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?

Metallicube on 19 January 2008

100% pro choice. The government should say out of women's bodies. And why the hell do these pro lifers care so much about the fetus when half of them wouldn't give two craps about the baby once it's actually born?

 I mean of course abortion isn't always the best option, but sometimes it's the only option, and it needs to be legal in the extreme cases like rape. And most pro lifer would argue "she shouldn't have had sex in the first place!!!1" but what's past is past, and the girl can't go back in time and fix what she did wrong. Sometimes abortion is the only viable option and it needs to be available otherwise there's going to be underground abortionists doing the procedures and it won't be pretty. 



Around the Network
RCTjunkie on 19 January 2008

This is interesting......,. *eats popcorn*



WHO IS JESUS REALLY?

flagship on 19 January 2008

Prochoice, this country would be a lot better off if people stopped having so many kids they can't afford.

Besides abortion is a very old practice and making it illegal won't make it go away, it will simply result in illegal abortions under poorer conditions that put the womens life at higher risk.



Bursche on 19 January 2008
Metallicube said:

100% pro choice. The government should say out of women's bodies. And why the hell do these pro lifers care so much about the fetus when half of them wouldn't give two craps about the baby once it's actually born?

 I mean of course abortion isn't always the best option, but sometimes it's the only option, and it needs to be legal in the extreme cases like rape. And most pro lifer would argue "she shouldn't have had sex in the first place!!!1" but what's past is past, and the girl can't go back in time and fix what she did wrong. Sometimes abortion is the only viable option and it needs to be available otherwise there's going to be underground abortionists doing the procedures and it won't be pretty. 


This is not holding the girl responsible. How will the girl feel next time she can have unprotected sex? "Well I dont care cause I can have another abortion that daddy will take care of..."

She can fix what she did wrong. By havign the baby and putting it up for adoption. A child parentless is better than killing it off. No one is saying the extreme cases can not have abortions, but those girls who think of it as an easy way out shouldnt have that right.

 Pro lifers want to save innocent children from being put to death even before they get the chance to live. To think of this is wrong, well then you are with the likes of murderers who do not value life.



Brawl FC: 4382-1668-1880
Name:Brsch

Animal Crossing City Folk

FC: 2492-8227-9090           Town: McAwesom          Name: Gary

Add me and send me a PM with your FC!

makingmusic476 on 19 January 2008
thetonestarr 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".

Hmm.

How about if your parents had that line of thought when you were still in the womb, eh? How would you feel about it then?

 

 

...

 

As a former fetus, I oppose all forms of abortion.


 Epic win.



Around the Network
makingmusic476 on 19 January 2008
Kasz216 said:
makingmusic476 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.

In the US, at least, new borns rarely go to orphanages. There is another valid alternative to abortion: adoption. In the US it is estimated that anywhere between 1.5-2 mil. couples are waiting to adopt a child every year, yet only 50,000 or so are put for adoption.

From BirthChoice.com

According to the National Committee for Adoption, there are 1.5 million American couples wanting to adopt children. Yet each year, while 1.6 million children are being killed by abortion, only 50,000 new children are made available for adoption.

and from AbortionFacts.com:

4% of non-marital births are placed for adoption. In the U.S. this is about 50,000 non-related adoptions a year compared to 1,500,000 babies aborted.

[...]

There are about two million couples waiting. Furthermore, each of these couples would want two or three, if available. Many will take hard-to-place children with special needs.

Because of this, I believe that abortion should be made illegal especially in the US, since damn near 100% of all aborted children could be raised by adopted parents, and have nice, full lives.


Not sure you know how the adoption process works. It's really rather shoddy. Once Babys get too old.... it's too late. Also many people would rather have an adoption or not have a child... as they don't believe the kid is a person yet. They can't think of someone else raising their kid. So they try, fail and then put their kids up for adoption. Who nobody wants because they arn't "cute newborns." and don't want a "used model". These kids live horrible lives in foster homes.

The number of people who would try this would no doubt increase without abortion.

Not to mention... why can't the US outsource that problem? There is nothing preventing any of those parents from using internation adoption to get babies from countries like Fazz's.

Well unless they arn't happy having a baby of another skin colour.

Which tends to be the case one way or another, as many minority children in the US don't get adopted. Either because they arn't wanted or because of discrimitory practices towards those who don't care about skin colour.

Also. It's not 1.5 million abortions a year. It's never been 1.5. The highest it's been was 1.4 in 1991.

The last year there is data for that i'm aware of is 2003. Which was around 800,000.

The real problem is that people treat adoption like your buying a new car. The more you pay... the better chance you get at getting a baby in the US and one that fits your qualifications best.

So until you get through the failings of the current adoption system, and get rid of the racisim prevelent it seems foolish to use that as an argument. Unless you want to make it so only white people can't have abortions.


They do, to a certain extent.  Due to legal issues it's pretty hard, but I do know people personally who have adopted children from Thailand.  For an example of international adoption that you might recognize, look at Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

As for the racism bit, are there any facts whatsoever to prove that that is a prevalent problem? 



darendt on 19 January 2008
MrMafoo said:
I am pro-both.

I think once the process of making a life is complete, killing what you make is murder. When it's complete is up for debate however. I guess when you can prove it's self aware, or can sustain life on it own, or any other reasonable benchmark for humans completion.

I don't think conception is it however. So let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's 4 months that a life is considered created. Before that time, you have not made a life, thus you have the right to do whatever you wish to the building blocks of a life. After 4 months, it has rights, and killing it would be murder.

 I bolded the part that I am going to talk about. I am sure I will get blasted for this but......Every animal is self aware yet we feel that it is ok to kill them. By definition we are animals. A more advanced animal but animals still the same. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying I am a vegan or anything like that, but anyone who is against abortion should hold to the same lines for all life. I for one am for choice.  Its never the mans choice IMO as he is not the one caring for it. If the woman decides for whatever reason that bringing a child into the world is something they dont want to do than so be it. I am not pro-abortion as many will say, I just think that the woman should have the right to choose as she is the one thats ultimatly responsible for that life. 



Lord N on 19 January 2008
Bursche said:
Pro-life. Of course with exceptions in rare cases such as rape, incest, or the mother/baby is in danger. Im sure most pro lifers will agree for these cases.

It is not the RIGHT of a woman to choose between life and death of another. That is like saying if I were the father, I could choose to kill off one of my children becasue they were once part of me. It is so stupid to think of the inhumanity of people doing this because they cant control themselves enough to put on a condom, or just not do it.

Ive known girls who have had three or four, that is inexcusable. If you cant take the responsibility of a child, do not have sex. I have sex, and if my girlfriend got pregnant, we would have it even thoguh I am 17.

The entire concept of pro choice is idiotic at best. How is it a choice to choose to kill a fetus or not? "Oh but Bursche, it doenst feel pain/it isnt human yet?" How doyou know? How do you know it cant feel anything? Do you know how they do abortions? Do you want to be faulted for making anything feel that kind of pain and death? To be tossed out as a mistake. I mean to toss out a human becasue the stupid girl couldnt keep her legs closed, it is so stupid.

If you have any morals, or any kind of shed of humanity, you need to really think about how inhumane it is. Do you support torture? Or killing innocent human beings? Then how can you support something as barbaric as abortion.

It damn well is the right of the mother to abort a fetus if she doesn't want the pregnancy. A fetus is not a sentient being and hence is not the same as killing a child after it has been born. That fetus is still a part of her body.

It isn't as simple a matter of "she couldn't keep her legs closed so she should be forced to have the baby." That's what's idiotic. No form of birth control is 100% effective. Condoms break, birth control pill don't always work, etc. Even if protection wasn't used, to err is human...... People make mistakes, and there needs to be a safe and legal option when this kind of thing happens. Without it, abortion wouldn't go away, it would just go underground and we'd have back-alley abortions like what was going on before Roe vs. Wade. Even in cases when a women is irresponsible and has unprotected sex, who cares? We're talking about a woman removing undeveloped tissue from her body. Are there wars being started because of it? Is the economy suffering? Are people dying?

It makes much more sense to have legal abortion than it does to have the law force all of these women to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term and give them up for adoption. There really isn't a big demand for other peoples' children. Sure, there are people who adopt because they can't have children, but that's the overwhelming minority. When people want kids, they usually just have their own. 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Consoles owned: Saturn, Dreamcast, PS1, PS2, PSP, DS, PS3

darendt on 19 January 2008
Lord N said:
Bursche said:
Pro-life. Of course with exceptions in rare cases such as rape, incest, or the mother/baby is in danger. Im sure most pro lifers will agree for these cases.

It is not the RIGHT of a woman to choose between life and death of another. That is like saying if I were the father, I could choose to kill off one of my children becasue they were once part of me. It is so stupid to think of the inhumanity of people doing this because they cant control themselves enough to put on a condom, or just not do it.

Ive known girls who have had three or four, that is inexcusable. If you cant take the responsibility of a child, do not have sex. I have sex, and if my girlfriend got pregnant, we would have it even thoguh I am 17.

The entire concept of pro choice is idiotic at best. How is it a choice to choose to kill a fetus or not? "Oh but Bursche, it doenst feel pain/it isnt human yet?" How doyou know? How do you know it cant feel anything? Do you know how they do abortions? Do you want to be faulted for making anything feel that kind of pain and death? To be tossed out as a mistake. I mean to toss out a human becasue the stupid girl couldnt keep her legs closed, it is so stupid.

If you have any morals, or any kind of shed of humanity, you need to really think about how inhumane it is. Do you support torture? Or killing innocent human beings? Then how can you support something as barbaric as abortion.

It damn well is the right of the mother to abort a fetus if she doesn't want the pregnancy. A fetus is not a sentient being and hence is not the same as killing a child after it has been born. That fetus is still a part of her body.

It isn't as simple a matter of "she couldn't keep her legs closed so she should be forced to have the baby." That's what's idiotic. No form of birth control is 100% effective. Condoms break, birth control pill don't always work, etc. Even if protection wasn't used, to err is human...... People make mistakes, and there needs to be a safe and legal option when this kind of thing happens. Without it, abortion wouldn't go away, it would just go underground and we'd have back-alley abortions like what was going on before Roe vs. Wade. Even in cases when a women is irresponsible and has unprotected sex, who cares? We're talking about a woman removing undeveloped tissue from her body. Are there wars being started because of it? Is the economy suffering? Are people dying?

It makes much more sense to have legal abortion than it does to have the law force all of these women to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term and give them up for adoption. There really isn't a big demand for other peoples' children. Sure, there are people who adopt because they can't have children, but that's the overwhelming minority. When people want kids, they usually just have their own.

 

 

 

 

 


 Agreed. It could also be said to those that are "pro-life" that using a condom is killing as well. Really any form of birth control. Anything that stops the reproductive system is stopping a life from being born.



Kasz216 on 19 January 2008
makingmusic476 said:
Kasz216 said:
makingmusic476 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.

In the US, at least, new borns rarely go to orphanages. There is another valid alternative to abortion: adoption. In the US it is estimated that anywhere between 1.5-2 mil. couples are waiting to adopt a child every year, yet only 50,000 or so are put for adoption.

From BirthChoice.com

According to the National Committee for Adoption, there are 1.5 million American couples wanting to adopt children. Yet each year, while 1.6 million children are being killed by abortion, only 50,000 new children are made available for adoption.

and from AbortionFacts.com:

4% of non-marital births are placed for adoption. In the U.S. this is about 50,000 non-related adoptions a year compared to 1,500,000 babies aborted.

[...]

There are about two million couples waiting. Furthermore, each of these couples would want two or three, if available. Many will take hard-to-place children with special needs.

Because of this, I believe that abortion should be made illegal especially in the US, since damn near 100% of all aborted children could be raised by adopted parents, and have nice, full lives.


Not sure you know how the adoption process works. It's really rather shoddy. Once Babys get too old.... it's too late. Also many people would rather have an adoption or not have a child... as they don't believe the kid is a person yet. They can't think of someone else raising their kid. So they try, fail and then put their kids up for adoption. Who nobody wants because they arn't "cute newborns." and don't want a "used model". These kids live horrible lives in foster homes.

The number of people who would try this would no doubt increase without abortion.

Not to mention... why can't the US outsource that problem? There is nothing preventing any of those parents from using internation adoption to get babies from countries like Fazz's.

Well unless they arn't happy having a baby of another skin colour.

Which tends to be the case one way or another, as many minority children in the US don't get adopted. Either because they arn't wanted or because of discrimitory practices towards those who don't care about skin colour.

Also. It's not 1.5 million abortions a year. It's never been 1.5. The highest it's been was 1.4 in 1991.

The last year there is data for that i'm aware of is 2003. Which was around 800,000.

The real problem is that people treat adoption like your buying a new car. The more you pay... the better chance you get at getting a baby in the US and one that fits your qualifications best.

So until you get through the failings of the current adoption system, and get rid of the racisim prevelent it seems foolish to use that as an argument. Unless you want to make it so only white people can't have abortions.


They do, to a certain extent. Due to legal issues it's pretty hard, but I do know people personally who have adopted children from Thailand. For an example of international adoption that you might recognize, look at Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie.

As for the racism bit, are there any facts whatsoever to prove that that is a prevalent problem?

To a certain extent they do.  They could do it more.  That's my point.  There are plenty of countries where the legal issues are fine.  There just needs to be something to lower the fees.  After all babys arn't commodities to be bought and sold.  If anything the adopting country should be happy it will save a lot of money by the child not being the states ward.

It would benfit the world to more to advance these avenues.  Instead of having more children born just to have other children live horrible lives full of nothingness.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/17/us/17adopt.html

Even with the changes you can find stories all over the place about people being turned down.  There are plenty of children out there to be adopted.  People just choose not to adopt them and instead to wait for their perfect little baby, and others who are willing to go through all this BS, and some don't even realize it's happening.  

The way the adoption system is set up now, and how a lot of people treat it just makes me sick... and I don't even like kids or plan to ever have them.