Abortion.

[Renegade1]

Woah. A serious conversation. *mind blown*

The topic however, could upset/anger/etc a few people. :|

Well, my opinion has and always will be. Pro Choice. Everyone deserves the right to choose for their own circumstances. A few points. I'm not for using as a means of execessive useage. I think you know what I mean, and we all know at least one of those girls. Someone made a point that it's wrong us blokes don't have a say. We don't, rightfully so. Jus because we inseminate her doesn't give us any right over a womans body and what she does with it. There's no legal entitlement for a bloke in this situation, because a woman is not a peice of property nor a child that can be bossed around and held to accounts by the law to keep a child she doesn't want, just because a man says so and took her to court. That said, i think a frank and open discussion between the woman and man about it should take place before anything happens.

 

[jpp8]

You know, people always point to "that girl" who's always popping out babies and having sex or whatever, but we never demonize men for having too much sex. I mean, sure, he'll get called a player or a pimp, but the fact that there is no truly offensive male equivalent to **** or ***** (both of which are censored on PC) aside from putting "man-" before them says something about how we demonize women for their sexuality. Which is a big reason why the abortion debate exists: women having sex for reasons other than procreation (and doesn't want it)? What a *insert derogatory term here*. She has to take care of the baby she doesn't want as "punishment". Men? Eh. Whatever.

 

[Renegade1]

You failed to read any of my post, except the bit you took exception too. I'm just as strong against men acting like... *expletive* as women, yet this thread is about abortion, not the principles and morals of a relationship. The part you took exception too, was me stating i don't agree those types of women using abortion so carefree and when there are alternatives, such as condoms and the pill. (please remember, that's one little point, I've had to expand on, because i didnn't make myself clear) I could hardly say 'I'm against men having abortions for that reason'.
You seem to misunderstood my point and assumed i was having a go at women. I'm not..

 

[jpp8]

Oh no, I read your post and I agree with most of your viewpoints. I wasn't taking a jab at you directly. It's just that every time the abortion debate comes up, so does the point about "that girl": The one who's "always getting abortions", if she actually exists (because I certainly have never met anyone like that in my life). We, as a society, look at women's promiscuity as something they should be publicly shamed for, while we either pay no mind to or even glorify men's promiscuity. There seems to always be something brought up in the abortion debate trying to find fault with the women getting abortions, but never with the men they kind of have to have sex with in order to create that fetus. It just irks me that women always somehow have to be shamed for their sexuality while men don't.

 

[Oryx]

Oh no, I read your post and I agree with most of your viewpoints. I wasn't taking a jab at you directly. It's just that every time the abortion debate comes up, so does the point about "that girl": The one who's "always getting abortions", if she actually exists (because I certainly have never met anyone like that in my life). We, as a society, look at women's promiscuity as something they should be publicly shamed for, while we either pay no mind to or even glorify men's promiscuity. There seems to always be something brought up in the abortion debate trying to find fault with the women getting abortions, but never with the men they kind of have to have sex with in order to create that fetus. It just irks me that women always somehow have to be shamed for their sexuality while men don't.

I have met a woman like that. She's had over 10 abortions and uses it as birth control. When she finally didn't have an abortion she had a child with a developmental disorder and she's wondered if it had something to do with the abortions, but still has never once hinted that she regrets them or wouldn't keep doing it - in fact she did it again after she had said child.

 

[Renegade1]

Oh no, I read your post and I agree with most of your viewpoints. I wasn't taking a jab at you directly. It's just that every time the abortion debate comes up, so does the point about "that girl": The one who's "always getting abortions", if she actually exists (because I certainly have never met anyone like that in my life). We, as a society, look at women's promiscuity as something they should be publicly shamed for, while we either pay no mind to or even glorify men's promiscuity. There seems to always be something brought up in the abortion debate trying to find fault with the women getting abortions, but never with the men they kind of have to have sex with in order to create that fetus. It just irks me that women always somehow have to be shamed for their sexuality while men don't.

Well to clarify, I know a woman much like the one we're discussing. Sexual promiscurity(+correct spelling) isn't any of my concern. Everyone should be sexually pleased as much or as little, if any as they like as long as they don't hurt anyone. However, one must take some responsibility for our own actions eventually. I also blame the man, and i think the snip should be looked at as a way of dealing with it. But we're going off topic.

In conclusion, I'm pro choice. But EXTREMELY (look i used caps, so I'm serious) against abuse of that choice

 

[jpp8]

I stand corrected by both your cases.

And yeah, we should be against abuse of this as we should be against abuse of anything else, like plastic surgery, or drugs. However, I feel that abortion abuse is another issue that is mostly unrelated to the actual abortion debate (legality etc). That issue is more related to the debates of knowledge of and access to contraceptives and birth control and comprehensive sex ed vs abstinence.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Um... what's with all this "if she chose to have sex" nonsense? It's the 21st century. Why are we still equating sex to procreation? One is needed for the other, but that doesn't mean that it's mutually exclusive. That sex and procreation are mutually exclusive was defined solely by religious values and societal "norms", not by any scientific evidence or any sort of extensive research. Sex is perfectly natural. It feels good. And we now have the means to make it so that anyone can have sex and not bear a child if they feel that they are not yet responsible or financially secure enough to raise it properly. Why restrict or demean others for using them? Because sex is bad or immoral? Again, religious beliefs, that not everyone believes. It's cool that you think that sex is dirty or immoral; the right to think as such is guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution. What's not guaranteed however is the right to push your beliefs onto others. Sex feels good and even offers health benefits. That much is FACT. Sex should only be used for procreation is an OPINION or BELIEF.

I don't see sex as bad or dirty or immoral. I don't think sex is purely for the purposes of procreation either. I think you should be responsible about it; take all the necessary precautions, have some class about it. I've got no problems with contraception. Use the birth control pill, the morning-after pill, condoms, diaphragms, whatever. Protect yourself from disease and prevent yourself from getting pregnant if it's really not in your best interest. Take responsibility.

But, stuff (the other word was censored :\) happens. Things aren't foolproof. While I'm not fond of abortion as a form of active contraception (but rape, incest, medical emergencies, other relevant extraneous circumstances that I can't think of at the moment; all okay I'd say), I think it should be allowed. But, as I mentioned earlier, I don't like late-term or partial-birth abortions outside of medical emergencies. I think the ship has kind of sailed by that point. It is then viable, if it were born prematurely at that point it could survive either on its own or if needed through medical assistance depending on the number of weeks. So, I don't think that has anything to do with religious beliefs then, as you alluded. I'd say it's more science and biology at that stage than religion.

But again, I'm not picky. I don't like it, but until it somehow directly concerns me or if I magically develop a uterus, then it's just not my business. It's merely my opinion and not something I'd latch onto as a matter of public policy. Privacy and liberty and all that. People can do it, even if I don't think it is a good idea... like when people put cheese on their seafood. I think it strange XD

Most common reason why people are "pro-life" is because "all life is sacred" or "sanctity of life" or whatever. Anti-choicers like to tout this as if their cause a greater good and that they truly care about life. At the same time though, people are dying due to hunger, war, disease, crime (both the offender and the victims), and even through unsafe illegal abortions, a result of the world they want to create. Do we hear chants of "pro-life" in these cases? Most of the time, people who tout "pro-life" stances (conservatives) are pro-war, pro-death penalty, and anti-healthcare as well. Not to mention that none of these anti-choicers seem to care about the baby after it's out of the womb. No support for the mother if she's financially unstable and defunding of public education. What a great world this child will be born into. Y'all are "pro-life" alright. Pro-fetus is more like it. As soon as it leaves the womb, it's on its own. "Pro-life" will fight and protest for the rights of the unborn, but turn a blind eye on those that are already alive and are at risk of having it taken away.

Yeah... I don't get this.

Sex and procreation aren't one in the same. But somehow being pro-life also automatically makes you anti-education, anti-healthcare, and pro-war. I don't think you can group stuff together.

I'm partially pro-choice (since someone here told me I can't claim to be pro-choice despite having the same attitudes on the matter as France and Germany, arguably the best and most progressive healthcare systems in the world), but I'm also pro-public healthcare. There must absolutely be, at a minimum, some "free" basic access to healthcare. On top of that, as much as can realistically be afforded. Public funding of higher education as well if it's doable. It leads to a better society.

My main beef with any kind of funding isn't that it's not something someone should have, but more about how tossing money at a problem doesn't solve a problem. If you can do something in a way that's sustainable, well managed, and efficient, go for it. Or if you're investing for the future and it'll eventually be paid off. If not, don't or you'll only create more problems later on.

War is unfortunately a necessary evil sometimes. Diplomacy first. Try to avoid it at all costs. But, sometimes it just cannot be avoided sadly. I think that's realistic. Plenty of examples of the contrary though, for sure. I don't know if you'd label me as pro-war though.

Father has a say in abortion? He's not the one who has to give birth. He's not the one who risks their job for parental leave. He's not the one with a uterus. It's a woman's choice and a woman's choice alone. Same goes for the reverse. If a man wants an abortion, but the mother doesn't, it's her choice to carry that baby to term. Pro-CHOICE, not pro-abortion.

I guess that's an American thing then. Here in Canada, we have paid maternity and paternity leave.

The man might not give birth, but he would be the one to father it. The main difficulty here is...uhh.. quality. If the father's some deadbeat and he objects, but then is never actually in the child's life. Well, he's just scum. I don't think the woman should have to live with his decision when he's not apart of it.

But, on the other hand if he's a decent fellow and genuinely wants to be involved in the child's life, it's kind of a shame that he'd be denied that opportunity. Legally, how you can make that decision is beyond me. At the very least, I think if you're married, your partner should have to consent to the abortion. If you're not married, not so much. At least be a decent person and maybe ask their opinion? And then, by all means, go about it however you wish.

---

In conclusion, I'm pro choice. But EXTREMELY (look i used caps, so I'm serious) against abuse of that choice

I think that'd describe me too. I'm against alcohol abuse, but think alcohol should be legal. It's about making choices and being responsible, which often too much to ask of ourselves. Oddly.

--

'Cause now I'm bored about talking about if something that's been legal for almost 40 years should be legal (that this discussion comes up every election season is just mind-boggling)... Hypothetically, as abortion becomes more accepted, when do we draw the line? Or do we at all? What does society as whole deem acceptable? Are we okay with abortion not for whatever supposed-legitimate purposes have been discussed in this thread, but for termination of sick or disabled babies. Or if you don't want a girl, for example.

 

[jpp8]

Yeah... I don't get this.

Sex and procreation aren't one in the same. But somehow being pro-life also automatically makes you anti-education, anti-healthcare, and pro-war. I don't think you can group stuff together.

You really just have to look at the stances of America's Republican presidential candidates regarding those topics. Anti-teacher's unions, anti-affordable care act, and bomb Iran, to sum it up in a nutshell. These along with their "pro-life" stances. While I'm sure that not all with pro-life stances feel fall into all the categories, a good number of "pro-lifers" probably fall into a good number of each of the categories

The man might not give birth, but he would be the one to father it. The main difficulty here is...uhh.. quality. If the father's some deadbeat and he objects, but then is never actually in the child's life. Well, he's just scum. I don't think the woman should have to live with his decision when he's not apart of it.

But, on the other hand if he's a decent fellow and genuinely wants to be involved in the child's life, it's kind of a shame that he'd be denied that opportunity. Legally, how you can make that decision is beyond me. At the very least, I think if you're married, your partner should have to consent to the abortion. If you're not married, not so much. At least be a decent person and maybe ask their opinion? And then, by all means, go about it however you wish.

Hm... I guess that's more of a personal and private issue than a legal one. If the father could convince her to have the child and make it her will to do so, then yeah, the father can have a say in that way. However, telling her to have an abortion or to give birth against her will? No way. Her body, her choice. Even if he is a nice and well meaning guy.

'Cause now I'm bored about talking about if something that's been legal for almost 40 years should be legal (that this discussion comes up every election season is just mind-boggling)... Hypothetically, as abortion becomes more accepted, when do we draw the line? Or do we at all? What does society as whole deem acceptable? Are we okay with abortion not for whatever supposed-legitimate purposes have been discussed in this thread, but for termination of sick or disabled babies. Or if you don't want a girl, for example.

If only there weren't so many attacks to restrict it or even make it illegal here in the states...

Anyway, I feel that the former case would be somewhat responsible. Why bring a child into the world when you have knowledge that it life may be painfully short or that a disability will bring it and the mother herself more challenge than necessary? At the same time though, if the mother feels that she is responsible enough to take the challenge of raising a disabled child, then by all means, she can. No choice is better than the other as long as they remain as such: choice. The latter case does feel kind of irresponsible, but it'd be better that every child be born wanted and in an environment that would be suitable for them. Where to draw the line though? Good question. I really don't feel that there should be any sort of restriction to abortions. Telling women that they shouldn't get an abortion for any other reason than... health issues(?) kinda says that her feelings on her own body and raising a child don't matter and that they know better.

Also, I apologize for my previous statement regarding your stance on pro-choice. I didn't have that much knowledge pertaining to partial birth abortions at the time and now I see that it is such a grey area in the field of biology and science, not to mention that it's sort of a non-issue with the amount of partial-birth abortions that actually occur, that one shouldn't be "anti-choice" for their stance on it.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Also, I apologize for my previous statement regarding your stance on pro-choice. I didn't have that much knowledge pertaining to partial birth abortions at the time and now I see that it is such a grey area in the field of biology and science, not to mention that it's sort of a non-issue with the amount of partial-birth abortions that actually occur, that one shouldn't be "anti-choice" for their stance on it.

Oh, was that you? Didn't think it was when I brought it up in that reply. lol No problem.

 

[Huggie]

Of course it is legal! Personally I wouldn't do it if I got pregnant just by luck because I always wanted a child so a chance of finally having it would be most welcomed! However, there are certain cases that abortion should not be criticized neither by religions nor by people who judge without knowing what this person has been through. There are plenty of examples but the most striking are rape victims and babies who are to be born with life threatening genetic diseases! I don't think that the age of the mother should be a criteria...I know many women who at their 40's are still incapable of raising a child and many girls who from their 16 had the mother's instinct!
I can accept abortions made because of the dangers threatening the babies or mother's life, I can accept abortions by rape victims, I can even accept the excuse the parents cannot afford to have a baby ( less likely but it still aplies) What I cannot accept is the " I don't want a baby" or " I want to live my life"...I t just seems so...unnatural to me..so selfish...

 

[Dakotah]

No one accidentally has sex

Not entirely correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_sex

 

[Shining Raichu]

Honestly, I'm kind of shocked that in this day and age people are still vain and presumptuous enough to believe that what goes on inside the body of another person is any of their business, or that their opinions on it should matter.

 

[Mr. X]

Not entirely correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_sex

It's a very rare condition, so it's not really applicable for this. That and most/all cases of it usually involve just one person, or two if they are sleeping with someone.

Am I the only one here who thinks that pro-life and pro-war are complete opposites? The fact that these stances are usually shared just goes to show that most republicans want live babies so they can grow up to become dead soldiers.

 

[Dakotah]

It's a very rare condition, so it's not really applicable for this. That and most/all cases of it usually involve just one person, or two if they are sleeping with someone.

Rare or not, it does directly refute the statement that ALL sex is intentional. Life isn't about absolutes. As to its applicability, since it was only intended to refute an earlier statement, it was applicable for that specific purpose.

Am I the only one here who thinks that pro-life and pro-war are complete opposites? The fact that these stances are usually shared just goes to show that most republicans want live babies so they can grow up to become dead soldiers.

I do believe I made a comment regarding this very fact. The pro-life crowd, which is undeniably anti-contraception and anti-abortion, decry any public funding of either of these things. But they have no issues paying for soldiers to fight and kill others.

 

[Nihilego]

I do believe I made a comment regarding this very fact. The pro-life crowd, which is undeniably anti-contraception and anti-abortion, decry any public funding of either of these things. But they have no issues paying for soldiers to fight and kill others.

Woah back up here please. Where did you come to the conclusion that people against abortion are also against contraception? Unless, ofc, you mean "pro-life" in a different way. And if this is the case then that could do with some explaining.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Woah back up here please. Where did you come to the conclusion that people against abortion are also against contraception?

Yeah. I know people who are fine with contraception and yet are anti-abortion. They're different things. One is preventative and one is reactive.

I think it should be legal, for the most part. But I don't expect everyone to be fine with it. It is an emotionally-laden issue given that the fetus takes on distinctive human features by the twelfth week. Those against it look at the ultrasound and they see a baby, because it looks like a baby to them. So, I don't really fault those who have a problem with it. I think it's understandable.

 

[Livewire]

Woah back up here please. Where did you come to the conclusion that people against abortion are also against contraception? Unless, ofc, you mean "pro-life" in a different way. And if this is the case then that could do with some explaining.

In the context of American political culture, those who ideologically oppose abortion also tend to oppose contraception.

 

[Dakotah]

Woah back up here please. Where did you come to the conclusion that people against abortion are also against contraception? Unless, ofc, you mean "pro-life" in a different way. And if this is the case then that could do with some explaining.

I offer the following example (one of many):

https://gothamist.com/2011/11/09/mississippi_rejects_anti-abortion_p.php

Thankfully the bill was defeated, but if passed, it could make all forms of hormonal birth control illegal, as well as the IUD. If from the moment of conception a fertilized egg is considered a human being, then any efforts to prevent that human being from being born would be illegal. By using any of these birth control methods, a woman would be guilty of murder because they prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted in a woman's uterus.

I will provide another example of an anti-abortionist who is also against contraception: Rick Santorum. 'nuff said there.

We're also seeing an unprecedented move by some in congress to allow employers to deny women insurance coverage for contraceptives if it goes against their moral beliefs.

So yes, it's not just abortion these groups are trying to outlaw, they're also trying to make contraceptives illegal. In other words, for them the only form of birth control they accept is abstinence.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I offer the following example (one of many):

https://gothamist.com/2011/11/09/mississippi_rejects_anti-abortion_p.php

Thankfully the bill was defeated, but if passed, it could make all forms of hormonal birth control illegal, as well as the IUD. If from the moment of conception a fertilized egg is considered a human being, then any efforts to prevent that human being from being born would be illegal. By using any of these birth control methods, a woman would be guilty of murder because they prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted in a woman's uterus.

I will provide another example of an anti-abortionist who is also against contraception: Rick Santorum. 'nuff said there.

We're also seeing an unprecedented move by some in congress to allow employers to deny women insurance coverage for contraceptives if it goes against their moral beliefs.

So yes, it's not just abortion these groups are trying to outlaw, they're also trying to make contraceptives illegal. In other words, for them the only form of birth control they accept is abstinence.

Yes, but saying "the pro-life crowd, which is undeniably anti-contraception and anti-abortion" is also not true.

There's some definite overlap as you pointed out. But, I don't think you can say that to be pro-life also undeniably also makes you anti-contraception. That's not true at all.