Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice, which side are you on?

[Pseudonym]

Jumping into this, my opinion.

 

Pro-life, except in extreme cases.

 

A woman should not be able to take away that life because she got pregnant. People argue that sometimes condoms break, or other means of birth control fail, and these cases should allow abortion. Well no one said those methods were guaranteed. The only guaranteed method is abstinence, and anyone can choose that. If you screw up and get yourself preggers when you don't want to be, that's your own fault. However, if a woman is raped and is forced into pregnancy, or if it is a clear danger to the woman's health to have a baby, then and only then should abortion be available.

 

But I completely understand both sides of the argument.

[HorrificAttack]

Why is being raped more of a valid reason for having an abortion than not being able to afford to raise a child or not being mentally prepared for the task? I keep reiterating points but surely giving a child a shit life is ridiculous for the sake of some made up set of ideals that make certain "murders" ok.

[an angel]

But even to be 'on the fence' about it, by definition you are admitting that a foetus certainly is less then a human being. You can't call an abortion 'murder' (Which to be honest just makes me want to dismiss you're entire argument) because then the 'murder' is possibly understandable on the right type of 'person'.

 

I will admit that I don't know at exactly what point I consider a developing foetus a human being, but I know that there is at least up a certain point that to me, a foetus is a collection of cells which haven't formed to the point where they have that right to choose, because they simply can't choose anything physically or mentally, they are just an organism feeding off nature at that point.

 

The fact is, abortion is not illegal and that's not going to change; that doesn't make it a moral thing to do, and I'm against abortions under most if not all circumstances. I don't think the fetus is less than a human at all. I just think it's ridiculous that 93% of women have abortions because they don't want a baby, and that instead abortions should be limited to cases where the woman or child's life is in danger, or rape.

 

No, I've made several great points that you haven't even countered, instead you just call it "murder" which like Reilly suggested is just absolutely infuriating and makes me want to not even bother listening to a word you say.

 

You were saying the same things again and again, I had already refuted the points you were making in that post. In my opinion it's murder because it's a living person that is being killed, ok? It's infuriating to me when someone says it's a sack of meaningless cells. It's not, especially at the time when abortions occur.

[HorrificAttack]

This is my point though, you have ignored things I've said, completely. Then you misinterprete things I have said, it's pointless.

[an angel]

Do tell me, what did I ignore? I've said all I can say.

 

And it's not like you haven't ignored my points.

[Pseudonym]

Why is being raped more of a valid reason for having an abortion than not being able to afford to raise a child or not being mentally prepared for the task? I keep reiterating points but surely giving a child a shit life is ridiculous for the sake of some made up set of ideals that make certain "murders" ok.

Because if a woman is raped it is not her fault. If she's just poor or stupid that's not an excuse. If she knew she couldn't handle a child, she shouldn't have risked it by having sex.

[HorrificAttack]

Are you a harcore catholic?

[Pseudonym]

Me?

[Reilly]

I don't have much else to say to that last post. To re-iterate (Effectively that's all we're doing now) you put abortion on a par with 'murder' and even asked me how in any way a foetus is less then a human being, but then to be 'on the fence' or consider 'most if not all abortions wrong' means that the hardliner principle of 'cells or not it's a human being' is completely lost on me. Like I used the example of killing a human being in their 20s who was the result of rape, it's extreme, but that's what you were getting at from the start, that abortion isn't killing a bunch of cells it's the exact same as killing a human adult, if you're going to say that then you shouldn't find any type of abortion to be in any way reasonable. Morals and principles mean that it doesn't matter if it's 93% or 99.9999999%, if you think that any abortion, just one, is in some way justified then you are saying that even one murder on an innocent human being is justified.

 

If you can see what I mean, and admit that human cells aren't definitely a human being, and stop 'being sick' at the mention of such a viewpoint, then maybe this debate would go somewhere.

 

The population crisis de-railed this a bit, I don't think anyone's saying that abortion is the sole reason to keep a population in check, as in it's just too darned bad we can't just fire machine guns into large crowds of people to preserve an elitist human race. But in a world which is being over-crowded is it really right to bring in more people who could have a really shit life, in a poor environment with parents who didn't want them and who don't care. It's separate from the issue of whether it's morally correct.

[HorrificAttack]

Yes, your attitudes towards sex are a little scary if I must be honest. It's like if you have sex you DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. I think you even said if a condom breaks or a morning after pill doesn't work then you still deserve to be preggers because you dared to have sex.

[Dfit00]

Cut it out Nathan, let the thread be killed.

[Pseudonym]

Yes, your attitudes towards sex are a little scary if I must be honest. It's like if you have sex you DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. I think you even said if a condom breaks or a morning after pill doesn't work then you still deserve to be preggers because you dared to have sex.

No I'm not religious to answer your question. In fact, I'm liberal all around so many of my friends who are conservative are shocked to hear I'm pro life like them.

 

Well sex can be a consequential act. You can get pregnant, you can get STD's, and not to mention possible emotional consequences. You should be responsible and aware that if you have sex you have to deal with what might result.

[HorrificAttack]

THIS THREAD IS A PERSON

 

No I'm not religious to answer your question. In fact, I'm liberal all around so many of my friends who are conservative are shocked to hear I'm pro life like them.

 

Well sex can be a consequential act. You can get pregnant, you can get STD's, and not to mention possible emotional consequences. You should be responsible and aware that if you have sex you have to deal with what might result.

 

It just sounds like you've had a religious upbringing and it's been drilled into you that sex is bad and shouldn't happen before marriage or you will have a baby and die of AIDS. I'm not saying there are no consequences and it's just pure fun, but I don't get the attitude that if you have sex, with a condom, or using birth control that you should accept the fact that you get pregnant if by some chance it happens.

[Pseudonym]

It just sounds like you've had a religious upbringing and it's been drilled into you that sex is bad and shouldn't happen before marriage or you will have a baby and die of AIDS. I'm not saying there are no consequences and it's just pure fun, but I don't get the attitude that if you have sex, with a condom, or using birth control that you should accept the fact that you get pregnant if by some chance it happens.

Interestingly I was brought up by two very pro-choice parents in a very liberal area. Few people I know are pro-life around here.

 

I don't believe sex is bad or that you shouldn't do it before marriage or that you should fear sex because of STD's or pregnancy. My attitude is the one you said you don't get: That even if you use protection and you get pregnant, you should accept it. There's always adoption, and it's no more guarantee that the child will have a shit life no matter what than it is a guarantee birth control won't work. I'd rather be alive than dead anyway. I just don't believe that you should be able to back out of it and take away a life because you don't want to accept that birth control failed. No one forced you to have sex (and if they did, I would condone an abortion), it's your choice to make.

[an angel]

I don't have much else to say to that last post. To re-iterate (Effectively that's all we're doing now) you put abortion on a par with 'murder' and even asked me how in any way a foetus is less then a human being, but then to be 'on the fence' or consider 'most if not all abortions wrong' means that the hardliner principle of 'cells or not it's a human being' is completely lost on me. Like I used the example of killing a human being in their 20s who was the result of rape, it's extreme, but that's what you were getting at from the start, that abortion isn't killing a bunch of cells it's the exact same as killing a human adult, if you're going to say that then you shouldn't find any type of abortion to be in any way reasonable. Morals and principles mean that it doesn't matter if it's 93% or 99.9999999%, if you think that any abortion, just one, is in some way justified then you are saying that even one murder on an innocent human being is justified.

 

If you can see what I mean, and admit that human cells aren't definitely a human being, and stop 'being sick' at the mention of such a viewpoint, then maybe this debate would go somewhere.

 

I can see how it's confusing to you, and I don't know how to explain it better, but: I believe that a fetus is a human being no matter what, and I think abortion under any circumstance is wrong; but since it is legal, it's okay in extreme cases. That doesn't mean I think it's not a human in extreme cases.

 

And it's not just "human cells," it's an unborn baby with a beating heart by the time it's aborted.

[the_gloaming09]

I'd have to disagree w/ you Nick on your statement about "if you use protection and get pregnant accept it"

 

My cousin got pregnant at 17, and ended up having her baby, and to quite honest I don't feel that she was responsible enough to do it. I mean having a baby is a big deal and will completely change your life around. At that age her brain is still not fully developed so she can't make the right judgment.

 

I still think that people shouldn't be having abortions simply because they're are too lazy to use protection. They should' always use protection but if that fails then an abortion should be a possibility.

[HorrificAttack]

I'd have to disagree w/ you Nick on your statement about "if you use protection and get pregnant accept it"

 

My cousin got pregnant at 17, and ended up having her baby, and to quite honest I don't feel that she was responsible enough to do it. I mean having a baby is a big deal and will completely change your life around. At that age her brain is still not fully developed so she can't make the right judgment.

 

I still think that people shouldn't be having abortions simply because they're are too lazy to use protection. They should' always use protection but if that fails then an abortion should be a possibility.

 

Yeah but according to him it's her own fault for daring to have sex :/

 

Which to me is a ridiculous attitude.

[the_gloaming09]

Yeah... I mean at that age teens or whomever are going to have sex. Yeah of course the best way to prevent a pregnancy is abstinence, but let's be realistic here... that's not going to happen.

 

Of course couples need to be responsible and careful when having sex, but shit happens sometimes even if you plan ahead and seem prepared.

[Pseudonym]

I'd have to disagree w/ you Nick on your statement about "if you use protection and get pregnant accept it"

 

My cousin got pregnant at 17, and ended up having her baby, and to quite honest I don't feel that she was responsible enough to do it. I mean having a baby is a big deal and will completely change your life around. At that age her brain is still not fully developed so she can't make the right judgment.

 

I still think that people shouldn't be having abortions simply because they're are too lazy to use protection. They should' always use protection but if that fails then an abortion should be a possibility.

 

Yeah but according to him it's her own fault for daring to have sex :/

 

Which to me is a ridiculous attitude.

How is it a ridiculous attitude?

 

Mike, your sister didn't have to have sex. She chose to. Birth control failed. Oh well, sucks to be you, don't kill a future life over it.

[Pseudonym]

Well no matter what I say on anything Nathan will find some way to disagree with me. Which is fine but he'll also find some way to make it about me being ridiculous or stupid or something else personal. Once he doesn't like someone he is incapable of having an objective debate, it always has to end in personal insults.

[Reilly]

I can see how it's confusing to you, and I don't know how to explain it better, but: I believe that a fetus is a human being no matter what, and I think abortion under any circumstance is wrong; but since it is legal, it's okay in extreme cases.

 

The introduction of the opinion that because somethings legal it's morally correct has been brought up, and what was confusing is now a complete mindfuck.

 

The reason I thought the issue of overpopulation de-railed our arguments a is because I thought this was a thread about our own personal morals, not what is right for society or in this case, how society should view things. So the law shouldn't matter at all.

 

You can't explain it any better because it doesn't make sense. When it suits you, you are more then happy to call an abortion 'murder' and the thought of a foetus being any less then a human being is 'sickening', but in extreme cases because of the law for some reason, a foetus then no longer reserves the same rights as a human being.

 

Sorry, I'm finished with this.

[the_gloaming09]

How is it a ridiculous attitude?

 

Mike, your sister didn't have to have sex. She chose to. Birth control failed. Oh well, sucks to be you, don't kill a future life over it.

 

It was my cousin, not sister. I know that she chose to have sex but she did use protection, and it didn't work. Now her future is completely altered because of a mishap in the protection. She shouldn't have to have that burden to raise a child at an age that she is incapable to do so.

 

Now if she was being foolish and decided to have sex without any protection, then clearly it's her fault and should have thought wiser. But if it's a failure in the protection it shouldn't be her fault.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

I think WW3 will be fought over this issue.

[Reilly]

Pro-Lifers should be shit in combat.

[the_gloaming09]

I think WW3 will be fought over this issue.

 

:lol: