By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?

segajon on 18 January 2008
fazz said:
Pro-choice: I have always thought that, if the kid can't be given a happy, good life, they should let the kid skip to their next chance (yes, I believe in rebirth).

For example, the child would be given... let's say to an orphanage. He would grow up sad, without parents, probably hating life, people and himself. Same if the kid is abused because of the hate his parents have to him, from being an accident or whatever.

Also, I don't believe that the child should be a kind of punishment to dumb teenagers. Childs are human beings, and they should be given love no matter the condition they are born.

Not that the above opinion should be set to stone for everyone, but that's what I think.

Just because a child is not growing up with their parents does meen they can't have a happy or good life. Their are a lot of people that are very nice to adopt a child or be a foster parent for a while. Anyways I think a sad life would be better than no life.



Around the Network
outlawauron on 18 January 2008

Pro-life with a strong conviction.

I don't think you kill someone that could do so much in this crazy world.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

EHSTEVE on 18 January 2008
Bladeneo said:
segajon said:
Bladeneo said:
Pro choice; circumstances are sometime unavoidable. If a person doesnt want the child they shouldnt be forced to have it.

If a person does not want the child the person should not have sex. Don't give me the lame excuse well the condom broke or the birth control didn't work. We all know those are not 100% effective at preventing a pregnancy and never will be.


 What? Since when is sex purely for the purpose of creating a child? Sorry, Im not going to be restricted in my sexual activities because contraception isnt effective enough to ensure i wont get someone pregnant. If someone takes all precautions necessary to prevent the pregnancy, then they shouldnt be forced to endure it. 

 


misread post

Bladeneo on 18 January 2008
EHSTEVE said:
Bladeneo said:
segajon said:
Bladeneo said:
Pro choice; circumstances are sometime unavoidable. If a person doesnt want the child they shouldnt be forced to have it.

If a person does not want the child the person should not have sex. Don't give me the lame excuse well the condom broke or the birth control didn't work. We all know those are not 100% effective at preventing a pregnancy and never will be.


What? Since when is sex purely for the purpose of creating a child? Sorry, Im not going to be restricted in my sexual activities because contraception isnt effective enough to ensure i wont get someone pregnant. If someone takes all precautions necessary to prevent the pregnancy, then they shouldnt be forced to endure it.

 


 

I'm pretty sure that sex has always been mainly to reproduce :P(pleasure is a byproduct?)

 But it isnt PURELY for the purpose of a child. I'm not going to abstain from sex until I want a child. What about people who dont want children? They can never have sex? Its ridiculous to suggest that.

2000 years ago maybe, but nowadays sex is pleasure first, reproduction second. 



Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for Sega. - Jason Lee, Mallrats.

http://theaveragejoe.sportsblognet.com/ - Mainly American Football, snippets of Basketball, European Football and Hockey. 

segajon on 18 January 2008
Bladeneo said:
segajon said:
Bladeneo said:
Pro choice; circumstances are sometime unavoidable. If a person doesnt want the child they shouldnt be forced to have it.

If a person does not want the child the person should not have sex. Don't give me the lame excuse well the condom broke or the birth control didn't work. We all know those are not 100% effective at preventing a pregnancy and never will be.


 What? Since when is sex purely for the purpose of creating a child? Sorry, Im not going to be restricted in my sexual activities because contraception isnt effective enough to ensure i wont get someone pregnant. If someone takes all precautions necessary to prevent the pregnancy, then they shouldnt be forced to endure it. 

 

Your putting your sexual pleasurments ahead of what could be become a wonderful human being. I think people shouldn't have sex unless they are able to support a child if things do go wrong and a pregnancy happens. Unless you or your partner are unable to produce then be ready for whatever could happen.

 



Around the Network
tkca17 on 18 January 2008
Auron said:
llewdebkram said:
Pro life but there are circumstances when abortion should be allowed.

 Agreed, my circumstances are rape, mother's health in danger and child's health in danger.


My beliefs are the same as him but considering im not a woman and never been in that situation my opinion means very little.



I'm actually tk1797 but I lost my account somehow.

fazz on 18 January 2008
segajon said:
fazz said:
Pro-choice: I have always thought that, if the kid can't be given a happy, good life, they should let the kid skip to their next chance (yes, I believe in rebirth).

For example, the child would be given... let's say to an orphanage. He would grow up sad, without parents, probably hating life, people and himself. Same if the kid is abused because of the hate his parents have to him, from being an accident or whatever.

Also, I don't believe that the child should be a kind of punishment to dumb teenagers. Childs are human beings, and they should be given love no matter the condition they are born.

Not that the above opinion should be set to stone for everyone, but that's what I think.

Just because a child is not growing up with their parents does meen they can't have a happy or good life. Their are a lot of people that are very nice to adopt a child or be a foster parent for a while. Anyways I think a sad life would be better than no life.


I agree with you, that's why I say "shouldn't be set in stone for everyone". About the bolded part though... I'm sure most people that are really sad disagree with you. 



segajon on 18 January 2008
Bladeneo said:
EHSTEVE said:
Bladeneo said:
segajon said:
Bladeneo said:
Pro choice; circumstances are sometime unavoidable. If a person doesnt want the child they shouldnt be forced to have it.

If a person does not want the child the person should not have sex. Don't give me the lame excuse well the condom broke or the birth control didn't work. We all know those are not 100% effective at preventing a pregnancy and never will be.


What? Since when is sex purely for the purpose of creating a child? Sorry, Im not going to be restricted in my sexual activities because contraception isnt effective enough to ensure i wont get someone pregnant. If someone takes all precautions necessary to prevent the pregnancy, then they shouldnt be forced to endure it.

 


 

I'm pretty sure that sex has always been mainly to reproduce :P(pleasure is a byproduct?)

 But it isnt PURELY for the purpose of a child. I'm not going to abstain from sex until I want a child. What about people who dont want children? They can never have sex? Its ridiculous to suggest that.

2000 years ago maybe, but nowadays sex is pleasure first, reproduction second. 

Their are operations out there that could prevent you are your partner from having a baby. Most of those operations are cheaper than having an abortion.

 



flukus on 18 January 2008
segajon said:
flukus said:
Pro choice in all circumstances.

is killing a human being"

Thats the debatable part, what do we define as a human being. If we go down the path of considering feutuses (sp) human then sooner or later we end up at monte pythons "every sperm is sacred".

No every sperm will not be sacred because you need more than sperm to produce a child.


You need more than an embryo too. A baby isn't a self sustaining organism until after birth. It's a matter of putting a line in the sand somewhere. Anti abortionists put that line at conception, leviticus put it on sperm, pro choicers put it on the first trimester and others put it on the birth.

___O_o______ on 18 January 2008
segajon said:
fazz said:
Pro-choice: I have always thought that, if the kid can't be given a happy, good life, they should let the kid skip to their next chance (yes, I believe in rebirth).

For example, the child would be given... let's say to an orphanage. He would grow up sad, without parents, probably hating life, people and himself. Same if the kid is abused because of the hate his parents have to him, from being an accident or whatever.

Also, I don't believe that the child should be a kind of punishment to dumb teenagers. Childs are human beings, and they should be given love no matter the condition they are born.

Not that the above opinion should be set to stone for everyone, but that's what I think.

Just because a child is not growing up with their parents does meen they can't have a happy or good life. Their are a lot of people that are very nice to adopt a child or be a foster parent for a while. Anyways I think a sad life would be better than no life.


 I agree with both of you to a point, but research has shown (read Freakonomics) the majority of women seeking abortion are of the lower class. Like it or not, not every person in this country is born equal. If you're born in the lower class, it's very hard to get out of it, though there are exceptions.

 Abortion was the reason for the dramatic crime decrease of the 90's, because twenty years prior was Roe vs Wade. The crime decreased not because of a good economy or more police, but because of abortion. Those who were goingn to be born into a lower-class life, weren't born. Pro-life means a world of more crime and less morality in a population in the future, while pro-choice may actually lower crime, meaning more morality in the population in the future IMO.