I wish I was that smart
Thanks for your kind comment. However, don't underestimate yourself. A few more years and a little reading and I bet you can best the best of em'.
What is all that lol, do you think that makes you clever are you into killing babes or not I'm sure you was asked.. who gives a shit what people said where they talking about killing babes or something else?
@mrgspoter Well, I leave your in-depth and temperate analysis - and short attention span - as a standing refutation of your own case. Suffice to say that epithets and not a substitute for a reasoned argument.
I am not sure if your knowing what you say with your words there buddy. 🤔
@mrgspoter Pretty impressive criticism coming from a man who writes, "I am not sure if your knowing what you say with your words there buddy."For the record, proper sentence construction would be, "I am not sure if you know what you say with your choice of words there, buddy."No matter. Always fun to be corrected by a master of the language. In any case, care to compare credentials?
@elisa_0 Thank you for the emojis. Worth a thousand words.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that if people have a choice for abortion, they will see life differently. A lot of places who do not have legal abortions, still somehow manage to have the highest numbers for them. You think that people who are pro abortions see it as some kind of control over life. But in reality people who are pro choice or pro abortions don't even consider it life yet, they see it a potential for life, just a growth of cells and not an actual baby."that is why at about the same time as the culture began to shift on the abortion question we also saw a rise in child abuse''Please show me those statistics, because you seem to talk like you know everything, and I wonder if any of it is based on facts. There is no way there would be a rise on abortions. Quite the opposite, if the abortions were illegal and parents were forced to keep a child they did not want, they would be abusive and hate, resent the child for it was never welcome.
My point is less simplistic than you have explained it.Why did we change the laws on segregation? What was the effect of that over time? Why in 1965 was segregated lunch counters an accepted convention and now is not?My point being that we shape the laws and the laws shape us. The more we observe certain obligations and restrictions, the more habitual will become those habits and customs and thus the ethical underpinnings that brought them about. Never perfectly nor completely and humans are neither perfect nor perfectible. However, had we left Jim Crow laws as they were in 1965, you would have habituated the culture to an ethic of separate but equal and so things likely would have remained.In any case, you wrote, " A lot of places who do not have legal abortions, still somehow manage to have the highest numbers for them." You asked for my statistics, I would like to see yours'. It being somewhat problematic in any case.First, because abortion laws are not the sole factor impacting the ethical standards of a society. In China, abortions were forced - and so today there is, quite literally, a shortage of women. The culture decided that as between boys and girls, it was better to have boys and so, even today the abortion rate for gender for baby girls is higher than that for boys. Forced abortions were ended but their ethic endured.Further, you need to show what the abortion rate would have been - in any culture - had abortion been permitted. You assume that abortion rates are high in an (unnamed) country where abortion is forbidden. That does not account for what they might have been had they been permitted nor what other cultural and historical factors are at work.CONT.
What we can point do in the case of the United States is that as abortion was legalized we also rates of various crimes - including murder and child abuse - rise in tandem. This not suggesting a direct one-to-one correlation, but rather a broad shift in cultural norms. Indeed, it being worth noting that even before Roe v. Wade, states had begun liberalizing their abortion laws. This reflecting a cultural shift that the law both reflected and reinforced.
You still have not shown me the statistics of abortions laws and abuse of children. That's because it's complete nonsense. Those who do not abort and actually have the children are obviously going against abortion, so their habitual mindset is to love the child not to abuse it."Why did we change the laws on segregation? What was the effect of that over time? Why in 1965 was segregated lunch counters an accepted convention and now is not?"How does this even relate? Yes the laws of segregation changed FOR THE BETTER. Segregation was never right. Same for abortion laws. www.nbcnews.com/.../abortion-rates-go-down-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476You sir have a large vocabulary, come off as intelligent and speak in long complex sentences, yet your arguments do not have any substance.
You mam. have not shown me your stats. This article you provided points to a greater availability of other birth control methods that likely account for the differential. In any case, it is not likely that there will be a one-to-one correspondence. Other than to add that were abortion legally restricted its' lack of availability would inherently reduce the availability of abortions. That probably goes without saying. Indeed, unless there is an explosion of illegal abortions, one wonders how you get more abortions then you would if abortions were legal. Seems like you have, at best, massive lawbreaking which then, as I mentioned, begs the question of the other legal and cultural factors at work.That said, here is a study by the Lozier Institute that cuts against the sloppily written NBC piece that you sent. lozierinstitute.org/.../At any rate, as noted, we shape the laws and the laws shape us. Apply YOUR logic and we should never have banned segregated lunch counters. By doing so we only made them more common.Right? Yeah right.
We have not made more segregated lunch corners by banning them lol. Yes they still exist, but NOT more of them. People are more mixed up and diverse lunch corners are more common than ever. Still this comparison makes no sense. You say that continuous habitual thinking makes some things seem ok, just out of habit. That's why you mentioned the abortion and higher children abuse, which statistic I am sti waiting for. As if allowing abortions makes parents seem their kids as something to abuse. Allowing abortions does the opposite, it reduces the unwanted children, do those who are born are planned, welcomed and loved. And this law does not change the mind of pro lifers who are firmly set on them. I was looking for an interview I saw recently, where they mentioned Romania, some states in US and another country in South America and Africa, where they have much higher abortion rates, even though abortions are either illegal or have very strict laws. And these were just a few examples. Here is another article since I cannot find the interview."the abortion rate is 37 per 1,000 people in countries that prohibit abortion altogether or allow it only in instances to save a woman’s life, and 34 per 1,000 people in countries that broadly allow for abortion"www.amnesty.org/.../
The point is counterintuitive. Unless you have mass lawbreaking it is not likely that you will have an increase in segregated lunch counters or abortions. Suffice to add that if you do have mass lawbreaking then you have other pertinent cultural issues that must also be dealt with. As for unwanted children, leaving aside the long list of couples who are waiting for adoptable children, (https://ifstudies. org/blog/the-changing-face-of-adoption-in-the-united-states) the instant we decide that because a child is unwanted it should be aborted, you are revealing the core issue. A society that decides the value of life based not on its' inherent value but on its' subjective utility. That is highly problematic. A culture, who through its' laws says that life has no value except that which those with the power to decide its' value is apt not to be a very nice place. Suffice to say there have been ample historical examples of what that looks like. (Even in Romania, the case you cited, the basis of Romanian law under communist rule was that human life is nothing more than a product of the means of production. For the opposition application of the same principle, see the forced abortions of China. It being added that the examples are not really applicable to the United States given the predicates of US law and culture.) At any rate, at the end of the day, what you advocate is a society where there is no collective judgment on the value of life but it is left to the random whim of the individual and is therefore entirely subjective. Not unlike the argument made by Stephen Douglas in his famous debates with Abraham Lincoln. That was called popular sovereignty and Douglas applied it to slavery. You merely apply it to abortion. To which Lincoln replied that even in a democracy some questions must transcend and stand outside the realm of individual choice, else they change the character of the democracy itself.
P. S. Where in heaven's name in the United States have you seen segregated lunch counters?In that connection, why does a law banning such counters not increase their numbers but a law banning abortion increase the number of abortions? Please explain the dynamic at work there.
You bring up adoption as if all the lives who are given up for adoption will successfully get taken. If that were true we would not have shelters so overpopulated with unwanted children. The thing is that those families who are on a long waiting list, they don't want a child, they want a fresh baby, and a child who is a toddler or older is less desirable. And laws of abortion are nothing like the situatuons we had with slavery, you are going way way off. The main issue is, people who are pro choice, don't see the unborn baby as life yet, just a potential of life. So ending it is not murder as it hasn't even begun. While slavery involved living human beings who could already walk and talk. These are so different I don't know why you even compare. All your arguments and comparisons are so unrelated and race oriented. Segregation? Yes mass law breaking exists, even in developed countries. If abortions are made illegal, there would be a mass of illegal abortions, will all these options available to self abort it would continue to happen. And I still want to see the statistics of abortion legalising relating to child abuse increase.
One, I bring up adoption only to illustrate that the idea of an "unwanted Child" is ethically problematic. I similarly bring up slavery to illustrate the underlying ethical and moral foundations of law, keeping in mind that the argument on slavery was whether or nor the slave was human or property.Bottom line, the gravaman of your argument is that life is mere instrumentality. Where a life is deemed wanted, it is valued and permitted to live. Where not, it is forfeit. For you, the value of life is merely a utilitarian calculation and not an absolute.Secondly, if you believe that a fetus is not human from the moment of conception, then you must stipulate at EXACTLY what moment it becomes human and that rights inhere in it. Please define - EXACTLY and PRECISELY - what the scientific and moral difference is between the baby one second before that moment and one second after. (Since if you are one second off, you are allowing the state to sanction the killing of an innocent life.)If you believe that the baby IS human but is not entitled to rights and the protection of the laws, please explain why a human life does not attain rights - including the right to life - until a certain point, what that point is and why that moment is defining.Finally, we shape the laws and the laws shape us. It is an insight going back to at least Aristotle. If you disagree, please cite in a democratic society a case of a law that had endured absent a moral consensus in its' favor. Also, how observance of that law underpinned by a moral consensus does not become habitual with continued exercise over time.These are the questions you must answer and are central to me thesis. To date, you have not addressed them but make a bald assertion, either explicitly or implicitly, that they are not true = apparently for little better reason than they are not consistent with your convenience.So answer the questions.
I am not answering any more of the questions, since you dodged and avoided so many of mine and just go off the rails to make unrelated points. You have made quite a few assumptions on how I view life or babies, when I never claimed them myself. This argument has been going on for too long and it is pointless, especially since you conveniently choose to respond to some things and ignore others, we will never agree, so I am ending this now. Bye and have a nice day.
Well, my questions cut to the essential issue - and I thought I had answered your questions. I cited stats, I also made the larger point about Aristotle. If I missed anything, list it and don't just jumble it into a word salad.In any case, how you can address the abortion question without dealing with the issues of when human life begins and when the state ought afford protections to that life is beyond me. This you have not done.Indeed, this the culture has not done - which is why the courts turn handstands to avoid defining the moment life begins. Hence the ever shifting standards of the last trimester, then viability and now perhaps - though I doubt it - the heartbeat standard.Suffice to say, as noted, yours' is an assertion of mere willfulness tarted up as an ethical argument. That does not work so well.
Well that was rape, plain and simple. And I agree about the father having the opion to opt out, if the woman wants to keep it, she can't force child support. But if both parents want to keep it, I support the womans choice to charge all the child support she can get in court when the father changes his mind and leaves her dry.
yes if they both plan to have a child together. but then later on something happens between them. where he leaves or gets removed from her life. he should still be responsible for knocking her up.
just because one or both people gave consent to sex. does not mean both gave consent to becoming a parent.
Yes, but I think guys should take more responsibility on getting girls pregnant. They are the ones with the juice. A lot of them dont even use condoms and just rely on pull out methods. If I were a man, Id take pills instead of a woman. It makes more sense to shoot blanks, rather than give a shield for real bullets. It eliminates the chance of entrapment, and cannot blame the woman on forgetting to take the pill.
not sure if they have an affective medicine. on the market that lets a guy shoot blanks. but allows him to return to normal if he stops treatment. with or without needing a doctor prescription.there was something that went in to testing phase a while back. that would make a guy infertile for around 10 years. but never got to the mass market I believe.also have heard stories that most girls don't like condoms either. because can't really feel anything that well. however that might be a myth in many cases.
They do have male contraceptives. I guess it depends where you live. And yes, no condom feels better, but is that really worth it
there are some pills and gels in the trail phase it looks. shttps://health. ucdavis. edu/health-news/newsroom/male-contraception-clinical-trial-launches-in-sacramento-/2020/06
If there was a completely safe and reliable birth control option for men, with no side effecs, would you take it on your own initiative, or only if the girl insisted?
well I don't think there will be a 100% safe option. since even female options have side effects. also most likely won't be 100% affective at stopping. a guy from knocking up a girl. but that being said if they get something with low risk and high success rate. I would be willing to try it out.
already have a pair of twin boys from my ex. who I planned to marry before I knocked her up. only to find out while still engaged that he had been cheating on me for a while. so I called off our wedding and broke up with her after the boys were born. had them tested to prove they were in fact mine. she tried to claim solo custody of them with support. but I fought in count for nearly 2 years and won 50/50 custody. plus I get them part of the week as part of the legal agreement.
to my understanding. she is unemployed living with family. while I have a decent job and my own 2 bedroom apartment. for me and my boys to live in.
typo *only to find out while still engaged that she had been cheating on me for a while.*
Well you are a good dad to want the boys for yourself, knowing you can provide better for them than the mom. Most guys would prefer to give custody to mom, and just take the kid to play whenever they have free time
Birth control methods fail too, and people get pregnant even with them. Married couples get abortions too, since marriage does not mean they are ready for a child right away. And birth control is not abortion lol. Thats like saying periods or sperm from masturbation is abortion.
Anything man made or man driven is not 100% guaranteed. And, you miss my point about birth control. I was being facetious. If you're going to preserve life and feel abortion is the only issue to save a life, you should rid all other methods that hinders life. And, on the contrary, my friend... God is not Please with spilling a man's seed... Genesis 38:8-10. And, one should use a condom and birth control to prevent disease. My motto is "Do Wrong Right!" Or, just stop having sex before marriage.
"Condom to prevent pregnancy and disease (Kill 2 birds with one stone). Birth control to prevent pregnancy.
Birth control fails a lot on this
So you don't try at all? Failure is the only option you are comfortable with? That's crazy... You want to be a parent? You wanna catch a disease? There are other birth control options (IUDs, etc.) Not just the pill. And, other drugs to prevent pregnancy if the condom breaks or said "birth control" doesn't work (before and after pill). There's even a condom for women. No reason or excuse.You don't want to be abstinence which 100% effective. But, you are willing to catch a disease and/or be a parent. Well, you don't have to be a parent if you give up for adoption. Or, like most men and some women walk away from the responsibility. I can't, man. You gotta be responsible out the gate. I'm glad the guy I use to have sex with used a condom and pull out before he came. He did not have to be extra cautious because he was wearing a condom. He's father of two and don't want no more kids. He wished he would have been more cautious in his early years... But hey, they're here now and he has to be a parent and not just a father.
Thank you for such a thorough answer. And I agree with all of this.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Pro choicers are not pro abortion. They just want the opportunity for babies to be born when they are wanted and have the means to be taken care of. A new life should not destroy an already existing one. Yes sex comes with risks, but sometimes even the most careful and responsible adults are failed by certain birth control methods.
Which is what I was trying to get at, I don't necessarily think that Pro Choice means that everyone's all just trying to abort, by any means, but again if you're willing to have sex and are aware of the consequences (which you definitely should be before having sex.) Then you SHOULD be held accountable for whatever happens. Does it always go that way? Obviously not. Sometimes for the better because of finances or lack of care to properly be provided to a potential child and other times just because people aren't ready to face reality for their actions. That's why my views have shifted. I mean hell, even as a person who has been involved sexually with guys for just over 10 years now, I know that if anything ends up happening and I become pregnant me personally I'm going to have that kid prepared or not I'm gonna do everything in my power to provide and give them any and everything I possibly can, but thats just me and my opinion on the situation.
Thanks for having such a considerate opinion. You thought of all of them, the mom, the child, how it would be long term which is something pro lifers don't consider. A new life should not be born to destroy an already existing one.
Yes, I wonder if pro lifers consider overpopulation. Our earth can support around 15billion humans. We are already halfway there
I believe in a similar thing, we all have a unique soul that was formed by God, not by a mother in a womb. And this soul reincarnates over and over until the journey is over. So no woman has a control with abortion on the life of that soul, it will be born either way.
Well people sleep around putting a lot of trust in their birth control methods. Those don't always work. You think having sex is always a chance to get pregnant, they think it's not. Yes I know a lot of pregnancies happen for those who dont even use anything. But these are usually youngsters who should not be trusted with making long-term decisions, so they should also not be trusted to be responsible for a child for the next 18years. And I think it's selfish for people to say a life should be born, even when they do nothing to make sure that life is well taken care of and has parents that are suitable for the job.
Right that’s 100% correct, which is why people should be more responsible. Just don’t have sex until the time is right. Easier said than done, people will do whatever they want to do, but again, that’s the higher sexual morality I’m talking about that people lack. Sex isn’t just a physical thing with physical consequences either. There are emotional consequences as well due to interpersonal “pair bonding” after a sexual relationship is established, which if the relationship was never great from the start, or built on the proper reasons, you can see how that’s irresponsible as well. It’s damaging to both individuals if things go wrong.People just aren’t smart about sexual relations. It’s all about satisfying the urge, without caring about the consequences.
I believe abortion should have a limit, and it needs to be done BEFORE it's a fully formed baby. They cannot feel pain before 28weeks. And I think the limit should be even few weeks before that
Of course.. I believe the only time somebody should get an abortion is if they REALLY feel like they need to. I think everybody should take a look at what happens when they use a vacuum to suck the baby out of the stomach..
Thats not what I meant with the question. Its more about control. A lot of men get upset they dont have a say, especially if they are pro life. So I was wondering if people wanted a different control option if the roles were reversed.
So if I am understanding you correctly, you are wondering if pro-life men would want their partners to have a say if they were the ones carrying?I would say that from my paradigm, both partners should have a say in whether or not the child is born. Regardless of who is carrying it
But it doesn't work that way, because even though it takes 2 people to make a baby, only one of them has to birth it. Birth control is the answer for those sitiations
Birth control is a different question from what you were asking, right? Because the term pro choice is used to mean that you support abortion.
I support the choice for abortion. I do not like the idea, noone is happy about the decision to do it, but sometimes it's necessary.
Would you mind explaining that a little more? Why don't you like the idea, and under what conditions would it be necessary?
I don't like it because it is the last resort for any woman who even considers it. It's emotionally and physically traumatizing, but in many cases it is necessary. Like if someone under the age of 14 got raped and got pregnant, they are children themselves, should they give birth and raise a baby who will grow up to look like their abuser? They can't even take care of themselves. The same is for any rape victim or underage girl. But circumstances don't have to involve abuse. It could be just that the woman does not have the financial means, living space, emotional stability, a father who would help, the baby would end her life as she would have to take care of him/her first and never themselves. A woman could be a cruel monster who is not fit to be a mother under any circumstances, so if she were forced to keep the baby, she would be abusive, violent, and that baby would suffer... The list can go on forever
Those are a lot of different reasons. This is interesting. So basically if either the mother or the child would suffer then it's okay? Is that what I'm hearing you say?
For me the basis of this is my religion. If a soul comes into this world, it's because God intended it, and no abortion can stop it from happening. Same for mother who had maybe 12 kids. They did not create more souls or give more life, because no mortal mother on the planet has that kind of power. So a fetus, or unborn baby, is just the potential for life, it is not a new soul that is formed at conception and lost during abortion. So yes, to me if bringing a baby into this world means pain for the baby or for the mother, then it's ok to end it.
That's really interesting! I've never heard this perspective before.What religion are you referencing? And at what point does the soul become infused with the body?
Would you like some lectures from my religion? I am not trying to get you to join my faith like a jehovas witness lol, but for the sake of discussion at least would you be interested to read a lecture or two and give your perspective on it? If you do, follow me and I will pm something. Also are you an atheist or religious person yourself?
Sure, I'll read a lecture or two. And I already follow you 😉Yeah, I'm a religious person also
I am referencing Christianity. Not the conventional take on it like all churches practice, but I've come across a man who has been studying bible all his life, and actually gave a logical explanation on it. All the words of the bible are true, but seeing the way people see it today is like still believing the world is flat. Bible should not be read like a magazine and taken literally, its more complex and full of metaphors.
Jesus Christ, it's a 'what if' scenario, and no-one is trying to change biology.
I'm aware it doesn't change it's stupidity.
The stupidity is you failing to understand it.
No, I understand it completely, you're just using something so stupid and arbitrary to make a point that is completely irrelevnt.
Im not making a point Im asking a question
@Porcelaine No, you're doing what a lot of pro choice people do, you're going under the completely false illusion that most pro-lifers are men (News flash they aren't) and that instead of it being about saving the lives of these children it's about controlling women. If you weren't implying this you'd know who gets pregnant has nothing to do with the want to save the lives of the unborn, I mean as you can see from your poll results the only people changing their minds are women, plus you wouldn't have phrased it 'holding the trigger'
Jesus christ you are full of shit. jumping to assumptions about why Im asking this and even who I think is more pro life. none of what you said represents what I actually believe. I did not care who was more pro life, men or women, I believed it was probably the same. I asked this question because a lot of men on G@G complain about having to pay child support, or that sometimes if they want to keep the baby they have no say in it. So I wanted them to see how would they feel if they were the ones forced to birth a baby they dont want, if others were telling them what to do with their bodies. Meanwhile pro choice women would think what would it be like if they wanted to keep the baby, but had no choice in it. And the trigger was to illustrate the simple truth that men have way more control over avoiding the pregnancy, aiming where to shoot is easier than avoid getting shot. But you are clearly pro life so now I see where the bitterness comes from.
Lmao someone's mad they got called out, you're the definition of inconsistent, which makes sense considering you're pro choice. If you look at men complaining about paying child support all they want is a way out and if you listen to pro life men it's their baby being murdered that's their problem not birth as most of them say if they could save their baby by birthing it themselves they would, unfortunately, that isn't how biology works. If you were actually interested in the answer to this question you'd have simply googled it as loads of surveys have been done on the topic. You'd also know how aggressive the phrase 'hold the trigger' is it almost sounds as if you don't think women have a say right now as if we don't hold basically all the power in contraception. When you wake up and realise in pregancy is far more in womens control even without abortion you'll be a lot less angry.
I am not angry, you are the one spreading negativity. And if people just googled questions instead of asking them here, this website would shut down. But people ask them here because they also want to discuss it with those who answer it. If "Hold the trigger'' phrase triggers you, you are free to ignore the question, since you clearly dont get the question or the metaphor, claiming it ''almost assumes'' something, while its just your opinion and not what I assume at all. Exactly how am I inconsistent? If you change the meaning of my words does not mean I change it too.
Are you speaking of circumcision? Well that's not a gender issue either. It's more of a baby who has no choice Vs parents who make this choice for him.
Yet it's banned in many countries, but performed on males. That is very much a gender issue when one is protected, and the other is not.
Female circumcision is banned, bot male.
What female circumcision? Since when females have foreskin on their genitals?
I suggest you acquaint yourself with human anatomy. "Prepuce" is the technical term for both foreskin and clitoral hood.Also, female circumcision is more of a euphamism for generalized female genital cutting. My point is that cutting females is banned in many countries, including the US, while it champions cutting boys shortly after birth. That is very much a gender issue because one gender is protected and the other is not. Any cutting is damaging, though the US likes to balk at medical data. That does not remove the gender disparity.
That is the difference between pro lifers and pro choicers. One believes life begins at conception, the other at birth.
Yes and if you were to cut off the oxygen or stop the nutrients the baby would die, which is living proof life has begun and there is a living child inside. Anyone that believes otherwise does so willingly believing it because they know they are murdering children or advocating for it. It's that simple.
I could put something heavy enough on my wrist to cut off the circulation. If it's cut off long enough, I would lose my hand. Does that mean the hand was a separate life or part of my body? A life is made, once it can survive outside of any body that is feeding it. A 4 week old fetus is a growth of cells, not a child.
@Porcelaine You have been indoctrinated by eugenicist. I tell you what, even if I weren't already a 33 going on 34 year MGTOW Monk, I wouldn't have one single thing to do with anyone that advocates for child murder and especially someone that has done it. Laying down with someone that had murdered their child is literally taking pleasure in a murder scene. You can spout your indoctrination all you want, it's a child, not a device, not a space alien, not a material thing, it's a child no matter what you say, they are.
You believe what you believe, and I will too. A child is not a child until its born.
@Porcelaine You know full well it's a child, it isn't a monster is it? Not a blimp or a magic mushroom, is it? If lying to yourself helps you cope with the facts, then that's on you, not me. It is every bit a child.
I believe in my religion. My religion tells me that all the souls have already been created, they just pass through one body after another while continuing their journey. So if a child is not born, that means the soul never occupied this body. If a child is born, that means it was meant to, and the soul needs it to continue express itself. No mortal woman on this planet have the power to create a new one. This is why it makes no difference to me if the same woman has 11 abortions. If I was an atheist, I'd probably share your position, but knowing what I know, a growing fetus is just a potential for life.
OK, so going by what you've said here. Let's say you are 5 months pregnant, and a guy pushed you down. According to you, he shouldn't be charged with murder if it caused you to miscarry, right? But that's not the law, is it? And that's because the law recognizes that it is in fact a child, when the law wants to recognize it. Either way, he shouldn't be charged with murder according to you, should he?
Yes, because this is physical abuse to such degree, that even a life inside dies. This is agressive, intentional murder, because a man who pushes her knows she wants the baby. If a woman decides to keep the baby, that means she already sees herself as the mother, and that baby as her child. So killing that is murder. I know it seems unfair, if there are men who want to keep the baby and woman aborts it anyway. But this is not the mans choice. Im sorry this is how biology made us, as long as women get pregnant, they will decide if its abortion or murder. So if your artificial womb works out, I guarantee you, if a baby is growing inside it and its father wants it, any woman that intentionally kills it will go to prison. Because its out of her body and not her choice anymore.
Congratulations, by your own admission, you just admitted there is a living child inside.
In the eyes of others it is. I already explained why it is not to me. Its like an unfertilized egg. It becomes a child only when a conscious soul occupies it
First you say it's not a child. You said it's a clump of cells. Then you say it's not a child because your religion says it's not. Then you say it's only a child based on her decision if she wants the child or not. You are all over the map and you can't have it both ways. It is either a child, or it's not a child and it's not a child based on someone's belief or religion. It's a child because biologically it is a child. Like is already said, you have been indoctrinated by the left.
Its a child when its born. Its a clump of cells or a fetus while not, ask any doctor. My religion dictates that amount of abortions or births do not mean anything, because women are not the ones bringing lives into this world. If a woman had 12 abortions, she did not kill any lives, same way if a woman has 12 children, she did not create any unique humans because those souls have chosen to occupy the bodies of the newbors. If a child is not born, it was never meant to be born.
If a child is not born, it was never meant to be born? According to that, there would be no inhabitants of this earth right now. And you said it yourself, if a man were to push you down, caused to to miscarry, he should be charged with murder. Who did he murder if there was a clump of cells there that's not human? Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? And you say it's a child if she decides to have a child. Is her decision suppose to be godlike? She decides what is and that suddenly makes it so? What is your religion, the religion of hypocrisy?
Well you clearly live in a different culture. 16years old is still a child, they need to grow up before having their own kids. And if everyone had 6kids or more, we would soon run out of space on this earth
I live in New York haha. People love baby murder here. 16 is not a child hahaIf tables were turned I would be raising an army of super soldiers. My seed would conquer earth! :p
What a primitive illogical thinking you have. Good luck to you.
And somehow terminating a baby is logical? Having sex without accepting the potential consequences is educated? If that is true than I want to no part of either 😃
It's not a baby until it's born. Until that it's a fetus, an embryo. Having unprotected sex is irresponsible yes, but it's another topic and does not relate. A lot of abortions are done of people who did use protection but it failed
That's the point of the question. To put ourselves in the opposite shoes. When women have no control of keeping the baby even when she wants it, and when men get told to what to do with their bodies, how invasive pregnancies and abortions would be
I don't believe that. Since you would be the one growing it in your womb, giving birth, breastfeeding, your brain literally releasing the chemicals to love that child, then you would become the "mother" and laws would favour you and be more inclined to give custody to you while women would be forced to provide child support.
Condoms break, some contraceptives dont work as well as they claim, do you really think its possible for everyone to not get pregnant by accident while being sexually active?
The number one reason for why women get abortion, from last I’ve heard, wasn’t because of legitimate accidental mistakes they couldn’t control. I’m sure in a sea of millions of people, accidents out of their control happen that causes an abortion but I don’t think that’s the main reasons why women get an abortion and even if such accidents happen I still wouldn’t be pro choice. I don’t feel uncomfortable saying “yes, I feel fine voting for or agreeing with the killing of a human life because a woman doesn’t want it and because it’s her choice.” No, I don’t feel right doing that. I can make exceptions though in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother. I know it’s unrealistic for me to think of this, but imagine if everyone dated with the thought of “Could I have a child with this woman/man?” and “Do I want to have a family with him/her?” If more asked these questions before getting into a relationship, the number of unwanted pregnancies/abortions would decrease.
Well the thing is that not everyone who is having sex are dating. Sex is a very natural thing so people get tempted and have sex with someone who isn't a boyfriend or even someone they know well. So at those times a lot of them are stupid and dont even use protection. Especially teenagers, who are not even aware enough of what they're doing. Thats how those millions of cases happen. I will not argue with you on whether the few weeks fetus is a baby yet, since I know people who believe as soon as they conceive those cells is a baby are usually very strict on it, especially if they're religious. But abortion is the very last resort, noone wants to do it, they just feel they have no other choice and its a terrible thing in any case. Besides making abortions illegal doesn't stop them, people find a way how anyway. Some countries with illegal abortions still manage to have the highest number of them.
This speaks to a much bigger issue then. A question should come up as such: Is casual sex positive for society? Since you mentioned people having sex might not be dating. Condoms and birth control aren’t natural as well. Usually when people had sex, it was because both wanted to create another human being. It was like this for the vast majority of human existence, which is why women have periods, are pickier, etc. I don’t think nature intended us to have sex in a casual manner. This also points to why women aren’t interested in casual sex of any type, whereas men are. Why is this? Even with birth control and condoms, this remains highly unchanged. The issue of pro life and pro choice, goes BEYOND abortion. It’s about how society views sex, personal responsibility, etc. Also, I never said making abortions illegal is the thing to do. But if you educate and change society, as well as make the cost of abortion so high financially/morally, then you’ll have less of it, which EVERYONE can agree is a good thing. I’ll never support it being pro choice, but that’s my personal decision and choice 😉 (see what I did there).
''Usually when people had sex, it was because both wanted to create another human being. It was like this for the vast majority of human existence'' no they dont. When they want sex, they are not even thinking of babies. They just think of the physical pleasure. And when humans first came into existence, when they discovered the desire for sex, that was the hormones raging, they didn't even know what pregnancy is. They were having sex for a while before they figured out pregnancy comes from that. Yes casual sex brings only negatives for society, but that will never change. The only thing we can hope for is better birth control.
Why do you think sex is a thing? Why do you think it even feels good? Do you know what semen is? ALL of this is to create more humans... The body and mind evolved to enjoy and feel how amazing sex is just so humans would do it more and if humans do it more then there’s more humans made. It’s our DNA and genes saying “yes, more humans is a good thing!” Everything on this planet seeks to create as many copies of itself as possible.
Yes, that is the basic reason for it. But we are no longer animals just looking to procreate and make babies. We are intelectuals, creative, we have fantasies, developed intimacy. Sex is so much more now, it has developed many forms and shapes, people have oral sex that does not even result in a baby. Its all about the pleasure. People prolong the sex, they do things to get in the mood, to make it last longer, they enjoy foreplay, the touch of eachother... it is not so simple anymore. Saying sex is JUST for making babies is like eating food is JUST to survive. In that case you should only eat 100% perfectly nutritious food regardless of the taste, and never enjoy something delicious, because food is for survival and not for enjoyment.
Don't know where you live, but guys do have several birth control options that are not condoms, they are not as popular because guys don't care and expect women to take care of this. Or they believe in condoms too much.
What options are those?
I'm in the United states
This question does not assume whether the sex is consentual or not. I am aware 99% of abortions are from consentual sex. If you are referring to "the trigger" part, I was just referring to the person who holds the sperm. Because in my personal opinion it's way easier to control where the sperm shoots, than to avoid it getting where it shouldn't
Sure you can say that but the fact it that both people chose to risk pregnancy for a night of fun so I think whoever is wielding the dick is irrelevant. That’s why my beliefs remain.
Yes, pro lifers don't think long term
This is a hypothetical situation. OBVIOUSLY men can't get pregnant and never will. But this is a what if situation, I want to see if opinions change when genders get changed.
So if psychological assesment is done to all of those who consider it, are you pro choice then?
i'm pro psychological assessment. not pro choice. so if there's psychological assessment, it is already not choice. after you have that assessement, you should be allowed to have an abortion, provided the psychological assessment said that the conditions are met.
I thought by psychological assessment you meant to check if the person is mentally in the right mind to make that choice? So forcing everyone to have the assesment is one thing. But if after it they still choose abortion, that is the choice they should have.
Yes that's what I'm saying. I just don't want people to buy abortions just like condoms. Like if the psychologist says you're perfectly able to have a child and perfectly healthy, then you shouldn't be able to have an abortion.
I never said this was an issue to begin with. I was just curious would anyones opinion change if they were a different gender. So far I am glad to see everyone keeps their views the same no matter what gender they are
Yeah, no one is going to admit that they'd change their story on this one even if it is true.
Nazi's / Fascists killed people.. Being pro life saves life. It doesn't take it. I like how you contradicted yourself though.
@DocT1977 In the real world, Pro-life only seems to last until the child is born, after the child is born, then to hell with whatever happens to them... Pro-lifers need to shut up sometimes, I'll take them more seriously if they are also pro life after the person is born too, as well as the life of the person carrying the baby, because I've seen crazy pro-lifers that think a child who was raped and got pregnant should still have the baby... ridiculous and disgusting.
Though nazis forced people to undergo experiments and killed people I get the contradiction.The thing about saving fetuses is that for some to have healthier and more sustainable lives they need to not have a child at a certain time, and thus I'm pro choice.Those in abusive relationships would be better to not have a child at that time or the abuse will be handed down to the child. It's about protecting future life. those who get abortions, many of them want to have kids and sustain life though they're mature enough to know they aren't healthy or financially stable enough. Society literally kicks people to the curb who are starving, so unless the catholic church sells their global properties for young moms I'm not really convinced they give any love or cares
Nazis don't see the the flaws in their logic
So why are you pro life when it comes to women?
I'd be pro-life regardless. What I said above briefly encompasses my beliefs around the subject both in real life and in this hypothetical scenario. All that would change is how I approach sex.
What? This scenario is where men have more control.
Men have a choice in the normal dynamic; including your made up hypothetical scenario.
If you say so
Women only have the illusion of control
Agree. Some places have late term abortions, that can happen even at 9months. Those are wrong.
Porcelaine which is terrible the baby is fully developed
If the baby is developed so far it can survive outside the womb. Let it live
Not everyone has easy access to contraception, men have options for contraception too that are not condoms. You are the one with the sperm, you control where it shoots and cannot blame the woman for being irresponsible when you have more control than she does.
Everyone in these united states has access to contraception and if they dont they shouldn't be having sex. Self responsibility is key.
Yes, everyone is responsible for their actions. But mistakes will always be made.
Yes and when you make a mistake you pay for it.
*embryo. Not baby.
If u kill it ye, if u don't want kids outhers do at least let it be first, then have the bits removed ok. Think of all the wasted talent and minds your all encouraging to kill no sorry murder of the worse kind. Hell it's makeing room for us lot the worse lot time has seen.
I mean you ever talked to people who carry out the murder you speak off? It's sick they don't kill them they worth a lot more alive at the end n dead ok why u think u get stuff that keeps a baby asleep n never moving? U stupid or what there cells n growth that they use for people to what and how much that cost, do u get a share of çash from the murder of the baby?
It's not a baby until 6 months. If it's "killed" just after a few weeks of pregnancy that is not a baby, but a growth of cells
How sad you are
I’m in a neutral position regarding abortion. Thank goodness I’ve never been in that place where I have to choose between keeping a baby or not
No-one is changing the laws or the nature, it's just a 'what if' situation so for a moment we would put ourselves in someone else's shoes to consider of our views would change.
The things can not happen, then we are worried about and if it is just fun. then you should try it on yourself first :)
This is a question to make people think. But clearly you cannot do that and get hung up on something that doesn't matter. A lot of scenarios will not happen, but it's still helpful to discuss them and educate ourselves about different opinions. It can bring some light to situations that are possible and happen today.
be real and be conscious. Do something great for people where people can appreciate you, help needy people, help to animals than typing weird question here to time pass
What deal? This is a what if situation, I just want to see if opinions change, when genders change
Swapping genders / roles / advantages and disadvantages etc.
Noone is swapping anything, this is pregnancy specific. And hypothetical obviously. Sometimes its healthy to put ourselves in the shoes of an opposite situation, so we dont drown in our smallminded bubble.
Yeah ok, I did expand the question considerably.You are right about the swapping thing though, its particularly good when reading statements like a woman is x and a man is y or a thing happened to X, Y, Z.How does it sound when you reverse it or when you assign the thing happening to you rather than >insert group of people you dont care about< etc
''How does it sound when you reverse it or when you assign the thing happening to you rather than >insert group of people you dont care about< etc''I dont get it.
Well for example if you saw something on the news about a tradegy affecting people in some far away land it could be helpful to swap the far away land for you hometown or something.It makes it more personal and more real.We hear so little in the news about anything good happening around the world that its easy to fall into a trap of thinking something like 'Well, those people in that far off land are supposed to be dying horribly screaming, thats what they are for isn't it? Thats all i ever hear about them doing, but if you take a death toll figure and then say well thats equivilant to this town or this city i live near to being gone now it can carry more weight.
You keep missing the point and go off to different subjects and unrelated examples.
Whatever.If it makes you feel better to blame me for your lack of understanding knock yourself out, you are going to anyway apparently.
You what would be a nice treat for me in situations like this its if you would actually fucking bother to read and understand what has been said to you.
Yes, I understand this. But a lot of people have different views based on gender so I had to ask.
So if the roles were reversed, women would pay child support
They'd pay child support for other people's kids and if they were raped.
Birth control fails often
IUDs and the arm insertion are very effective.
I can under the risk of getting pregnant is very real worry for women. But knocking up a girl that I don’t want knocked up is too. I get paranoid
Where did I say there is no birth control? Where did I say anything about screwing? Everything is the same, birth control is the same, just who gets pregnant and who has the sperm is opposite.
Ok. But pro choicers aren't pro abortion. They just want that life to be born in an environment it can be taken care of properly
Well that is dark
I forget to add JK :)
Children are expensive and a massive responsibility. If you think it doesn't affect someones life, you've clearly never had kids.
But men are made to provide, women are the ones looking for providers so we already do that hence we wouldn’t need a woman
So why do so many men run away and leave their kids alone with mommy
Because they can
Thats means they aren't strong enough to handle it clearly.
What? Omg lol, more than half of the men are manwhores, dreaming about having sex with as many women as they can. The difference is not all of them get laid. While its very easy for women to get sex since all the manwhores around them are always available
Is that the long way of agreeing with me?
If that's what you think you clearly did not read
Where do you see ignorance
No lol. The veil of ignorance is a thought-experiment about morality of things where the decision-maker has to make a decision not knowing where they would be in society.So for example, anyone deciding on abortion laws must do so from the position where that person must accept that there is a real possibility that they will end up with an unwanted pregnancy. It’s a tool to prevent people rationalizing from their own experience
But then isn't this the opposite?
It did not ask to be born and does not need to be born. Unless its fully developed