Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

**noxious.sunshine** · 06-25-2013, 03:57 AM

Probably a can of worms I shouldn't open, but. I done did.

How do you feel about abortion?

**Unknown Entity** · 06-25-2013, 08:30 AM

It is a difficult subject to talk about because you have no idea who you may offend, and I don't think many people grasp exactly how it must feel to have a decision as such weighing them down, or even being haunted by the decision that was made. I think my beliefs lay with prevention before pro-life and pro-choice.

First and foremost, I believe that if two people that are having sex don't want to have kids, then it's their responsibility to make sure they don't. That is the only way to avoid the subject. In this day and age, it's not as though there aren't enough contraception advice and methods available. There's condoms, pills, injections, patches, and those disgusting implants and inserts with spermicide things.

I wouldn't say I was pro-life, but I believe that abortion should be thought of as a last resort. I guess what is considered a "last resort" differ from person to person, and I won't judge what people think their options are or could be. If it were me, I'd just want to have the pill and be done, but I'd probably take some time off to think about it, hear what my partner had to say, and see if maybe adoption was an option. With adoption, even though it'd be considered, I'm not too sure if I'd be strong enough to have my kid raised by someone else - once that baby is out, you feel differently from what I hear.

So I guess I'm pretty much pro-choice, but not the feminist-y version where I grab my signs and pitchforks, go on marches and preaching about it being my body, and what I know nothing about. I believe men should have a voice in the matter, if their girlfriend or wife considers abortion. While I agree that my body is my body, and that I'm the only person who gets to choose what I do with it, I don't think I could go ahead without agreeing, or coming to an agreement with my boyfriend. After all, my choice would ultimately decide whether or not he becomes a father. It kind of says it all about your partner if they're prepared to walk away if you went through with an abortion, and you'd need their support as much as they need yours.

I don't think abortion is a bad thing, and I don't frown upon people who have been faced with that decision and gone through with it. How can I? I'm not in their shoes, and they know what's best for them more than anyone. I think the best time to have an abortion is as soon as possible. It doesn't take too long to work it out, depending when the next period is due. I think the choice needs to be made as soon as possible to avoid the emotional trauma. I'd rather have the pills to initiate miscarriage, or the vacuum aspiration thing. The idea of having a late abortion distresses me enough to either get it over with as soon as, or prevent pregnancy until I'm good and ready. Dealing with a miscarriage (intended or not) has got to easier than seeing what could have become.

It can be avoided, and so I think I'm pro-prevention.

**Halie** · 06-25-2013, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Unknown Entity

So I guess I'm pretty much pro-choice, but not the feminist-y version where I grab my signs and pitchforks, go on marches and preaching about it being my body, and what I know nothing about.

I don't mean this as like an attack on you or anything, but the way you speak of feminists makes me think that you don't really understand what feminism is. We aren't people who run around with pitchforks and fire, preaching of things we don't know about. Actually, feminists argue exactly the same points that you've just made in your post.

But I'm off-topic. I'm 100% Pro-choice. I don't ever want to be in the situation where I'll have to have an abortion because I imagine it'd be a pretty traumatic experience, but I'd rather have an abortion than give birth to a child that I can't raise properly. Like Gemma, I'd much rather prevent the situation in the first place.

I don't even know why I'm answering this I never get laid anyway.

**Unknown Entity** · 06-26-2013, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by The Goddamn Clint Gaywood

I don't mean this as like an attack on you or anything, but the way you speak of feminists makes me think that you don't really understand what feminism is. We aren't people who run around with pitchforks and fire, preaching of things we don't know about. Actually, feminists argue exactly the same points that you've just made in your post.

But I'm off-topic. I'm 100% Pro-choice. I don't ever want to be in the situation where I'll have to have an abortion because I imagine it'd be a pretty traumatic experience, but I'd rather have an abortion than give birth to a child that I can't raise properly. Like Gemma, I'd much rather prevent the situation in the first place.

I don't even know why I'm answering this I never get laid anyway.

I wouldn't have viewed it as an attack.

I don't mean "feminists" as the whole group (sorry, I have a habit for not pointing stuff out). You do get those hardcore, "supirior to men" lot who give all feminists a bad name. I have the misfortune to know a few, or at least the mockeries of them. If they frown upon Fathers 4 Justice, then I frown on them types, for example. I firmly believe that abortion is something to be discussed as a couple, not just one person making the decision. Unless they're alone, then I guess there's not really much of a discussion to have.

Plus, you can't post on TFF without a little controversy!

And Rameses, please? It would be nice if you could add a little more to your post?

EDIT: I'm on my break at work, so if no one posts, I have a few other points I'd like to add. This is just a "watch" this space" message.

**Lacquer Head** · 06-25-2013, 11:48 AM

Well, if an accident WERE to occur, at the moment, I would have to opt for an abortion. I can't afford a child and the adoption system is faaar too ****ed these days. I'd hate to do it, but it would be the best choice, in my opinion. But this is just what I would want, outside of that, I'm entirely pro-choice, simply because it's none of my business what someone does with their body.

**Sinister** · 06-25-2013, 02:00 PM

I am Pro-Life...but I support Pro-Choice. The sort of factors that influence that particular decision are the exact factors that no one should be able to legislate or mandate as a standard for all peoples and situations. The factors that affect that are morals. It has always been a personal opinion and maxim of mine that morality should never be legislated. People have tried in the past. Drugs, prohibition, prostitution...etc... But in the end, you simply make the people that don't share that particular moral more desperate. Desperate people do stupid, damaging things. From a damage control perspective, it is far less costly to make it legal and let people make up their own minds.

It could be said that abortion is murder, depending on your definition of murder, death and life. But ah, you see, we are the ones that write those definitions. Death, life and murder are up to us and us alone, as a species, to define. If legalizing is put to a majority vote and either voted in or shot down, then I would think the nature of those definitions to be in-evidence.

With that out of the way, I do believe it is murder. I would never stay with anyone who had undergone an abortion unless they were penitent about said abortion. I would never give my consent to an abortion under my roof, should I ever chance to have a family. But I do not look down upon others because of my beliefs, as my beliefs are personal and do not apply to people who are not me. I could be accused of being hypocritical for saying that I would not give my wife or daughter consent to have an abortion under my roof. So be it, not giving consent does not equal stopping it by any means necessary and, as always, there are mitigating factors.

-Sin

**Rowan** · 06-25-2013, 03:34 PM

Abortion isn't murder anymore than ejaculating into oblivion. Its not a human, it doesnt have life nor has this parasite had the chance too. The poor rape victims who have to bring up bastard children from a rapist because people like you enforced abortion laws. I'm assuming most people here dont have a problem with killing animals and eating animals? What gives you the right to take a living thing such as an animal's life away, but not that of an unborn child? You believe animals dont have feelings or intellect therefor they are not worthy of life, simple. I agree. I believe the same about a fetus. They are not developed, they are merely parasites evolving into a human and therefor have no less right to die than any animal. It would be harsher to force a birth into a family or to a mother that did not want them. Especially if the father raped the mother.

**Sinister** · 06-25-2013, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Rowan

Abortion isn't murder anymore than ejaculating into oblivion. Its not a human, it doesnt have life nor has this parasite had the chance too. The poor rape victims who have to bring up bastard children from a rapist because people like you enforced abortion laws. I'm assuming most people here dont have a problem with killing animals and eating animals? What gives you the right to take a living thing such as an animal's life away, but not that of an unborn child? You believe animals dont have feelings or intellect therefor they are not worthy of life, simple. I agree. I believe the same about a fetus. They are not developed, they are merely parasites evolving into a human and therefor have no less right to die than any animal. It would be harsher to force a birth into a family or to a mother that did not want them. Especially if the father raped the mother.

If you are responding to me, then save your breath. I've already cemented it as my opinion and you trying to convince me that your opinion is fact will have little effect on me and should have just as little effect on other readers. I cast my vote in favor of Pro-Choice. What I believe from thence forth has little to do with your convictions or anyone else's. Also, needing to justify myself very little, I barely feel the need to express the difference between gametes and zygotes and the point of something genetically unique as being a creature unto itself. Once again those are definitions that have yet to be defined. Also note that using emotional appeals such as "poor rape victims" is beneath the average debate in the ID forum, and that is, I'm afraid, saying something.

Respectfully,
-Sin

**Rowan** · 06-25-2013, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Sinister

If you are responding to me, then save your breath. I've already cemented it as my opinion and you trying to convince me that your opinion is fact will have little effect on me and should have just as little effect on other readers. I cast my vote in favor of Pro-Choice. What I believe from thence forth has little to do with your convictions or anyone else's. Also, needing to justify myself very little, I barely feel the need to express the difference between gametes and zygotes and the point of something genetically unique as being a creature unto itself. Once again those are definitions that have yet to be defined. Also note that using emotional appeals such as "poor rape victims" is beneath the average debate in the ID forum, and that is, I'm afraid, saying something.

Respectfully,
-Sin

Asserting that I view my opinion as fact is misleading and viperous, as well as untrue. And you pointing out appeals to emotion doesn't make my points any less valid, perhaps maybe a little low, but equally valid. Im not here to convince anybody of anything, Im here to see what arguments people can come up with to refute, not to be snide pricks. If a mother does not want her child, who are you to say she must and force an unwanted child into the world?

**Sinister** · 06-25-2013, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Rowan

Asserting that I view my opinion as fact is misleading and viperous, as well as untrue. And you pointing out appeals to emotion doesn't make my points any less valid, perhaps maybe a little low, but equally valid. Im not here to convince anybody of anything, Im here to see what arguments people can come up with to refute, not to be snide pricks. If a mother does not want her child, who are you to say she must and force an unwanted child into the world?

I do not assert; you inferred. If that is not your intention, you failed in making that clear. I would also watch the borderline flame-speak, tis not appreciated by mods also you may wound my sensitive fragile ego. I would never ever even begin to think myself fit to tell a mother what to do with her baby. I know what I would say about my daughter and my potential grandchild or alternatively, my wife and my potential child. I think that is a fair sentiment to echo in this thread. If you indeed were merely expressing your opinion, I simply challenge you, and everyone in this thread, to make that safely clear. And yes, emotional appeals in Intellectual Discussion are unwanted and unwelcome.

-Sin

**Rowan** · 06-25-2013, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Sinister

I do not assert; you inferred. If that is not your intention, you failed in making that clear. I would also watch the borderline flame-speak, tis not appreciated by mods also you may wound my sensitive fragile ego. I would never ever even begin to think myself fit to tell a mother what to do with her baby. I know what I would say about my daughter and my potential grandchild or alternatively, my wife and my potential child. I think that is a fair sentiment to echo in this thread. If you indeed were merely expressing your opinion, I simply challenge you, and everyone in this thread, to make that safely clear. And yes, emotional appeals in Intellectual Discussion are unwanted and unwelcome.

-Sin

Aside from me saying "This is fact" , how else could you possibly blame me for your thought process? Just as you couldnt blame me for taking your 'advice' as just plain insults. Dont think that calling someone an 'idiot' or a 'dickhead' or any other kind of slur is the only way to pass insults. I find your kind, the smarmy undertones of pretention to be the most insulting, especially since you are allowed to get away with it because its not obvious.

Aside from all of that, and all the ego bashing going on, I dont care about your personal decisions with your family because while it may be a 'fair' sentiment, it is certainly not a useful one. Pro-life and Pro choice are directly in contradiction with each other in this scenario. If being pro-choice means being able to have an option to have an abortion, you are taking away any choice the fetus had of having a life, therefor pro-choice doesnt really exist. If you are pro-life, you are against choice is this regard. I think everyone should have a choice if they are able to make one.

**HeroZero** · 06-25-2013, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by Sinister

I am Pro-Life...but I support Pro-Choice. The sort of factors that influence that particular decision are the exact factors that no one should be able to legislate or mandate as a standard for all peoples and situations. The factors that affect that are morals. It has always been a personal opinion and maxim of mine that morality should never be legislated. People have tried in the past. Drugs, prohibition, prostitution...etc... But in the end, you simply make the people that don't share that particular moral more desperate. Desperate people do stupid, damaging things. From a damage control perspective, it is far less costly to make it legal and let people make up their own minds.

It could be said that abortion is murder, depending on your definition of murder, death and life. But ah, you see, we are the ones that write those definitions. Death, life and murder are up to us and us alone, as a species, to define. If legalizing is put to a majority vote and either voted in or shot down, then I would think the nature of those definitions to be in-evidence.

With that out of the way, I do believe it is murder. I would never stay with anyone who had undergone an abortion unless they were penitent about said abortion. I would never give my consent to an abortion under my roof, should I ever chance to have a family. But I do not look down upon others because of my beliefs, as my beliefs are personal and do not apply to people who are not me. I could be accused of being hypocritical for saying that I would not give my wife or daughter consent to have an abortion under my roof. So be it, not giving consent does not equal stopping it by any means necessary and, as always, there are mitigating factors.

-Sin

I am pro choice but you have certainly put forth your reasoning soundly and with no agression towards others choices. You did not say you would 'forbid' a family member from abortion but would not support it. I think that is very fair and your choice in life.

Originally Posted by Rowan

Abortion isn't murder anymore than ejaculating into oblivion. Its not a human, it doesnt have life nor has this parasite had the chance too. The poor rape victims who have to bring up bastard children from a rapist because people like you enforced abortion laws. I'm assuming most people here dont have a problem with killing animals and eating animals? What gives you the right to take a living thing such as an animal's life away, but not that of an unborn child? You believe animals dont have feelings or intellect therefor they are not worthy of life, simple. I agree. I believe the same about a fetus. They are not developed, they are merely parasites evolving into a human and therefor have no less right to die than any animal. It would be harsher to force a birth into a family or to a mother that did not want them. Especially if the father raped the mother.

Rowan you have started your discussion from a very agressive standpoint, even to the point of antagonizing someone who put forth their views very candidly and with no malice. Even though I agree with your basic stand of Pro-Choice I think you are someone who is either a terrible person, or just cannot put forth your views in a calm collected manner. Instead you continuously attempt to cause Sin to lash back at you which they have not done. This seems to have only made you angrier and have started to make you look rather silly.

TL; DR I am Pro-Choice but I think Sin has every right to his views on this matter, they have not said they would forbid an abortion, they would merely not condone such a choice. They even went so far as to address mitigating circumstances.

**Rowan** · 06-25-2013, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by HeroZero

Rowan you have started your discussion from a very agressive standpoint, even to the point of antagonizing someone who put forth their views very candidly and with no malice. Even though I agree with your basic stand of Pro-Choice I think you are someone who is either a terrible person, or just cannot put forth your views in a calm collected manner. Instead you continuously attempt to cause Sin to lash back at you which they have not done. This seems to have only made you angrier and have started to make you look rather silly.

TL; DR I am Pro-Choice but I think Sin has every right to his views on this matter, they have not said they would forbid an abortion, they would merely not condone such a choice. They even went so far as to address mitigating circumstances.

Nothing truly malicious in my posts, and Sin knows. Thank you for your concern.

I was just thinking further, how can pro choice and pro life coincide? Example. "I have the right to choose to end your life" In this case, we consider the unborn, living, or at least a potential life (not in the sense of glorified sperm).

Its a paradox, isn't it? Or have I just presented it as a paradox?

**Alpha** · 06-25-2013, 11:25 PM

I'm in the same space of thought as Sin on this one. I think it is a moral decision everyone is entitled to make for themselves, whether they'd support it. Legislating that decision is unwise, especially given it's affinity with religion, and secularism is up there with an accountable police force and representative parliamentary democracy as the three things I think are the most important in society.

New Zealand inhabits a funny legal space on this issue. Abortions are illegal at all times here, unless a doctor is able to determine that carrying a child to term will cause significant harm to the mother. However many doctors are willing to say that any child is able to give any woman significant mental harm if the child is unwanted. So abortions can be obtained on demand. A doctor not willing to do this is required to refer you to a doctor who will. It's a weird, happy medium. Conservatives are happy because by the letter of the law it is not legal. Liberals are happy because you can still get an abortion if you want one. This situation has stood since the 1980s and no one has seriously clamoured to change it since. I'm happy with this, given my personal misgivings on the practice of abortion, but my feelings that it is still not my decision to make for other people. It also means that the type of people who support strong pro-life politics do not really have a platform for their other agendas, which I feel would be strongly anti-secular. Their are no classically socially-conservative parties in Parliament. The only one that is polled around 4% in the last election (its first election), which is 1% too few to get any seats in the national assembly.

I do think that getting an abortion is a decision for a couple, if there is a couple involved. If the male wants to abdicate his child raising responsibilities, and the female does not, the male is currently legally bound to pay child support until the child comes of age. That many men don't despite the requirement is beside the point; if a woman is entitled to choose, so is the male. That's only equitable.

My personal perspective is that abortion kills something living. Rowan asked earlier why I care if some assortment of cells in a uterus dies when I am happy to eat animals. I think that any unique arrangement of human genetic information in a cell capable of cell division is a unique human person. As I consider all human persons to be equal, I extend the same rights and protections to this person as I reserve for myself. In particular, no one has the right to kill me. As this person is equal to me, I do not think people should have the right to kill it. However, as I concede that this is an opinion clearly open to debate, I feel that people are entitled to make their own decisions regarding it, so I do not want my opinions legislated for. I am willing to eat animals that are killed by others on my behalf because those animals are not human, and not subject to the same protection as humans. As to the contention that an abortion is OK because the being that is being destroyed is not self-aware... well, I can take you to a hospital or a school for disabled people who are not entirely self-aware and/or incapable of feeling pain. Why don't we kill them? Because they're still human, and they are our equals. I do not see the distinction between them and an unborn person. One is just older. They are both (depending on the nature of the disability) incapable of feeling pain, not self-aware, and entirely dependent on others.

**Rowan** · 06-25-2013, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by Alpha

My personal perspective is that abortion kills something living. Rowan asked earlier why I care if some assortment of cells in a uterus dies when I am happy to eat animals. I think that any unique arrangement of human genetic information in a cell capable of cell division is a unique human person.

Purely out of curiosity, does that include sperm? Also, if it doesn't, at what point would you consider it? Once its hit the egg?

**Alpha** · 06-25-2013, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Rowan

Purely out of curiosity, does that include sperm? Also, if it doesn't, at what point would you consider it? Once its hit the egg?

A sperm is only one half of the genetic information required for a person, and is not capable of cell division. Same with an egg. So conception is when I personally consider life to begin, because I can't see a different moment that is more reasonable. However I'm happy to concede that is is debatable, so again, pro-choice because I'm happy for others to decide for themselves. I don't have to like their decisions, but we should be free to decide.

A sperm is only one half of the genetic information required for a person, and is not capable of cell division. Same with an egg. So conception is when I personally consider life to begin, because I can't see a different moment that is more reasonable. However I'm happy to concede that this is debatable, so again, pro-choice because I'm happy for others to decide for themselves. I don't have to like their decisions, but we should be free to decide.

**HeroZero** · 06-26-2013, 12:09 AM

Yes because snide comments such as "Ejaculating into oblivion" are totally not being malicious. But everyone has an opinion, even if they are a jerk about it.

**NikkiLinkle** · 06-26-2013, 01:48 AM

Prevention is definitely the best option.. but sometimes things go wrong. Rape for example and sometimes the preventive measures fail. I am pro-choice. There is a lot more to having a child than simply having one. To me having a child is a privilege and I think it is very important that people are fully capable of being a good parent and being able to raise a human being into adulthood. Loving and nurturing it. Giving it support and giving it chance at having a well adjusted life where they can achieve whatever they want.

Some people aren't capable of that. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have kids and.everyone should have abortions. Just that there are very valid reasons why people do choose to abort.

I haven't got anything 'intellectual' to say. I can only speak from experience.

I have had an abortion. (I wasn't going to say because I know there will be judgement, but it happened and I'm not a terrible person because of it). At the time the choice didn't affect me, not emotionally. I felt bad that I let it happen. In my case the preventive measures failed. I did the right things yet this happened. I wasn't ready to be a parent. I was mentally not ready. I feared I didn't have the capacity to be able to love my child or care about it the way you're supposed to. I was in a deep depression, I was in a relationship I didn't want to be in. I couldn't bring a child into the world like that. To me that would be horrible and to me I think it would've been more traumatic to carry a child I didn't want than to have an abortion.

Make of that what you will. But that was my choice. My choice doesn't affect you and those are my reasons.

In saying that, I fully understand and see the reasoning behind pro-choice and pro-life. It's a difficult situation/issue. There are reasons for it, there are reasons against it.

**RamesesII** · 06-26-2013, 05:49 AM

I'm for pro-pane.

STAFF EDIT: RamesesII was already aware of the ramifications of this post prior to hitting the submit button, and knew in advance he would receive warning. As he put it, he "couldn't resist the opportunity." Friendly reminder to all, we have no issue with this delightful sarcasm in any other section of the forums, but please leave the ID forum to topical debate.

**Sasquatch** · 06-30-2013, 06:16 PM

Before any abortion issue is settled, we need to standardize a few things: the rights of the father in regards to the unborn child; and the definition of "life".

As it stands now, the father has absolutely no rights over an unborn child, but still every obligation. If the mother wants the child but not the father, the father is forced by law to submit a portion of every paycheck, whether in percentage or fixed amount, to the mother for care of the child. Whether the father wants the child or not is completely irrelevant under law -- the father's paternal rights are completely ignored in favor of maternal rights, yet he still carries the burden of financial support. The mother is always more likely to be awarded majority custody -- and, thus, child support from the father -- because courts in the United States are extremely biased in favor of child custody (yet, we don't hear feminists complaining about "traditional gender roles" when it comes to custody bias). If the mother does not want the child, she may legally abort it -- this is done without required permission, or even notification, of the father. The father has no right to refuse, but must allow the death of his own child -- this has been challenged multiple times in court, and the mother's case has always prevailed. In many cases, the father is forced to pay for a portion of the abortion procedure.

If a man and a woman are sexually irresponsible and a pregnancy results, the man may be forced to pay for it for the next eighteen years, whereas the woman may choose to either carry the child to term and raise it (with money from the father, enforced by law), give it up for adoption, or kill it in the womb. The mother is the sole decision-maker in this process, with the father's rights to his own child being completely ignored. In the United States, co-owners of a pet have more rights than fathers of unborn children.

We have also never set a definition for life, or defined when life begins. The (extremely shameful) result is that right now in the United States, most courts have used the mother's whim as the sole factor in whether or not an unborn child is considered alive. If the mother does not want the child, it is considered absolutely nothing, just another part of her body. There are even people who are shitty enough to consider an unborn human child to be nothing more than a parasite. There are "doctors" whose careers revolve around the killing and removing of unwanted children from the womb, like they are tumors. But if the mother wants the child, it's considered a life -- this is why people who kill unborn children (against the mother's will) are convicted of murder, or at least manslaughter. (Remember the case of Scott Peterson, who killed his pregnant wife Laci around Christmas in the early 2000s? He was tried for, and convicted of, not one murder, but two -- that of his wife and his unborn child.)

So what defines life? The will of its mother? The ability to survive without assistance? The benefit to society or economy? There are myriad people with much less in the way of qualifications than unborn children, yet it is illegal to kill them -- why should unborn children receive less legal protection?

**Alpha** · 06-30-2013, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

If a man and a woman are sexually irresponsible and a pregnancy results, the man may be forced to pay for it for the next eighteen years, whereas the woman may choose to either carry the child to term and raise it (with money from the father, enforced by law), give it up for adoption, or kill it in the womb. The mother is the sole decision-maker in this process, with the father's rights to his own child being completely ignored. In the United States, co-owners of a pet have more rights than fathers of unborn children.

This is an important issue, and largely I agree with you. But I have a question because I find it surprising how fervently you seem to hold this opinion.

I'm going to begin by assuming that you are pro-life. That is, you would prefer if abortions were either illegal in most or all cases, or that you opt to strive for a world where abortion is not necessary.

So my question is, given your pro-life views, why would support 'male abortion' when such a right would be likely to result in quantitatively more abortions? I don't have figures, but it stands to reason that if more potential mothers are unable to financially support children by themselves, more children will be aborted.

If your response is that male reproductive rights trump the rights of an unborn child, then I'd suggest that you've essentially arrived at the feminist position, but for males.

However it's probably important now to see your response before commenting further.

**Sasquatch** · 07-04-2013, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Alpha

So my question is, given your pro-life views, why would support 'male abortion' when such a right would be likely to result in quantitatively more abortions?

Pushing morality aside, yes, I would support it, if abortion remained legal. If the law regards an unborn child as absolutely nothing, it should not be a benefit to one person but a legally binding burden on another; one person should not be able to use another person to force a third person to give them money. It would be like buying a car and then forcing somebody else to chip in for gas.

I don't have figures, but it stands to reason that if more potential mothers are unable to financially support children by themselves, more children will be aborted.

I honestly don't know, and it would be interesting to see figures on that, if any were to exist. I would imagine that, for those not in the financial situation to be able to afford a child, the few hundred dollars in child support wouldn't make much of a difference. Besides, in the cases of child negligence or malnourishment we do see in countries like the United States, it's not an issue of a parent not being able to afford food or care, it's an issue of a parent with higher financial priorities (booze, drugs, etc.).

If your response is that male reproductive rights trump the rights of an unborn child, then I'd suggest that you've essentially arrived at the feminist position, but for males.

That was exactly my point -- why is it that female rights trump the rights of an unborn child, but male rights don't? The male cannot choose whether or not to kill the child, only whether or not he will financially support it. He still won't have as many rights in regards to the child, at least while it's in the womb, but he would at least have some, which is more than he has now.

**Lacquer Head** · 07-04-2013, 12:29 PM

Though I disagree on the moral side of things (pro-choice) I agree 100%. Though, there are cases where the father takes care of the child and pays child support, but it doesn't seem to be enforced nearly as much. My mother never paid a dime for child support, yet no action was taken. I don't think a father should be able to force the mother to have an abortion, but if he wants it and she refuses, he should be legally exempt from all responsibilities. I'm not sure what kind of person could just turn their back on their child, but morality shouldn't play a part in the law.

**OnOneRyder** · 07-10-2013, 02:54 PM

Shockingly enough, I agree with many of the points mentioned by Sasquatch. My position is one of a minority as a pro-life atheist, I just thought I'd mention that from the get go that my stance is not defined by religion.

My primary reasoning is that I believe life begins at conception. I believe this because I feel any point beyond this moment being labelled the point at which life first exists is decided by arbitrarily, and any point before conception is simply raw materials with no potential to create life on their own.

As for male reproductive rights, they're horrid. The law puts the entirety of the future of the baby in the mothers hands, yet the father remains responsible throughout the same period. The mother has a way out, yet the male is bound by law? The same law which allows a legally protected procedure to remove a baby from her mother at the same period of gestation that if she were assaulted could and has resulted in differing levels of murder charges. A very foolish system, which again hinges on arbitrary definitions.

**Tiffany** · 07-12-2013, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by OnOneRyder

Shockingly enough, I agree with many of the points mentioned by Sasquatch. My position is one of a minority as a pro-life atheist, I just thought I'd mention that from the get go that my stance is not defined by religion.

My primary reasoning is that I believe life begins at conception. I believe this because I feel any point beyond this moment being labelled the point at which life first exists is decided by arbitrarily, and any point before conception is simply raw materials with no potential to create life on their own.

As for male reproductive rights, they're horrid. The law puts the entirety of the future of the baby in the mothers hands, yet the father remains responsible throughout the same period. The mother has a way out, yet the male is bound by law? The same law which allows a legally protected procedure to remove a baby from her mother at the same period of gestation that if she were assaulted could and has resulted in differing levels of murder charges. A very foolish system, which again hinges on arbitrary definitions.

Father's rights are definitely crap. One of my friends has been fighting to get custody of his daughter for 11 years now. She's turning 12 next year and will have the choice of where she wants to live (she's wanted to live with him for as long as she could figure out what that meant) and yet its all on the mother.

I suppose, in some small aspect I understand why all the law is on the mother's side. It is the Mom that goes through pregnancy (it sucks, btw

) and more often than not the Mother is the one left with the baby. Its a shame though that our laws aren't evolving with the father's along with it. It used to be so rare to see a father who was actively interested in his paternal rights when it came to having a baby before marriage (just an example I'm throwing out - I know there's more situations that just that) but nowadays I know more father's who WANT their children as opposed to those who don't. Criminal that they have no rights.

I'm pro-choice however. But in saying that, I'm pro-choice if that's BOTH what the parents want. If one wants to keep it and the other doesn't then I think a compromise is in order. Of course, that'll never be simple. Its incredibly expensive to raise a kiddo, I don't know many people who'd be able to go it alone without some sort of support. But I don't find it fair to have say, a mother want to keep it... the father not and then yet the father is expected to pay for the child until they're 18. I suppose its one of the risks you take if you have sex, there is always a chance a pregnancy will happen.

**loaf** · 07-12-2013, 03:39 PM

I'm Pro-Life

and

Pro-Choice.

Because if you have life, you have choice.

**Clint** · 08-14-2013, 07:06 PM

At around six weeks, an ultrasound can detect signs of a heartbeat, indicating a living being inside of the woman's womb. You can dress it up at say that it's a fetus, and use that as an excuse to say, "well, a fetus isn't a human," and all that bullshit. But that's exactly what that is. It's bullshit. It's a human fetus, and if it has a heart beat, then it's a living thing, which means that it's a living human being.

Abortions can be performed usually up to 16 weeks into the pregnancy, but in rare instances, can be done up to 24 weeks. That's long after the fetus develops a heartbeat. In late-term abortions, the doctor will go into the womb and crack the fetus' skull, crush it's brain, and essentially suck the body out of the woman with a vacuum type of machinery. All of which paints a very disturbing picture of a form of euthanasia, which is illegal to perform on any human, unless if they're convicted of a crime and sentenced to death by execution, which fetuses are not.

I sometimes feel like I'm the only person in the world who sees things logically and ethically. Whoever agrees that a woman has the right to euthanize her child must be a real asshole with really, really shitty parents. Abortion is along the lines of population control. China does that. They will sometimes kill female babies, because of two reasons. One is that in their view, boys are superior and more likely to succeed in life, which is absolutely ridiculous, as gender has nothing to do with amount of success. And two, because of their ridiculous one-child policy. If parents can't afford to pay the hefty tax on the second child, the government will seize the child, and either abandon it, or kill it.

In the case of Chinese policy, and in the case of abortion, population control is bringing way to a rebirth of slavery, except now, these slaves are helpless defenseless babies who get no support from anybody, because far too many people don't view it as wrong or immoral, even though it definitely is.

**Lacquer Head** · 08-16-2013, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by Christ Eastwood

At around six weeks, an ultrasound can detect signs of a heartbeat, indicating a living being inside of the woman's womb. You can dress it up at say that it's a fetus, and use that as an excuse to say, "well, a fetus isn't a human," and all that bullshit. But that's exactly what that is. It's bullshit. It's a human fetus, and if it has a heart beat, then it's a living thing, which means that it's a living human being.

Abortions can be performed usually up to 16 weeks into the pregnancy, but in rare instances, can be done up to 24 weeks. That's long after the fetus develops a heartbeat. In late-term abortions, the doctor will go into the womb and crack the fetus' skull, crush it's brain, and essentially suck the body out of the woman with a vacuum type of machinery. All of which paints a very disturbing picture of a form of euthanasia, which is illegal to perform on any human, unless if they're convicted of a crime and sentenced to death by execution, which fetuses are not.

I sometimes feel like I'm the only person in the world who sees things logically and ethically. Whoever agrees that a woman has the right to euthanize her child must be a real asshole with really, really shitty parents. Abortion is along the lines of population control. China does that. They will sometimes kill female babies, because of two reasons. One is that in their view, boys are superior and more likely to succeed in life, which is absolutely ridiculous, as gender has nothing to do with amount of success. And two, because of their ridiculous one-child policy. If parents can't afford to pay the hefty tax on the second child, the government will seize the child, and either abandon it, or kill it.

In the case of Chinese policy, and in the case of abortion, population control is bringing way to a rebirth of slavery, except now, these slaves are helpless defenseless babies who get no support from anybody, because far too many people don't view it as wrong or immoral, even though it definitely is.

Immorality doesn't exist. What does a heartbeat have to do with it? Regardless if something has a heart or not, it's still alive, so that's a pretty irrelevant reason to base a limit on abortion. As far as I'm concerned, population control has no real detriment, other than loss of control, but I'm a fascist. Perhaps if it was based on gender, race or looks or whatever, it might be a different story, but to be honest, I wouldn't exactly be against population control based on IQ levels...

Now, waiting til a child is BORN to be preventive IS ignorant, my idea would be forced sterilization or face fines, if we were to go down that road, but this is getting WAAAAY off topic.

Regardless of whether or not the child is a person with rights, by not legalizing abortion, you're putting the child's rights above the parents, and that's hardly fair.

**Sasquatch** · 08-17-2013, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Lacquer Head

What does a heartbeat have to do with it? Regardless if something has a heart or not, it's still alive, so that's a pretty irrelevant reason to base a limit on abortion.

The heartbeat is a sign of life. As in, killing something with a heartbeat means you're actually killing it, instead of trying to get off on, "well, it wasn't really alive at that point".

As far as I'm concerned, population control has no real detriment, other than loss of control, but I'm a fascist. Perhaps if it was based on gender, race or looks or whatever, it might be a different story, but to be honest, I wouldn't exactly be against population control based on IQ levels...

Yeah, because we all can see that you of all people would never have to worry about having a substandard IQ, right? And of course there's no real detriment, you know, other than wholesale slaughter.

Now, waiting til a child is BORN to be preventive IS ignorant, my idea would be forced sterilization or face fines, if we were to go down that road, but this is getting WAAAAY off topic.

The aforementioned heartbeat issue was brought up to point out that a child is alive before it is born, so whether or not is has traveled a whole ten inches or so through the birth canal makes absolutely no difference.

Regardless of whether or not the child is a person with rights, by not legalizing abortion, you're putting the child's rights above the parents, and that's hardly fair.

You're willing to slaughter children for the sake of population control, or those you dictate are lower-quality humans, and to force parents to pay fines or force sterilization upon them, and now you're whining that a child's right to life may be protected more than an adult's right to irresponsible sex. Don't pretend that you care about individual rights.

**Lacquer Head** · 08-17-2013, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

The heartbeat is a sign of life. As in, killing something with a heartbeat means you're actually killing it, instead of trying to get off on, "well, it wasn't really alive at that point".

But it's alive, no matter what. Sperm cells are alive, a heartbeat doesn't make them any more alive, it doesn't change anything. The closest thing I could see that could POSSIBLY be relevant would be brain development. If there were some kind of consciousness or self-awareness, otherwise, it's still just a wad of living tissue living off the mother, heartbeat or no.

Yeah, because we all can see that you of all people would never have to worry about having a substandard IQ, right? And of course there's no real detriment, you know, other than wholesale slaughter.

Sorry, no LOGICAL detriment. Morality is ju...this thread already exists. Killing off inferior genes is the epitome of natural selection, it would only benefit the human race, in a natural way.

The aforementioned heartbeat issue was brought up to point out that a child is alive before it is born, so whether or not is has traveled a whole ten inches or so through the birth canal makes absolutely no difference.

Once again, it's alive inside of the dad's testicles, so if we were to go down "killing a living POTENTIAL human is bad" road, cumming outside is murder. Is there a way to determine when cognitive function begins, or is that after birth? Because THAT is what makes a person human.

You're willing to slaughter children for the sake of population control, or those you dictate are lower-quality humans, and to force parents to pay fines or force sterilization upon them, and now you're whining that a child's right to life may be protected more than an adult's right to irresponsible sex. Don't pretend that you care about individual rights.

It's not about individual rights, it's about hypocritical thinking. I never said anything about slaughtering children, I condone slaughtering parasites. A good example is when there are conjoined twins, but one didn't develop correctly. If left alone, the parasitic twin will kill them both, yet it can't survive on it's own. It has cognitive function, but it must be removed, and thus killed for the other to survive.

I remember this exact scenario on Ripley's Believe it or Not or something along those lines, was pretty interesting.