming better, and hopefully will continue to do so.
> A human should be free to chose every matter concerning themselves, and only themselves, also i would add that every human being has an obligation to make sure that their choices don't affect others negatively.
> Abortion is the extermination of a non sentient life form that can and will become a human being (you were one, i was one, your sister was one etc etc) , if you accept that every human being is different (biologically, personality wise) then you have to concede that killing a fetus is killing a human being.
> This point relates to philosophical questions such as what is it that makes us human and what is a human being? The ultimate question is 'what is our purpose?'
> By killing a fetus you are taking the choice away from that being, a choice it can't yet make.
> 
> PS: I like you too


That's a very good point. Good enough to make me wonder about this. But wanting or not, sometimes we have to think if it is really worth it giving the chance. Because yes, i agree with you. But someone else may not have what we have or value different things, therefore we should be free to pick our shots, and if this includes sparing the life of someone who will live miserably and with high chances of being a danger to society (although not all cases are like that). A great deal of psychopathic individuals get those traits thanks to their miserable childhoods.


----------



## ai.tran.75

For myself pro-life, otherwise pro choice 

Enfp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigApplePi

INTP. I used to be neutral but now am leaning toward pro-choice. Why? Because there is all kinds of life. A young seed doesn't have much of a life and there is so much developed life, why do we need more? Life competes with other life. Some life is better than others. Just because some selection has to take place doesn't mean we are killing all life. Although all life seems to want to live, there are many steps along the way to realize full potential. That doesn't mean all the steps have to be taken. 

I can't say the Supreme Court of the US is a proper place to judge this.


----------

