The British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke wrote, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." Therein lay the problem with laws that permit abortion on demand.
A society that premises its law as "Choice"- to use the locution of abortion rights advocates - effectively leaves open the question of the value of human life. It becomes not a standing principle, but a subjective judgment to each individual. In such a society, human life becomes not an end in itself, but mere instrument. Life becomes not an object whose preservation is the highest standard, but rather a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will.
We shape our laws and then our laws shape us - see also the civil rights laws of the 1960s which have effected a revolution in race relations. (The idea that a black man and a white man cannot sit together at the same lunch counter is as alien to this generation as Neptune. Yet in 1965 it was pretty much the norm.)
Inherent then in the pro-choice argument is the idea that life has no value save that which each person chooses to attach to it. It denies society any authority to make a collective judgment on such questions. Therefore, in this view, the law may not afford protection to life except at some arbitrarily defined (and inherently subjective) point.
This then conduces to an assertion of power over rights. Life is maintained not as its own end, but according to the will of the person who, effectively, controls it because they can. An ethic of convenience is established and it is a slippery slope on which to build a culture and a legal edifice.
Such a society will not value life that sees life as not an end, but as a means to some other end. Indeed, 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, spousal abuse, divorce, out of wedlock births and other social pathologies. These were not unrelated phenomena.
Aristotle said that the first questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" The implicit answer of those who support abortion on demand is, in effect, that it is nobody's business. Predictable results follow. One cannot expect the society to absent itself from collective moral judgments on the value of life and then expect an ethical social order to result.
I wonder what are your thoughts on an underage girl being raped by a serial killer and getting pregnant, only to find out the baby is retarded, are you against it then?
@Archerer In answer to question #1, they keep asking the same question and the answer is my starting point.
As to question #2, exceptions are made for rape, incest and the life of the mother. This being consistent with the principle of self-defense.
Those who choose abortion to escape the consequences of THEIR choices, intended or not, are foisting those costs on another individual being. This conducing to a society premised on moral relativism and the relative value of life - bad things to follow.
By contrast, where the person is a victim of circumstances not her choice, although it is not an easy call, a regard for human life postulates a principle of self-defense and thus, in those limited circumstances, abortion can be accepted if not necessarily encouraged.
If your own argument can't hold to its own standard, you know everything you are saying is flawed. As I've shown before... And yet you choose to keep arguing the same poor arguments.
@Archerer There is no contradiction, the preservation of life is the highest standard. "Preservation" here not just referring to its perpetuation but its protection.
Life is about hard choices. Where the rape victim is that, a victim, it is the preservation of that life - its protection and flourishing - that can be preferred consistent to the principle. The rape victim was denied the choice and cannot be made to suffer for that which was inflicted upon her.
This differs from the individual who chose a course of action and drew consequences from that chosen course. The individual is to be held to account for her (and his) choices and cannot inflict the consequences of those chosen actions upon another.
That would be fundamentally unjust and conduce to an ethic of moral relativism and irresponsibility.
That is absolutely a contradiction, you are alluding to two principles there, yet you only mention one at a time. But they absolutely contradict. I know you are a smart man, at this point its obvious you operate in bad faith.
@Archerer No, I am not. The value of life is not separate from how we treat life.
Beyond that, we want - see also my Burke quote - a society that relates freedom to responsibility and does not just blythley dubb to be good that which is inconsistent with virtue.
Well when you can't admit to the most basic flaw in deconstructing your argument, what point is there to continue? It's abundantly clear that you operate in bad faith, I thought at the very least you'd be consistent and say that even a rape baby still have the same value of human life as any other. What if the girl chooses to keep the rape baby?
@NoManTwo If the "morning after pill" prevents conception, then yes, it is mute. Otherwise, you are talking about a life and how it is treated from the moment of that conception.
The logical implication of those who make the pro-choice case argue that life is a mere instrument. A thing to be dispensed with according to one's will. That has profound implications.
Many justify calling abortion murder because when a pregnant woman is killed, it is often considered a double homicide. However, the keyword used in a court of law when this happens is the UNLAWFUL murder of an unborn child. An unlawful abortion is defined by an individual inducing harm on the mother or the pregnancy without the mother’s consent that causes the fetus to die. This is not the same as abortion. Abortion by definition is lawful and if consented by the mother, is legal under the court of law. The keyword here is consent. Another argument is that abortion causes post traumatic stress on a woman later on, and that has been debunked several times. The American Psychiatric Association has denied classifying post abortion syndrome as a disorder because there is no sufficient evidence that it is a real disorder, and have described post abortion syndrome as a political phenomenon, not a psychological problem. In fact, the majority of women describe having a weight lifted off their shoulders in the case of having an abortion. The last argument is that the woman should give the baby up for adoption and... No. A woman’s womb isn’t an incubator for another woman who wants a baby. If someone wants to adopt they can adopt one of the 437,000 currently in foster care. It is unethical to force a woman to give birth to a child she either doesn’t want, is the product of rape, or incest, etc.
Basically what I’m here to say is there is no actual reason to be pro-life. Whether a woman was raped, has health problems, or just doesn’t want to have a baby, then she has the right to get an abortion. That is the reality, and if you deny that reality then you are delusional. If you’re so “pro-life” maybe worry about the hundreds of actual living children that are starving and abused, and maybe even the children in cages at the border. Oh, I forgot, you only care about children when they’re in the womb, you don’t ACTUALLY care about children outside of that.
Legality and morality do not necessarily equate. In Nazi Germany it was lawful to throw Jews into ovens. That hardly conduced to a moral order.
That was my point, we shape the laws and the laws shape us. If we make law a mere instrument of power, that can very bad consequences. So we seek to orient law to moral norms that conduce to a virtuous social order.
Lol I just realized by this logic, and I am not saying you are religious or anything, but Mary should have aborted Jesus and it would be perfectly moral as God essentially raped her. Your argument, not mine...
@Archerer The individual made a choice and the just and moral society does not allow the individual to escape the consequences of those choices.
You kill someone in a drunk driving accident, you are charged with murder. You inflicted a consequence of your action on someone else.
Ditto, abortion is the inflicting of the consequences of a person's choices on another being. The child. This again rendering the child mere instrument.
Oh, as to your last point. Mary's words were, "Be it done to me as you have said." She CONSENTED. I am not that religious, but I have some background in theology and philosophy.
Well, again, to your own admittance, you say sometimes it is ok to render a child to a mere instrument in the cases of rape, and a few other exceptions, and you somehow don't see how that is a contradiction. When you impose a "highest" standard, there can't be contradictions, ever. So your standard isn't really that high, meaning it isn't that powerful.
And the Mary thing, I can give you that one it was just a funny thought I had.
Taking away the right for a woman to decide if she wants an abortion, you are stripping away the right to free will that God gave to us from the moment He created man. I also want to explain how when a woman makes the decision to get an abortion, that is between her and God. Luke 6:37 is clear about judging others, stating “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;”. According to the Bible, you have no right to condemn her because at the end of the day God is the only one who has the right to judge. So whatever decision the woman makes, that has to do with her relationship with God, and that does not involve you.
But I would argue that God telling you he's going to do something is like someone putting a gun to your head and saying "so let it be" sounds more like defeated acceptance of what will happen then explicit consent. But anyway that is neither here nor there and the bible is dumb anyway.
@Archerer No, but there are difficult choices to be made. When the individual has herself been rendered an instrument, then a balance need be struck. The law here makes allowance, but the situation is restricted and limited. The person's will is not the sole criteria.
When you must weigh an absolute against an absolute, you are left to set a standard that protects one life. This is different then laying out a standard that says, point-blank, the child is always a mere instrument.
In one, we are making an accommodation to a complex reality of two competing absolutes. In the other, you have simply reduced one absolute to, as I say, a mere instrument of the will of the other.
Right, and in the first there is a contradiction, and in the second there isn't. Therefore, abortions aren't that big a deal, and should be accessible, free, and legal.
Free will is not absolute. Free will you have but that does not mean, ipso facto that its exercise conduces to a moral outcome.
That was the whole point of the Garden of Eden story - man chose to rebel and paid the price for his rebellion. Specifically his exile from Paradise.
Indeed, in choosing to exercise free will and assume that is its own moral standard, Adam took upon himself the Godhead. "If ye eat of the fruit of the tree, ye shall be as gods, knowing good from evil."
"Knowing" here meaning deciding what is right and wrong according not to the will of God, but according to his own choice. This being the Original Sin.
In any case, in terms of the law, your argument works even less. Imagine a society that left it to each individual to decide whether or not, in the name of their free will, they wanted to take over someone else's house and kick them out.
@Archerer To the contrary, that is why the argument is so elemental. It is about society deciding whether freedom or virtue is the defining standard of law and society. Is freedom an end in itself or ought it conduce to a moral standard and virtue?
If the former, you lose the capacity to draw any lines. You are in the reductio ad absurdum of relativism.
Just because it is about hard choices and measured judgments does not mean that it is unimportant. Indeed, once upon a time, it was considered not a matter of great moment that some states would not allow blacks and whites should be allowed to sit at the same lunch counter and indeed that forcing shop owners to integrate would be a violation of their freedom.
Thus one freedom was pitted against another and a measured choice was made.
See, we've been over this too.. The most civilized, advanced, most free, and most intelligent societies have all voted that abortion should remain legal. So another way your argument fails. Every one of your argument falls apart but you are unwilling to admit it.
@Archerer So? The trajectory of Western civilization since the Enlightenment has been toward freedom as an end in itself. Thus you end up in bitter debates, such as we now have in the US, over race and other characteristics and values that extend beyond freedom.
Freedom is a means to an end and not an end in itself. Much of the conflicts that exist in Western societies have been born of the fact that they have not wrapped their arms around that fact.
Suffice to say that the debate has been a source of much conflict. Free beings unbound by other values are as apt to be savages as saints.
So the only thing that matters, is a woman's choice, and her well being, both mentally and physically, beyond that any argument is unfounded and poorly constructed.
@Archerer Nope. That is the point. You have made individual freedom the end and not the means to the end. Thus all being become mere instruments of the will of the individual. This then conducing to an ethic of power - he or she who has the power defines the right.
That has not worked out very well historically speaking.
You are going in circles, you said yourself it's ok for an unborn baby to be slaughtered, so long as it was a product of rape (by no choice of it's own by the way), thereby making it an instrument... Which contradicts your first point. And the fact that I need to keep repeating it and you do some mental gymnastics to avoid the contradiction is why I know you are operating in bad faith.
It gets even worse because your mental gymnastics involved making "two wrongs a right," so not only does it defy your highest principles, it destroys the sentiment that humans have intrinsic value, and it isn't even consistent within itself independent from your highest principles.
@Archerer "So the only thing that matters, is a woman's choice, and her well being, both mentally and physically, beyond that any argument is unfounded and poorly constructed"
@Archerer No I did not say that. I said that in self-defense of a person who was given no choice, it is allowable. That is to say that in the defense of the individual, it is a permissible - not a desirable choice.
Again, you pit the absolute value of one life against that of another. The rape victim was denied the choice and had her value thereby infringed.
By contrast, the individual who chose to have sex - even if pregnancy was not anticipated - had a choice. She now gives primacy to her choice over the value of another life.
One is a balancing of value. The other a preference for choice over that value. The latter case being relevant as a just society does not allow the individual to foist the cost of his or her choices onto another.
Thus why if you drive drunk and kill someone, you are NOT left off the hook simply because you did not desire to kill the other person. Choices have consequences and you take responsibility for them.
"Again, you pit the absolute value of one life against that of another. The rape victim was denied the choice and had her value thereby infringed."
No, I am not. The raped woman is alive, her life isn't at risk. The fetus doesn't know it was a product of rape, it wasn't it's choice. YOU are putting the value of a rape baby against that of a baby that was conceived willingly.
@Archerer Her humanity was denied to her. She was the object of another being who had the power to impose her will upon her another and she is left to take the consequences. Thus further denying her humanity.
She had no options, she was reduced to mere object. To rectify that imbalance, it is permissible to allow her to restore the status quo ante. (By the way, as an aside, I am friends with a rape victim who kept the baby.)
The bottom line is this. Your standard is that the starting point is the human being is mere instrument. (Indeed, it would be interesting to see at what point you would deny an abortion up to the moment the baby is about to leave the birth canal. What line is drawn consistent to your principle.)
We either write the law such that we begin with the idea that the human being has intrinsic value, or we begin that the value is relative and subjective. If the latter, certain implications follow.
And no, I don't believe human life has intrinsic value, or if it does, it's very little. Enough to allow abortions at the very least with no moral qualms.
And you agree, you already said many times that the life of a rape baby has less value than one that isn't a rape baby.
@Archerer So a man in a coma is not human? So a sleeping person is not human? A person on life support?
You would not be good for the medical profession. Not to mention the fact that we have no way of determining "conscious thought." Does a newborn infant "consciously think?"
What is the determinant? In that connection, why should conscious thought trump autonomic functions? On what basis do you make that distinction?
Be careful. You start going down some very dark rabbit holes at this point.
Oh, and no, I did NOT say a "rape baby" has less value. Only that the victim, denied her personhood, has equal value and that cannot be denied.
A man in a coma is a man in a coma, not a fetus in a womb. Different conversation.
There is also a difference between losing consciousness (like when we sleep) and not having the capacity for conscious thought at all. Like why kicking a ball isn't wrong but kicking someone in the head might be.
And yes, I would absolutely argue that someone who is not in a coma has more value than someone who is in a coma, assuming that both people are good people.
You asked me for a line, I gave it to you, I didn't say we have the perfect technology to determine the exact moment of it. But lets say 24 weeks, because I don't even see conscious thought as a "defining" moment, but a spectrum, and as long as you get it at the beginning of the spectrum it's no big deal.
Conscious thought is probably the only truly "human" element that would give any value to life beyond any other animal. Without conscious thought I'd find it very hard to argue a human is any more "valuable" than an ant. Even with conscious thought that is a hard argument to make.
And yes you did say that it is ok to kill a rape baby but not a baby created without rape.
@Archerer No, not a different conversation. Unless you care to explain why consciousness matters in one case but not in another.
A man in a coma has no more conscious though than does the baby in the womb. Indeed, both, if allowed to develop with no complications, may gain conscious thought. Allowing for circumstantial differences, each has the potential for conscious thought.
Indeed, in any case, it is unclear why conscious thought matters. Animals have some degree of conscious thought. Instinct and such. They make choices and judge their situation. It is primitive compared to human conscious thought, but conscious thought it is.
So are you now extending protections that you would not give to an unborn baby to a racoon? This gets pretty dicey.
As to how you judge a "good person" such that the preservation of their life is afforded legal protections, that is unusual. You are, as I say, going down some dark holes.
@Archerer Consistent is not necessarily good. The Nazis were consistent. Jews are bad - whether or not they were good Jews nor bad ones.
Indeed, you are now making moral judgments on coma victims to the extent of judging their right to go on living. At the very least, you have made my point that your base premise is that life has no value other than that which you decide individually choose to attribute to it.
I've already addressed all your questions. Anyway I have some work to do, please stop your copy and paste answer which has been shown to be flawed over and over again. It's dishonest and deceit.
Writing the same answer is more dishonest in this case because your points have been disproven, continuing to state them after they are disproven is acting in bad faith.
Before I give my own take, it's important to note that most abortions are a struggle to make a choice on. Parents regret their choice so often, and it's traumatic no matter what. In that sense, I do not judge those who have to make that choice. My condolences go out to the families that have had abortions, I hold no judgement for you because you've already had more than enough trauma.
That said, abortions are not something I agree with. I would rather die than give up a baby. I personally believe that every baby is what God wants born and that's why a mother is blessed with one. If your choice comes from a tough place I understand, but I BEG of young adults to take this seriously and have safe sex. Abortion should be your LAST resort. Educate yourself on birth control methods, check in with Planned Parenthood (who offers great advice on things like this), and try your best to only conceive of a child when you wish to actually have one.
I know foster care is dog shit, which is why I'm not saying stop all abortions. I just wish people were more educated so that we wouldn't have so many...
I agree that the foster system is a disgrace, but im still against abortion.
The outright outlawing of abortions would flood the foster system with children. To create a little more balance i suggest 2 things. 1: I think in the interests of bodily autonomy, women should be allowed to get their tubes tied or get a hysterectomy without restrictions (if they want children later in life they can adopt, thus helping the influx caused by outlawing abortions). 2: any funds allocated for abortions could be repurposed for the (hopefully reformed) foster care system.
Yes, a woman has the right to her own body and no man can her choose. But it’s always an unfortunate situation to be in, so we should try to make sure it’s used when necessary.
You don't have unlimited liberty; the "my body, my choice" argument is a dumb cliche. You can't use your body to harm others. You wouldn't say "my body, my choice" to justify using your body to stab someone. No, we have always limited bodily autonomy in ways that prevents individuals from doing harm to others. That's why I am against abortions, by the way; abortions involve torturing babies to death. Just remember that. You are for torturing babies to death because of the inconveniences that can come with pregnancy.
@Twinrova abortions happen. If you make it illegal it happens in back alleys and unlicensed apartments. If it’s legal, it’s done safely in clinics or hospitals. Those are yo he two choices. Which do you want?
1. Abortion is illegal and practiced in dangerous locations, killing far more women. 2. Abortion is legal and practiced in safe locations.
Option 1. Because what you are not considering is that when abortion is ilegal, people will seek it out a lot less. And by the way, if you are worried about health repercussions from back valley procedures, then I would advise you not to get one... if people make a dumb decision that they don't have to make, I am not at fault. No one is forcing you to torture your son or daughter to death.
@Twinrova If you want to force women to seek out illegal people to give them unsafe abortions, then you have lost the moral high ground. Whether it is legal or not doesn't change the need for women to get abortion. It just changes how safe it is. You chose unsafe abortions instead of safe ones, which makes you evil.
I'm satisfied with how this ended. You are at the point where you are done contending with my arguments, and are instead just calling me names. You didn't address my reasoning at all.
No, I do not want women to have back alley abortions. I want women to have no abortions; hence, why I am suggesting making it illegal. Now, if you want to break the law to do something that is also immoral, that is on you. If people go ahead and pursue something prohibited by the law, that puts them at risk, the people who advocated for the aforementioned laws are not to blame. What you are doing is a kin to accusing people who say cocaine should be ilegal as evil-doers, because if cocaine wasn't ilegal, people could get the drug by safer means. The point is that if someone breaks the law to do something immoral, their well-being is not the responsibility of those who made/advocated for said laws.
@Twinrova I wish I could insert he picture of a reddit post where a guy forced her girlfriend to give birth (even tho she wanted an abortion) and now he is a single parent and keeps bitching about it. The girl signed over her parental rights to him and pays 125% child support. But the guys just keeps whining about how hard it is to be a single parent how he resents his son. He even tried to give shared custody to her but she didn't want it. LoL
@Twinrova Making it illegal does nothing to prevent abortions, it just makes them dangerous. Preventing abortions is a completely different discussion involving preventing rape, better access to birth control etc. By making it illegal you *want* women to have dangerous abortions. Which is absolutely evil, and disgusting.
Wow, if this isn't a topic that has been discussed to death and yet... people and in particular religious zealots can't let it be. It is like they have this mission from god to be holier than though and make sure everyone falls in line with what they believe.
"Do you support abortion?" Honestly every single Christian should support abortion, simply because it is a one way ticket to heaven and is that not the goal of every Christian to achieve?
If you really think about it, bringing anyone into this hell on earth to perhaps chose wrongly and end up in hell... How can you justify not aborting any child to ensure they do end up in heaven? Unless, you believe that that they carry a blood libel from the original sin of Adam and thus need to be baptized... else go straight to hell.
You know just like every person who has ever lived on earth and was not Christian, and thus did not accept the lord Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Since, only through him can we even hope to go to heaven when we die. That's the ticket right, you can commit the most horrible things and yet, as long as you accept the Jesus as your personal Lord and … you will go to heaven.
I guess all the non-Christians are screwed, no matter how much good they do... cause they are going straight to hell. So, let's bypass this BS and abort them all, so that they the innocent are without sin and will go straight to heaven.
1
7 Reply
Asker
+1 y
You can just leave all that Christian bullshit at the door. Thanks.
Oh, I own my anger issues.. and you are currently the focus of my anger... trust me, I am having to back of this crap with you... I'm just trying to be a better person than I have been in the past, You are not making it easy for me today. Honestly, I'm a fraction away from doing things I swore I would never do online again. Please don't push me,.
Asker
+1 y
You called me a bitch without a reason and I am the one pushing you? Don't make me laugh.
I dont support it. I think the only time it should ever even be considered is in cases of non-consent (r@pe)
I feel like abortion is selfish and immature. If the parents are consenting adults who make a baby, why should the baby die? So it doesn't change the parents' lifestyle? So they dont face a difficult situation? So they can avoid the responsibility of raising the child they made?
I have no interest in telling anyone what to do with their body, and i believe their only choice was having unprotected sex. I dont believe that abortion (murder in my opinion) should even be a choice. I'll never support anyone killing the baby they made while engaging in consensual intercourse. If they choose to have sex, the ultimate result will eventually be a child. isn't that them choosing what to do with their body knowing a baby could be the result? What about the baby's body? It shouldn't be torn apart because of someone elses choice.
I had a conversation with someone here a few months back who believes in abortion but also believes the baby should be considered a living person with full human rights from conception, but they also believe that a womans right to bodily autonomy overrides the baby's right to live. In short, an innocent child can be sentenced to death if at any point during pregnancy the mother decides she doesn't want it. How is that not murder? Even criminals who have commited the most heinous acts imaginable have the chance to argue for their lives before ultimately losing their right to live.
Unfortunately all of my arguments are based on the belief that a baby should be considered a human with human rights from conception, which unfortunately people simply dont agree with in todays society.
Of course. But i also support a thing that maybe not everyone agree's with but i see fair a man can legally disown the baby, if the person he was with told him she was getting an abortion and promised she didn't want a child and all that. Not really fair if a women traps you with a child when both agreed to not having one. Kinda like the same problem that happens with marriages without prenups, she can divorce and take most of what you own. Pretty simple women should legally be allowed to get rid of a baby, men should be legally protected from been trapped with one cause sadly guys cannot just abort a baby themselves not are capability or choice.
Yes. Abortions have been constantly going down since roe vs wade with sex education and avaliable birth control (including avaliable abortion clinics.) So any antiabortionist that think it is morally abhorrent should consider pro choice activism as the best solution, as it is the leading factor to less abortions.
That's not the case or focus of antiabortionist agenda. It's more of a punishment for sex pre marriage kinda thing. It's to protect the sanctuary of marriage amd the virgin bride. To the point where parents arranged marriage to there underage daughter to marry there rapist because women are less then human after being raped. So the only salvation is marriage with the rapist. Common with the American Bible belt or other religions in the Middle East.
My stance on abortion is pro choice, the reason I believe this is because of child hood pregnancy leading to a bad life for both the child and the mother, rape, incest and other problematic issues. On top of the fact that if you are saying that we are gods children and that is your main argument then you clearly do not understand that there is a separation between church and state so that should not be a law, it could be a sin under your religious beliefs but that does not mean it should be a law..
At as early as 21 weeks a baby can survive outside the mother's womb on life support. At that point they can think and feel and are aware of their surroundings and are a discrete human being. At 13 weeks a fetus is not able to feel or think and is therefore not yet a human being. Some where in between those two points an unthinking unfeeling fetus becomes a person. Scientists are not in agreement as to exactly when. So this means that an abortion within the first 13 weeks does not constitute killing a person. After 21 weeks it does and in between we simply do not know. It is best to err on the side of caution and simply not do it after 13 weeks at all until we know for certain when they become a person. To protect the rights of the unborn I would suggest banning after 13 weeks and the further along the pregnancy is during that period that an abortion occurs the more time in prison the responsible party should get. But prior to 13 weeks it should be the woman's right to get an abortion.
I respect it in terms of autonomy and not complete freedom. I believe that it needs legal intervention. Any pregnancy that leads to destruction of family or mental health like forced marriage, rape (very obvious examples) should be dealt with care. I mean i can imagine the hatred I'll build up if I had to pay for a child and "mother" because she forced herself on me while i was drunk. Also adoption is not the best solution to these cases since first of all there's a limit to how many adopted children a nation ca afford. And second being if a child has parents who could provide them better than the adoption center, he/she is likely to take a stand. There are intricacies to the situation and also could wary from nation to nation as well.
Yes but men should be able to opt out if they don't feel they're ready either. Meaning... Men are forced to do child support even though it takes two to tango and in the end women have the final say with their body. Total double standard so here's what I support, if women can just pull the plug on parenthood even if the father wants to be a dad, a man should be able to opt out of the picture if they aren't ready yet. However if the father does opt out they do not have to do child support, but they also have no legal right to visitation until the situation changes. I don't think that this is unreasonable.
0
3 Reply
Asker
+1 y
Okay, but the question wasn't about child support.
I know but what I'm saying is the only legal way I've ever heard supported to do as close to the equivalent abortion for men. This is assuming that in the ideal world for pro choice people (which I am by the way) is that abortion is legal and safe but men have no legal say in the matter even if the child was born out of consent. In my eyes it's the only way to make this completely fair.
I don't make it a habit of passing judgement on people over something that doesn't concern me, and has nothing to do with me.
I'm not capable of getting pregnant, and I have no intention of getting anyone else pregnant, so what right do I have to say that it's right or wrong?
2
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
As someone who has done an abortion before i support it and i also don't. For me i did the abortion because i was afraid, I'm still in college and i broke up withbthe guy. He was so abusive. I was not ready, i couldn't bring my child into this suffering i don't have enough money to support it. I would have probably dropped out of school and my parents would have shipped me out to get married to someone i don't love.
Part of me always won what if i kept the baby. It alwqys hurts me, everyone has a right to life and i took that right away from someone. I got a myself a dog last month and i always feel like he is the child i lost coz the first time i saw him i just knew that he was the one.
For health reasons or in cases of molestation or rape, yes... For people that keep choosing to practice unsafe sex (no condom, no birth control) and keep getting abortions, yes! I personally feel they should lower the age a doctor will perform a tubal ligation for women. Although it's not impossible, I had mine done by the time I was 28... If you don't want children, find a responsible way to prevent that. If you can't, then don't have sex...
I am strongly against abortion. It's a basic fact of biology that an unborn child has his or her own DNA and heartbeat and that he or she can feel pain and is therefore a separate and distinct human being from his or her mother.
In the end though, since God is the principal Author and Creator of life, and it is He who ultimately created the child in the womb, to abort an unborn child is not only murder, but it is a serious injustice to God.
Thou who is without sin shall cast the first stone. Convenient how religious forget that key lesson & judge mothers harshly. Who do you think will make their way to hell first?
No, not really. The start of human life is philosophically ambiguous. But what's for certain is if each of us was aborted we wouldn't be here today. So when someone gets an abortion they're preventing a human that could've been alive years from then.
And you look at most abortions and they're 99.99% from people who simply did not use contraception and are treating abortion as plan C birth control.
What really bothers me are the pro-abortion morons who make up the stupidest arguments to defend abortion. Most of it is just slogan making without any logic.
1
12 Reply
Asker
+1 y
A woman’s womb isn’t an incubator for another woman who wants a baby. If someone wants to adopt they can adopt one of the 437,000 currently in foster care. It is unethical to force a woman to give birth to a child she either doesn’t want, is the product of rape, or incest, etc.
Basically what I’m here to say is there is no actual reason to be pro-life. Whether a woman was raped, has health problems, or just doesn’t want to have a baby, then she has the right to get an abortion. That is the reality, and if you deny that reality then you are delusional. If you’re so “pro-life” maybe worry about the hundreds of actual living children that are starving and abused, and maybe even the children in cages at the border.
Sigh... you people are all robots who use the same lines. "Clump of cells..." Guess what? You're considered a clump of cells right now.
Your mother wanted you? So people's humanity depends on if their mother wants them. Nah, there's plenty of people on this Earth who were unplanned and unwanted and their parents had them anyway. I've had friends who were put up for adoption because their mother was 17.
I think it'd be great if everyone who is an abortion zealot would've been aborted themselves instead.
"I think it'd be great if everyone who is an abortion zealot would've been aborted themselves instead."
Funny how you go around crying how evil abortion is then you go ahead and wish people who are pro-choice should have been aborted as well. Lmao talk about hypocrisy.
If anyone deserves to be aborted it's the abortionists. Imagine being granted life just to preach to other people that they should deny other people's life.
Well, you're obviously evil. Shouldn't we control evil people so they can't carry out their malevolence? And don't worry, my mother is an evil cunt herself, so it doesn't matter what she thinks.
I do in some instances, like if the woman was raped, she should not have to carry and bear the child of a rapist or if the mother's and/or embryo's life was in danger.
Other than that no. Some women treat it as a form of birth control. They get drunk or just have unprotected sex and then BAM bun in the oven.
Honestly, the world is over populated but the pandemic is making short work of that.
The fact that we are having to clear more and more land to build homes for people to live in. The fact that when the pipeline shutdown it didn't take an hour to drain most has stations dry in the matter of hours. The fact that when the pandemic hit certain commodities were scarce like disinfectant spray and wipes. They fact that we have to share good and water with other countries. If the world were to stop for 30 days more than half of the earths population would die out because there isn't enough food to sustain the masses without a constant supply. Anyone that can't see that the world is over crowded is in denial or blind. We have prisons that are over flowing, traffic jams on a 6 lane highway.
I support the right to choose. I'm in no position to say what's best for someone else. Abortions will always be a necessary medical treatment for a variety of reasons, none of which are anyone's business but the pregnant person and their doctor.
Abortions need to remain legal, at the same time, trying to reduce the number by enhancing sex education and access. The abortion clinics do A LOT more than just perform abortions. If people want to call it murder, then fine. I guess murder isn’t always wrong then, thanks for clearing up the long standing debate. Play semantics if you want, it’s abundantly clear that where abortions are illegal things get a lot worse.
I support abortion in the broader context of reproductive rights. I don't think you can have an abortion discussion without talking about male reproductive rights. If a woman has the right to abort the fetus, then the man should have the right to a paternity test prior to his name being put on the birth certificate and have the option to abdicate fatherhood without being responsible for any child support afterwards if he so chooses.
Technically yes, but the true answer is more complicated than that. I support only early term abortions comfortably, maybe mid-term but likely not, and firmly oppose late-term abortions.
Also, I think abortion should be the last resort, not something people should readily use.
And the reason is because I human life doesn't start at conception.
0
1 Reply
Asker
+1 y
Yeah I should have specified I meant early term abortions only.
I support someone's right to choose yes. However late term should be avoided, and only reserved for emergencies if the mother won't survive the pregnancy. Most of them happen very early anyway though.
I support abortion. I believe, that people have the right to choose for themselves without the judgment of another.
2
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I'm not against mothers killing their children. I'm only against politicians volunteering other people's money to do it. Of course, with the techniques they developed and approved for getting it done, we're already seeing a decline in birth rates, so maybe it's worth it to sterilize the poor segment of the population.
Volunteer yourselves for eugenics. Probably better for the species anyway.
If she doesn't want the baby, then I'll raise them by myself. Either way I'll never see her again, because I may forgive her for killing my child, but I will never love her.
No, not under any circumstances. Innocent babies do not deserve death sentences. Thou shall not kill
2
8 Reply
Asker
+1 y
If you use Christianity as an excuse to support forced birth, then I automatically assume you are a fake Christian because that is sacrilegious. John 7:17, “Anyone who chooses the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own”. This clearly talks about free will. By taking away the right for a woman to decide if she wants an abortion, you are stripping away the right to free will that God gave to us from the moment He created man. I also want to explain how when a woman makes the decision to get an abortion, that is between her and God. Luke 6:37 is clear about judging others, stating “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;”. According to the Bible, you have no right to condemn her because at the end of the day God is the only one who has the right to judge. So whatever decision the woman makes, that has to do with her relationship with God, and that does not involve you.
If you’re so “pro-life” maybe worry about the hundreds of actual living children that are starving and abused, and maybe even the children in cages at the border. Oh, I forgot, you only care about children when they’re in the womb, you don’t ACTUALLY care about children outside of that.
People ULTIMATELY have the right to free will. But if they freely choose the wrong actions or behavior, they will reap the possible consequences of that choice
@mrkdvsn - Thou who is without sin shall cast the first stone. Convenient how religious forget that key lesson & judge mothers harshly. Who do you think will make their way to hell first?
Sometimes it's necessary. It's better than bring a child into the world and the parents aren't able to support the child properly or worse the parents resent the child's existence.
I will only support it when men have the same right to completely disown an unwanted child, without consequence financial or otherwise. Call it financial abortion. When men have that right, i will support abortion.
No. Abortion is murder. "Thou shalt not kill"(Exodus 20:13). It is the mecca of irresponsible people who would try to live a dissolute life and escape its consequences, and succeed only in proving that they should not be in adult relationships in the first place, nor engaging in adult activities such as sex. Its supporters should be thankful that they were even born in the first place. George Floyd probably made choices that led to his death; an unborn baby cannot.
1
7 Reply
Asker
+1 y
The biggest argument is religious here so I’ll start with that. If you use Christianity as an excuse to support forced birth, then I automatically assume you are a fake Christian because that is sacrilegious. John 7:17, “Anyone who chooses the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own”. This clearly talks about free will. By taking away the right for a woman to decide if she wants an abortion, you are stripping away the right to free will that God gave to us from the moment He created man. I also want to explain how when a woman makes the decision to get an abortion, that is between her and God. Luke 6:37 is clear about judging others, stating “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;”. According to the Bible, you have no right to condemn her because at the end of the day God is the only one who has the right to judge. So whatever decision the woman makes, that has to do with her relationship with God, and that does not involve you.
Real Christians don't engage in immorality (1 Corinthians 6:9) and this is the biggest contributor to abortion. And Christians do not murder (1 John 3:12). Immorality and murder affect one's relationship with God. So, you are correct.
At the last moment God stopped Abraham from doing so. There was a ram caught in a thicket, and Abraham sacrificed the ram instead (Genesis 22:1;11-14).
The Scripture says that God simply wanted to test Abraham's faith (Genesis 22:1) Abraham passed the test. A cruel and sadistic God would not have stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son (Verse 11), and would not have had Moses forbid His people from adopting the Canaanite pattern of worship, which involved the sacrifice of children (Deuteronomy 12:30,31).
Still doesn't change the fact God is a douchebag so. by the way non of these fairy tale things matter. I only brought them up cause you seem to be one of those "Christians".
No, I don't because I believe that getting rid of a developing baby who can't defend itself is indeed a cruel act. Say what you will, but I don't support it
2
10 Reply
Asker
+1 y
It's not a baby in the early stages of pregnancy. It's just a clump of cells and it can't feel or have consciousness.
I bet blonde has had so many penises in her mouth that her tonsils and the penises are on a first name basis. They probably have nick names for all of her teeth.
It is not a baby, it’s an embryo, a group of cells that cannot survive or grow outside the womb. Maybe you should go back to health class and learn about fetal development.
@888theGreat All these pro-life people so self righteous like you all really care about these babies. Get out of folks womb and get a life. Mind your business.
Yes. There's many reasons as to why a female would want or need an abortion. Who are we to refuse or harass someone for thier human rights. Your body, your decision as far as I'm concerned
@NorthwestRider You people have no empathy. You screw over people left and right and don't care about them, and have no sense of family, community, just everyone out for themselves. I don't understand your ruthlessness and coldness and how you sleep with yourself at night while you manipulate and deceive and screw everyone over in favor of your own self-interest
@NorthwestRider Being a male feminist asskisser? I have never met a single noble male feminist. You would be an exception to the rule if I misjudged you. I am still pro-choice, mind you, but I care about ethics. The vast majority of people have to be pretty irresponsible to get to the point of unwanted pregnancy. I don't like encouraging irresponsibility. I've already done very well for myself in life, accomplished all my dreams, and so I am a little nosy about ethics and things that affect other people. I want to raise my kids in a world that isn't nihilistic.
@NorthwestRider You have to be kind of nosy if you embrace responsibilities of a kind that takes care of other people and not just yourself. Well, I'm still confused whether you are pro-life or pro-choice like me here. I'm nosy but in this sense: I'm a libertarian as Americans call it.
@NorthwestRider It's like I don't approve of narcotics abuse but I'm against the war on drugs since I think locking people behind bars is worse than rehabilitating them. I'm mostly against criminalizing all but the worst things. But I'm in favor of at least attempting to persuade people towards responsibility, ethics, things of this nature.
@NorthwestRider I don't even think I'm that nosy either. Say I have a teenage daughter who gets pregnant, and her guy wants nothing to do with it. I am a little bit nosy like I want to persuade her to have the child. My wife and I can support her. We'll do everything we can to make sure she and her baby will have a secure and comfortable life. But if she seeks to abort, I'm not going to seek to make her actions criminal and see her behind bars. It's still her decision at the end of the day if I fail to persuade her otherwise. The pro-life types would put her behind bars if she was caught trying to abort. My nosiness never reaches the point of force. I care about these things but I'm not trying to force people to do what I think is right.
@888theGreat - the greater sin, of course, is judging others. Yet the religious conveniently forget that. I wonder how many times Jesus laughs at them as they burn their way into hell.
@Asker I know. Coming from a religious family - more than pew fillers but priests, etc. - I find such people amusing in a way. They don't realize in their ignorance they're sinning more than the people they condemn.
@SomeBlondeChick Yeah, I find the ones especially funny who say things like they wanna stone me to death or burn me at a stake for supporting abortion. What true Christians they are.
@SomeBlondeChick Bible says what I say, i am just repeating it. No judging at all, but I notice people like you that know it is wrong seem to squirm and can't handle the truth.
Doesn't seem like it. Luke 6:37 is clear about judging others, stating “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven".
@888theGreat - ... ROFL. Child molestation in the church is far less common than it is among the general populace. And thank you for proving you've no understanding of religious teachings or did you not see the comment of judging others. That is ONLY the right of God which meager men will never be.
Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible against modern-day absorption. I suggest you read it. The closest concept to absorption is killing a fetus in anger... I believe it is in Moses & Ex. 21:22-25 in which if a mother is struck in anger by a rival & her child forfeited then the father has every right in which to kill a member of the murderer's family. Eye for an eye.
@888theGreat - 2. Unlike you I've quite a bit of self-respect & a sense of worth. And unlike you I've nothing to be ashamed of. You, on the other hand, should look in the mirror if you can face yourself on a day to day basis that.
@888thegreat Wow just wow. That's all you have to say to her? Implying that she is a slut or something just because she's way smarter than you and you've got nothing relevant or even remotely sensible to say? Lmao it's a weird hill to die on my dude.
And you are at it again with the judging lol. You've learnt nothing.😂👏
@888theGreat - and three times now you have sinned in last than 24 hours. How does it feel? I am rather curious as you hide behind the religious claim but you're hardly religious. You judge women who are thinking of abortion which is a sin, you judge my relatives as priests on child molestation claims which is a sin, and you judge me as a slut which is a sin
@Asker - just leave him. He's likely so-called "religious" who go on about abortion and similar things. They aren't religious. They're not even close. To just know the ten commandments is a mockery of God, of Jesus and of Christianity as a whole. When their end of days come they'll be judged accordingly.
Abortion has nothing to do with women's health or rights. The babies rights is what I am concerned for. What it is , is stupid blonde bitches that can't keep their legs together and then want the baby to pay for their mistake and immaturity for getting pregnant in the first place. So, the baby must die so you can get knocked up by another guy the next day.
@888theGreat - You call yourself Christian? Speaking like that. I hope your mother is long gone from this world so she can't be ashamed of such a disgrace. ... In reality you're not even religious but a farce hiding your shameful self and hoping you'll get into heaven. ... We'll see who has a "one way ticket to hell" but it won't be me for one.
@Asker - like said, leave him. I'm amused by such "religious" people. There are many like 888theGreat in the world. I believe it is their own inferiority that makes them behave as they do. What better way to "elevate" oneself than to judge & degrade others. And as they are not really religious they don't realize that they're "digging their own graves" as the saying goes by being sinful.
@888theGreat - what insults have I said to you? Hmmm.. You've been nothing but ignorant & demeaning towards myself. First with my family & asking how many child molested. Then acting like a toddler in saying I am a slut. Hmmm.. Please enlighten me with what insults I said to you? I'm curious if it is as groundless as your religious claims.
@888thegreat It's so interesting to me that the Christian guy keeps bringing up sexual topics. Let's hope Jesus won't see your commens also hope you don't masturbate cause it's a sin as well. 😂
@888theGreat - I'm not judging anyone. I am just repeating what you did. What you said. What is reality. You, on the other hand, are rather judgmental to fit in with your personal ideology. I mean I said twice I've only been with 2 men but as you'd already judged me as a slut I might as well have said nothing.
@888thegreat Here you go altar boy. Something for you to think about.
"The "unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
He is a false prophet , there are many, most pastors are these days. They run a church like a business with first goal money instead of getting people to heaven. Besides he is Methodist , not Baptist.
@888theGreat - the typical telepriest is a baptist. They are the typical scammers taking advantage of the uneducated, ignorant, etc. specifically in certain areas of the US. Kenneth Copeland is a prime example of these baptist "priests" as he, lover of satan that he is, has even gone so far into sin he has made his followers pay for four private jets to spew his garbage "gospel" better.
@888theGreat - judging what? It's a statement of fact. He conned his followers into paying for his private jets. Gluttony and greed which Copeland is such he's lucky he doesn't drown are two of the biggest of the seven sins. If you actually knew the bible you'd know this.
@jack9949 - why don't men? Many young women are left raising a child alone because their jackass boyfriend is too chicken-livered & cowardly to be a father.
If you don't even care about children why the fuck are you here judging women who get abortions? Why does it concern you so much if you don't even care? Hmm?
@MyNameJames they don't support abortion, but they think it's the individual's choice, not their own. They'd never get an abortion, but it would be because they choose not to, bot because it's illegal.
18.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Prove god exists before I hand over custody.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
It's murder but feel free to do it if you want. You're the one who will go to hell for it not me.
1
4 Reply
Asker
+1 y
If you use Christianity as an excuse to support forced birth, then I automatically assume you are a fake Christian because that is sacrilegious. John 7:17, “Anyone who chooses the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own”. This clearly talks about free will. By taking away the right for a woman to decide if she wants an abortion, you are stripping away the right to free will that God gave to us from the moment He created man. I also want to explain how when a woman makes the decision to get an abortion, that is between her and God. Luke 6:37 is clear about judging others, stating “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;”. According to the Bible, you have no right to condemn her because at the end of the day God is the only one who has the right to judge. So whatever decision the woman makes, that has to do with her relationship with God, and that does not involve you.
As for scientific reasoning, according to CDC, 92.2% of abortions are performed in the first trimester of development. Because of this there is no “vacuum” or surgically “dismembering” body parts of a fetus because it’s body isn’t even developed yet. Instead you take 2 pills. First you take Mifepristone, blocking progesterone causing the lining of the uterus to break down. 24-48 hours after you take Mifepristone, you take Misoprostol which cause the uterus to contract and the embryo and uterine lining are expelled. Scientifically, it is impossible for a fetus to feel pain at this point in development or have consciousness. It is not a person. By definition it is more of a parasite leeching off of you until it is ready to be born.
Thou who is without sin shall cast the first stone. Convenient how religious forget that key lesson & judge mothers harshly. Who do you think will make their way to hell first?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(30-35)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
u +1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions