Abortion rights. When does consciousness begin?

I'd like to ask a few question that has split people opinions a lot the last almost 50 years and some people may have strong views about, many people on PC probably don't have kids, are kids or are too young to have kids, but Id still like to ask your opinion as an interesting topic of discussion.

The right to an abortion in Britain has been around since the 1967 Abortion Act and was allowed to be decides by individual states in America since 1973. In Northern Ireland where there is still a devout religious following, abortions are still classes as at least manslaughter except in the case where. The mothers life is deemed in danger.
Abortions are an option within on average 26 weeks of conception or within almost anytime frame as long as carrying the pregnancy to term would gravely in danger the life or health of the mother.

I'm very interested in your opinions and these questions are some of the most common I've heard.

1-Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Tell us why?
2-If your pro-choice, is having an abortion purely a woman's right or should a man have a say as well?
3-If your pro-life, when do you believe consciousness begins in a fetus?
4-Do you believe that the dominant religious factor in certain countries delays the introduction of a law allowing Abortions to be carried out?
5- If a woman were to find out her child would have severe disabilitys and a low quality of life do you believe she should have the right to an abortion?

I'm pro-choice. Whether or not the fetus has a consciousness, feels, is considered 'alive' and all that jazz is irrelevant to me. What matters is that the person carrying the child has the option to abort it. Give the choice first, debate the ethics second.

jazzyjazz666 said:

2-If your pro-choice, is having an abortion purely a woman's right or should a man have a say as well?

Click to expand...

The option is ultimately up to the person carrying the child. The father's say is important in the sense that they should try on their own merits to get their opinion across, but I don't think any controlling interest in the fetus belongs to anyone but the person carrying it. That being said, I'm perfectly open to this being debated on a case by case basis in the clinic itself - blanket rulings always hurt someone, so looking at things from an individual perspective i.e father's rights is fine. Sometimes the father may truly know what is best for the mother & and the fetus and I shouldn't let my own opinions on mother's rights get in the way of that. But, at the end of the day, I believe the right to termination ultimately belongs to the person carrying the child and is not a shared decision between them and the person who impregnated them.

3-If your pro-life, when do you believe consciousness begins in a fetus?

Click to expand...

I've always wondered why the consciousness argument really matters. Even if the fetus has some degree of self-awareness, the level it would have developed to by the time of the abortion cutoff date is not enough to take the fetuses (idr if that's grammatically correct) 'feelings' into account. It may have nerve endings or even the beginnings of sentience, but in my mind, it's still a bundle of DNA that is yet to truly be aware of itself.

4-Do you believe that the dominant religious factor in certain countries delays the introduction of a law allowing Abortions to be carried out?

Click to expand...

I thought that moral code stemming from religion was the main reason abortion was opposed in the first place, or at least the longest surviving reason against abortion.

5- If a woman were to find out her child would have severe disabilitys and a low quality of life do you believe she should have the right to an abortion?

Click to expand...

Yes. Pro-choice beliefs aside, if the future child were to have debilitating conditions that would render the mother incapable of a) loving the child the way it should be loved, or b) looking after the child the way it should be looked after, then definitely. Likewise, if the mother thought she shouldn't bring a child into the world that would suffer throughout its lifetime despite any love it may get or achievements it may reach, that's her business too.
The argument for genetic diversity isn't really applicable here, as say, autism, can be managed and in most cases isn't debilitating. It can be dealt with, improved, etc. My point is that genetic diversity shouldn't incorporate physical suffering. A low quality of life is not a fair trade off for a wider gene pool.

God said:

I'm pro-choice. Whether or not the fetus has a consciousness, feels, is considered 'alive' and all that jazz is irrelevant to me. What matters is that the person carrying the child has the option to abort it. Give the choice first, debate the ethics second.



The option is ultimately up to the person carrying the child. The father's say is important in the sense that they should try on their own merits to get their opinion across, but I don't think any controlling interest in the fetus belongs to anyone but the person carrying it. That being said, I'm perfectly open to this being debated on a case by case basis in the clinic itself - blanket rulings always hurt someone, so looking at things from an individual perspective i.e father's rights is fine. Sometimes the father may truly know what is best for the mother & and the fetus and I shouldn't let my own opinions on mother's rights get in the way of that. But, at the end of the day, I believe the right to termination ultimately belongs to the person carrying the child and is not a shared decision between them and the person who impregnated them.



I've always wondered why the consciousness argument really matters. Even if the fetus has some degree of self-awareness, the level it would have developed to by the time of the abortion cutoff date is not enough to take the fetuses (idr if that's grammatically correct) 'feelings' into account. It may have nerve endings or even the beginnings of sentience, but in my mind, it's still a bundle of DNA that is yet to truly be aware of itself.



I thought that moral code stemming from religion was the main reason abortion was opposed in the first place, or at least the longest surviving reason against abortion.



Yes. Pro-choice beliefs aside, if the future child were to have debilitating conditions that would render the mother incapable of a) loving the child the way it should be loved, or b) looking after the child the way it should be looked after, then definitely. Likewise, if the mother thought she shouldn't bring a child into the world that would suffer throughout its lifetime despite any love it may get or achievements it may reach, that's her business too.
The argument for genetic diversity isn't really applicable here, as say, autism, can be managed and in most cases isn't debilitating. It can be dealt with, improved, etc. My point is that genetic diversity shouldn't incorporate physical suffering. A low quality of life is not a fair trade off for a wider gene pool.

Click to expand...

I have to say I agree with you, a woman's right to choose outweighs the merger chances of any consciousness the child may have, tests have shown that there is no brain wave activity for at least 24 weeks and only mild electrical signals on par with a sea snail can be registered after 8 weeks.
I still have issues with the fact that back ally abortions are still performed in Ireland because there overly religious government won't allow it to be legalised except in dire circumstances. What makes them think that bundle of cells deserves more rights that the living, breathing, thinking woman who's carrying it.
Not long ago there was a big scandal when a radically right wing politician said there should be mandatory abortion for all baby's found to have Down's syndrome or any other disabilitys like that because they were a burden on the state and there family. Thankfully he resigned soon after. But it shows how some nutters can go radically the other way from no abortion to mandatory abortion. -_-'

I'm honestly not totally sure on where I stand when it comes to a lot of facets of the abortion debate, so Im just going to answer what I have something concrete for.

Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Tell us why?

I sit somewhere in the middle really, although I do lean more towards pro-life. Whilst I do believe that there are some circumstances where abortion is reasonable, I also believe that all life should be respected and that all human lives share an equal value. Another living being shouldn't have to die because you made a mistake or fell victim to an unfortunate circumstance when adoption is a viable alternative.


If your pro-choice, is having an abortion purely a woman's right or should a man have a say as well?

I wouldn't classify myself as pro-choice but I do have an answer to this. Ultimately, the decision does rest with the woman whose body is carrying the baby. This doesn't mean that the father of the child should have no say in the decision however. The father is just as responsible for the creation of the child and in line with that their opinions regarding the child are just as valid as the mother's.


Do you believe that the dominant religious factor in certain countries delays the introduction of a law allowing Abortions to be carried out?

Religion and government should almost always function as entirely separate entities but we'd have to be fools to say that this is actually how things tend to work out. The dominant religions of countries often hold a bit too much sway politically and like with many other issues their thoughts hold weight with the abortion debate also.

2-If your pro-choice, is having an abortion purely a woman's right or should a man have a say as well?

Click to expand...

The final decision should absolutely be the mother's, however that isn't to say the father's opinion should be invalid - it takes two to make a child after all. Despite this though, if the mother doesn't want to give birth to the baby, then it is their right to have the abortion.

3-If your pro-life, when do you believe consciousness begins in a fetus?

Click to expand...

While I'm not knowledgeable on exactly when the fetus begins to develop consciousness (this question doesn't apply to me, I know, but its still interesting to me anyway), I'm not entirely sure why this question is brought up so often in support of pro-life - while yes, human lives are important, the potential life of a fetus should not outweigh the life of the person carrying it. We don't paint people who step on grass as murderers because its absurd - the grass is living, but it isn't intelligent or self-aware. And so, even if the fetus has a degree of consciousness - why does that matter? It is frankly not a full human being nor does it have even the same degree of self-awareness that other living animals possess. If I were to hold a fetus in petri dish in one hand, and a baby in the other, and then dropped both, almost every person would choose to save the baby. Because there is indeed a difference. Whether or not the fetus has some level of consciousness is irrelevant, because it is not even a human being - to suggest that its rights deserve have more priority than the mother's is beyond ludicrous and illogical.

4-Do you believe that the dominant religious factor in certain countries delays the introduction of a law allowing Abortions to be carried out?

Click to expand...

I honestly thought religion was one of the few reasons anti-abortion laws still exist tbh - I have yet to hear opposing opinions on abortion rights that don't originate from a religion.

5- If a woman were to find out her child would have severe disabilitys and a low quality of life do you believe she should have the right to an abortion?

Click to expand...

Of course - if the mother believed she could not raise a child destined to have these disabilities, then it is still definitely her decision. A person who is not prepared to raise a child that has different needs than a child who doesn't have those disabilities really shouldn't be parenting a disabled child.

Genetically speaking a human fetus is a human.
Isn't aborting a child that may have disablities a form of ableism?

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire said:

Isn't aborting a child that may have disablities a form of ableism?

Click to expand...

I don't think so, if up you found out your child would have something like Locked-In Syndrome which is an illness where a person is completely aware of what's happening but every muscle except the eyes is paralysed and in Total Locked-In syndrome even the eyes are paralysed. If you knew your child would grow up unable to ever move, speak, eat or bath themselves I believe it would be the kindest thing to never have that child live. I know it seems harsh but it's what I would concider best for the parents and the child.

Wandering~Leaf said:

The final decision should absolutely be the mother's, however that isn't to say the father's opinion should be invalid - it takes two to make a child after all. Despite this though, if the mother doesn't want to give birth to the baby, then it is their right to have the abortion.


While I'm not knowledgeable on exactly when the fetus begins to develop consciousness (this question doesn't apply to me, I know, but its still interesting to me anyway), I'm not entirely sure why this question is brought up so often in support of pro-life - while yes, human lives are important, the potential life of a fetus should not outweigh the life of the person carrying it. We don't paint people who step on grass as murderers because its absurd - the grass is living, but it isn't intelligent or self-aware. And so, even if the fetus has a degree of consciousness - why does that matter? It is frankly not a full human being nor does it have even the same degree of self-awareness that other living animals possess. If I were to hold a fetus in petri dish in one hand, and a baby in the other, and then dropped both, almost every person would choose to save the baby. Because there is indeed a difference. Whether or not the fetus has some level of consciousness is irrelevant, because it is not even a human being - to suggest that its rights deserve have more priority than the mother's is beyond ludicrous and illogical.


I honestly thought religion was one of the few reasons anti-abortion laws still exist tbh - I have yet to hear opposing opinions on abortion rights that don't originate from a religion.


Of course - if the mother believed she could not raise a child destined to have these disabilities, then it is still definitely her decision. A person who is not prepared to raise a child that has different needs than a child who doesn't have those disabilities really shouldn't be parenting a disabled child.

Click to expand...

Your point about the grass is a very good comparison, both are an unaware cluster of cells designed for a specific task, and in fact it's been shown you can get electrical signals from plants as well as fetus' over 8 weeks old, so befor 8 weeks there is less activity in a fetus than in grass.
Apparently the bible even mentions that a fetus under a month old is not considered a human life, yet we still get pro-life activists saying it's because God says its wrong. -_-'
In the bible it's against God if you have A tattoo, eat shellfish, wear gold (ironic since wedding bands are traditionally gold), wear polyester, or allow people without one or more testicles into church -_-'

jazzyjazz666 said:

1-Are you pro-life or pro-choice? Tell us why?

Click to expand...

Pro-choice, but I think pro-life is an entirely reasonable position to take. I also think it's an issue that should be treated with respect and not taken lightly.

2-If your pro-choice, is having an abortion purely a woman's right or should a man have a say as well?

Click to expand...

Men shouldn't have a say as to whether the child is born but they should absolutely have a say as to whether they want to be a parent. Child support should be abolished; women already have the option to adopt out or terminate the pregnancy and yet men either raise the child or are forced to pay child support, sometimes even when they're not the father and sometimes even when this has been proved to the courts. Men have no say whatsoever in their fate in this matter, and that's not fair. It's an outright travesty that this warped, unethical system has been allowed to persist in the way it has, if you ask me.

3-If your pro-life, when do you believe consciousness begins in a fetus?

Click to expand...

I'm not pro-life but I don't think many people are qualified to make that judgment. I think a better question would be, when does the human organism become something worth protecting? When does it become a human being? I don't think that point is before it has any meaningful interaction with the world, still in the womb. And once it's born, it's easy enough to find someone willing to care for it, so there's no reason to abort at that point. I think drawing the line at childbirth makes the most sense.

4-Do you believe that the dominant religious factor in certain countries delays the introduction of a law allowing Abortions to be carried out?

Click to expand...

Well, sure. I think that goes without saying. But being pro-life is a reasonable position to take and religion plays a positive role in many peoples' lives. I hardly think this is a meaningful condemnation of religion.

5- If a woman were to find out her child would have severe disabilitys and a low quality of life do you believe she should have the right to an abortion?

Click to expand...

I believe women should have the right to abort even with this not being the case, so obviously I support their right to do so in this case.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire said:

Genetically speaking a human fetus is a human.

Click to expand...

During the 12 to 14 week time period of fetal growth that most abortion allowing countries choose to operate in, the fetus is hardly more than a little sack of DNA with pinprick-sized black eyes and a vague resemblance to humanity. While it is genetically human, it takes up to another three months after the cut off date for anything resembling a human to be seen.

Isn't aborting a child that may have disablities a form of ableism?

Click to expand...

Perhaps. There is definitely ableism at play in some scenarios. But if a parent or family is in any way unwilling or incapable of looking after the child, I think it's a valid call to make. Likewise, trying to get adopted is hard enough for neurotypical, physically abled kids. I think it's crueler to subject the child to that system than aborting it.
I don't think we're at a Gattaca level where any perceived imperfection can be adjusted or simply wiped out and restarted. We're certainly not at a level where that is encouraged. So I think we're alright.
Go watch Gattaca, by the way. It's a good movie.

twocows said:

Pro-choice, but I think pro-life is an entirely reasonable position to take. I also think it's an issue that should be treated with respect and not taken lightly.

Men shouldn't have a say as to whether the child is born but they should absolutely have a say as to whether they want to be a parent. Child support should be abolished; women already have the option to adopt out or terminate the pregnancy and yet men either raise the child or are forced to pay child support, sometimes even when they're not the father and sometimes even when this has been proved to the courts. Men have no say whatsoever in their fate in this matter, and that's not fair. It's an outright travesty that this warped, unethical system has been allowed to persist in the way it has, if you ask me.

I'm not pro-life but I don't think many people are qualified to make that judgment. I think a better question would be, when does the human organism become something worth protecting? When does it become a human being? I don't think that point is before it has any meaningful interaction with the world, still in the womb. And once it's born, it's easy enough to find someone willing to care for it, so there's no reason to abort at that point. I think drawing the line at childbirth makes the most sense.

Well, sure. I think that goes without saying. But being pro-life is a reasonable position to take and religion plays a positive role in many peoples' lives. I hardly think this is a meaningful condemnation of religion.

I believe women should have the right to abort even with this not being the case, so obviously I support their right to do so in this case.

Click to expand...

I think your right in that the better question to ask would be when does it become something worth protecting, and the answer is relative to the person I gusse. Some people would say at the moment of contraception it is deemed to be a human life and thus deserves protection. Where as other believe a fetus is not due any protection until it is born.

God said:

During the 12 to 14 week time period of fetal growth that most abortion allowing countries choose to operate in, the fetus is hardly more than a little sack of DNA with pinprick-sized black eyes and a vague resemblance to humanity. While it is genetically human, it takes up to another three months after the cut off date for anything resembling a human to be seen.



Perhaps. There is definitely ableism at play in some scenarios. But if a parent or family is in any way unwilling or incapable of looking after the child, I think it's a valid call to make. Likewise, trying to get adopted is hard enough for neurotypical, physically abled kids. I think it's crueler to subject the child to that system than aborting it.
I don't think we're at a Gattaca level where any perceived imperfection can be adjusted or simply wiped out and restarted. We're certainly not at a level where that is encouraged. So I think we're alright.
Go watch Gattaca, by the way. It's a good movie.

Click to expand...

I didn't realize that other countries has a 14 week cutoff, I do know a couple have a 20 week cut off. I wish that we at least had a 20 week cut off date.


Now that you bring up that movie tech is advancing fast so who knows what could happen a couple decadess from now. My former Biology teacher in college mentioned that there is a fear of recent advancements in Genetic technologies resulting in a second wave of Eugenics (abortion has a history with the first wave, where it was advocated by supporters of "cutting the weeds" and those who advocated it knew it wouldn't be popular unless they got people with influence such as (black) priests and politicians on board to make it seem less cruel.)

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire said:

I didn't realize that other countries has a 14 week cutoff, I do know a couple have a 20 week cut off. I wish that we at least had a 20 week cut off date.

Click to expand...

Wow 14 weeks is a tad short, in the UK it's 24 weeks

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire said:

Now that you bring up that movie tech is advancing fast so who knows what could happen a couple decadess from now. My former Biology teacher in college mentioned that there is a fear of recent advancements in Genetic technologies resulting in a second wave of Eugenics (abortion has a history with the first wave, where it was advocated by supporters of "cutting the weeds" and those who advocated it knew it wouldn't be popular unless they got people with influence such as (black) priests and politicians on board to make it seem less cruel.)

Click to expand...

I think this first wave you're talking about has more to do with Margaret Sanger's beliefs than being a 'wave', so to speak. Due to her position in the birth control movement at the time, eugenics & abortion were enthusiastically linked and propagated in some circles, but it wasn't a widespread movement.

God said:

I think this first wave you're talking about has more to do with Margaret Sanger's beliefs than being a 'wave', so to speak. Due to her position in the birth control movement at the time, eugenics & abortion were enthusiastically linked and propagated in some circles, but it wasn't a widespread movement.

Click to expand...

It was a part of the greater movement but her ideas did have a lot of influence on the movement, it's said her ideas inspired the Germans and other nations programs.

Why am I in the Round Table this isn't where I belong

Nakuzami said:

And when abortion is illegal, women will find a way to have one if they really want one. Legal abortion processes are safer and just a better alternative.

Click to expand...

By this logic we should probably start selling crack in the local supermarket. That way the good stuff would be more widely available and nobody would risk getting a batch of "who-knows-what" or getting shot by an angry dealer. If a pregnant woman is foolish enough to try a back alley abortion, knowing damn well the kind of consequences they can carry, then they possibly deserve whatever comes to them just for being stupid.

And if a woman doesn't want a child? Can't support it? Is forcing that child into the world really a good idea? Of course not.

Click to expand...

Then she probably shouldn't have gotten knocked up in the first place. Another life shouldn't be snuffed out because of someone making a bad decision.

When a woman is raped, should she have to carry the child that potentially results from it? The only good answer here, in my opinion, is "no," yet many people seem to think otherwise. Hell, it's possible for the rapist to file for and get custody in many cases, which is completely illogical/

Click to expand...

Whilst I can at least understand this argument, I think people need to be a bit more logical about it. Of course nobody wants to remember being raped, but quite frankly you're not going to forget an experience like that just because you have an abortion. That is probably the single worst thing that can happen to a human being, it's going to stick with you either way.

Having that abortion won't make anyone feel better in the long run, and that child -with limitless potential for the future- shouldn't have to die because the mother is a victim. Should she have to raise the child, definitely not, but like I said that is why adoption is a thing. Thankfully, in this age of DNA-testing it is probably not a common occurrence.

Fun fact: most kids that grow up in poverty or in the system or with fucked up parents or knowing that they were the product of rape hate their lives and many would rather not have been born in the first place

there's so many psychological factors

my friend's parents are terrible people. one's dead now. that was a happy moment. and the previous statement isn't at all sarcastic. she's legitimately glad her father is dead. schizophrenia runs in both sides of her family. that's something that she's constantly worried about. she's prone to addiction because that also runs in her family. she wishes she was never born.

one of her friends was a product of rape. that definitely fucked her up psychologically. drugs, self deprecation, being suicidal—the whole shebang. she has it all. wishes her mother never had her.

you're painting it so black and white. nothing in life is so simple.

also the whole "she shouldn't have gotten knocked up" argument omg no. so many issues with that. people don't always intend to get pregnant. people can use so many forms of contraception (when they can afford to) and still get pregnant. also, teenagers. teenagers can be dumb. very dumb. beyond dumb.

gimmepie said:

Thankfully, in this age of DNA-testing it is probably not a common occurrence.

Click to expand...

also, I assume this is to the rapists getting custody thing.

another fun fact: in like thirty US states, a rapist's rights as a father are protected under the law. it's not like they don't know a man was the rapist and he got custody; he can file for custody despite the fact that he's the rapist. this is terrible for the child and agonizing for the mother, obviously.

that's where I'm going to leave off because this topic is making me physically ill and I just can't deal. bye bye

By this logic we should probably start selling crack in the local supermarket. That way the good stuff would be more widely available and nobody would risk getting a batch of "who-knows-what" or getting shot by an angry dealer. If a pregnant woman is foolish enough to try a back alley abortion, knowing damn well the kind of consequences they can carry, then they possibly deserve whatever comes to them just for being stupid.

Click to expand...

A woman aborting a child that they either do not or even cannot raise is much, much different than a person looking to buy crack. This is honestly a disgusting comparison. A woman who is desperate enough to employ a "back alley abortion" because getting a safe, legal abortion is out of the question due to laws should not be the one being called into question - the system is where the problem lies. Also they'd deserve whatever issues comes their way because the society they live in is so entitled that they want her to give birth to a child she has no desire to have? Excuse you?

Then she probably shouldn't have gotten knocked up in the first place. Another life shouldn't be snuffed out because of someone making a bad decision.

Click to expand...

Are you serious right now? If a person wants an abortion because they were impregnated when they didn't want to be in the first place, then are you seriously suggesting that women just shouldn't have sex? You realize people who get abortions aren't just people who got drunk at a party and "got knocked up" (and by the way, even if they did, they'd still deserve to have that option.) right? Regardless of how a person became pregnant, the fact of the matter is, its their body. And they have full autonomy of it. (Btw this is also super insulting to women who were raped, pls reflect on what you've just said)

Whilst I can at least understand this argument, I think people need to be a bit more logical about it. Of course nobody wants to remember being raped, but quite frankly you're not going to forget an experience like that just because you have an abortion. That is probably the single worst thing that can happen to a human being, it's going to stick with you either way.

Having that abortion won't make anyone feel better in the long run, and that child -with limitless potential for the future- shouldn't have to die because the mother is a victim. Should she have to raise the child, definitely not, but like I said that is why adoption is a thing. Thankfully, in this age of DNA-testing it is probably not a common occurrence.

Click to expand...

While you're not wrong, a rape victim is likely not to forget their experience regardless of whether or not they have the child, it should still be their decision. Also, how do you know whether or not they'd feel better about having an abortion? You're assuming that a person would (and maybe even should) feel guilty about having an abortion. The reality is, there are plenty of people who are okay with it. The future of the child is frankly irrelevant - while the mother is still carrying it, they shouldn't be forced to bear it just because the child has "limitless potential". Insinuating that an unborn child has more priority than a rape victim is so gross that I really don't know how to address this.

Nakuzami said:

Fun fact: most kids that grow up in poverty or in the system or with fucked up parents or knowing that they were the product of rape hate their lives and many would rather not have been born in the first place

Click to expand...

As far as the product of rape stuff goes, that's easily solved just by not going "hey you're the product of a rape".

there's so many psychological factors

my friend's parents are terrible people. one's dead now. that was a happy moment. and the previous statement isn't at all sarcastic. she's legitimately glad her father is dead. schizophrenia runs in both sides of her family. that's something that she's constantly worried about. she's prone to addiction because that also runs in her family. she wishes she was never born.

one of her friends was a product of rape. that definitely fucked her up psychologically. drugs, self deprecation, being suicidal—the whole shebang. she has it all. wishes her mother never had her.

you're painting it so black and white. nothing in life is so simple.

Click to expand...

I never said it was a simple issue. You're not the only one who knows people who've been messed up though. I have a friend who was raped, another that was sexually assaulted and I know plenty of people who come from fucked up families. Have the experiences hurt them, yes a lot, but they've been able to work through there problems and most of them are doing fine right now. I'm not foolish enough to say that everyone will get through a horrible situation unscathed, but with help and support a lot of people can.

also the whole "she shouldn't have gotten knocked up" argument omg no. so many issues with that. people don't always intend to get pregnant. people can use so many forms of contraception (when they can afford to) and still get pregnant. also, teenagers. teenagers can be dumb. very dumb. beyond dumb.

Click to expand...

There's is about zero issues with that. If you don't want to risk pregnancy, don't have sex. Even with contraception there's no guarantee that you won't become pregnant, this is common knowledge and if you decide to go ahead an have sex anyway then you're acknowledging that you accept the risks. Another living being doesn't deserve to die because you don't like the end result of what was ultimately your decision. As for "teenagers can be dumb", stupidity is never an excuse and it shouldn't be allowed to pretend to be one.

also, I assume this is to the rapists getting custody thing.

another fun fact: in like thirty US states, a rapist's rights as a father are protected under the law. it's not like they don't know a man was the rapist and he got custody; he can file for custody despite the fact that he's the rapist. this is terrible for the child and agonizing for the mother, obviously.

Click to expand...

It wasn't. I was more pointing out that leaving DNA evidence inside your victim is generally a bad idea and those rapists that actively plan and stalk their victims are unlikely to not use contraception. Which is terrible in the sense that it makes them harder to catch, but good (well as good as such a messed up situation could possibly be) in the sense that it significantly reduces the chance of rape babies.

that's where I'm going to leave off because this topic is making me physically ill and I just can't deal. bye bye

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I won't quote you again after this point.

Wandering~Leaf said:

A woman aborting a child that they either do not or even cannot raise is much, much different than a person looking to buy crack. This is honestly a disgusting comparison. A woman who is desperate enough to employ a "back alley abortion" because getting a safe, legal abortion is out of the question due to laws should not be the one being called into question - the system is where the problem lies. Also they'd deserve whatever issues comes their way because the society they live in is so entitled that they want her to give birth to a child she has no desire to have? Excuse you?

Click to expand...

Same thing I said to Naku, if you have sex you're acknowledging the risk. Nobody should take a another life simply because they don't want to be a parent. You make a decision and you suffer the consequences.

Are you serious right now? If a person wants an abortion because they were impregnated when they didn't want to be in the first place, then are you seriously suggesting that women just shouldn't have sex? You realize people who get abortions aren't just people who got drunk at a party and "got knocked up" (and by the way, even if they did, they'd still deserve to have that option.) right? Regardless of how a person became pregnant, the fact of the matter is, its their body. And they have full autonomy of it. (Btw this is also super insulting to women who were raped, pls reflect on what you've just said)

Click to expand...

Not just women who want sex, I'm saying that anyone who can't handle the possible consequences of their actions probably shouldn't engage in whatever activity they're considering anyway. I'm well aware that there's multiple scenarios that can result in a desire for an abortion, and as I said in my first post I do agree that there are some circumstances when it is a reasonable option. People who get drunk at a party or people whose contraception failed don't constitute a scenario in which taking a life is a viable action. You have sex, then you might have to deal with consequences.

As for why this would be insulting to a rape victim, it shouldn't be. That comment was hardly directed at them and quite frankly even if it was I'm just as entitled to my beliefs as they are.

While you're not wrong, a rape victim is likely not to forget their experience regardless of whether or not they have the child, it should still be their decision. Also, how do you know whether or not they'd feel better about having an abortion? You're assuming that a person would (and maybe even should) feel guilty about having an abortion. The reality is, there are plenty of people who are okay with it. The future of the child is frankly irrelevant - while the mother is still carrying it, they shouldn't be forced to bear it just because the child has "limitless potential". Insinuating that an unborn child has more priority than a rape victim is so gross that I really don't know how to address this.

Click to expand...

I know that one of the two friends I mentioned before was raped and has the same point of view that I do. I would also like to point out that I'm not the only one assuming things here, you're assuming that people shouldn't feel guilt and should be totally fine with abortion. You're assumptions hold no more weight than mine. In the same vein "people are okay with it" is not a great argument either since plenty of people are against it too. That's the same as saying "murder is totally fine because people who want to kill people think it's okay".


You're all entitled to your opinions, but your beliefs in no way invalidate the beliefs of others.