Abortion. I used to be pro-choice

femme fatale wrote:Sad to say I was thinking to myself, "what do you expect? you have no freaking cervix left" There are many women out there that see abortions as a form of birth control. I seriously think after you have two non medical related abortions, they should just tie your tubes and that's it for you.

JB wrote:I'm pro-choice, because I don't think the law should tell a woman what to do in that regard, but I'm not a fan of the "choice" itself. I don't see abortion as MURDER, but at the same time I do see it as trying to skirt the consequences of one's actions. You rolled the dice, had sex probably w/o protection and got pregnant. Own up to it. I don't think a woman should have to deliver her rapists baby, and if the doctors determine that the child will most likely be born with an ailing birth defect, then ok. But if you're pregnant because you indulged and got caught up, then own it.

Nystyle709 wrote:I find it quite funny that all these pro-lifers want to limit what someone chooses to do with their body. And women who have multiple abortions, despite what you may think or may see, are FEW and FAR between. Granted, you have trifling women out there but you can't decide to do away with the option of abortion based on those few. The notion that is put forth, "you need to own up to your responsibility" is crap. Well, they are owing up to it. You complain about welfare mothers, well, here you have women who rather not bring up a child and have to rely on the system if they can't afford to provide for a child. Would you like to come and take care of it? Accidents happen. Condoms break, pill sometimes doesn't work properly, whatever. You're not "killing" a baby....it's not even a damn baby. It's a clump of cells. You wash away more living things off of your hands everyday. I bet you you don't hesitate to kill a roach or a fly. How many times have you aimed your BB gun at that pigeon? When you start having tons of women getting abortions at 4 and 5 months into gestation, then we can talk.

Supernova wrote:There are 1.3 million abortions performed in America every year. Now it's been said only two percent of those are for rape or health reasons, are we REALLY supposed to believe that the other 1,274,000 happened because that many condoms broke and pills failed? How can that be when everybody praises birth control and condoms for being so effective? Or is it that the majority of that many women just figured the laws of biology would not apply to them and pregnancy would not result from vaginal sex with a fertile man?

Forgiveness_Man wrote:^^^^Or maybe it's just women who just feel like having one.




Aren't we ALL just clumps of cells? The idea that a baby and bacteria are the same things is ridiculous. But I guess rationalizing that it can't be a human is how one justifies doing it. That's what the Nazi's did with Jews. It's what bigots did to blacks. Now it's what we do to unborn babies who aren't wanted. Of course it's a baby. Bacteria you wash off your hands is not a human being.

An embryo being a "life" is YOUR argument. I'm merely pointing out that you kill life every day. Every SINGLE day. Oh, so I guess since we're humans....we're just on a higher plateau than everything else in the universe huh? You can kill that fly because it keeps buzzing around your head and annoying you, but don't mess with a human fetus. So yes, I can equate a fetus to a bacteria based on YOUR logic because it's all LIFE any way you slice it.

A baby in the womb is, and it is by every valid definition. It's just the hard facts of how it is. We can call it a clump of cells of that makes us feel better. It's always easier to kill somebody when you've reasoned that they either deserve it or just don't deserve to live anymore.

LOL, now you're just being dramatic. Yeah, that 8 week old embryo has lived a long, hard life. How can something live if it hasn't been born? Well, if you took said embryo out of the womb and put it on the table, or maybe a test tube...will it grow into a human being? If you or science can prove that it will, I will drop this whole argument.

And no, I don't own a BB gun. I don't shoot birds.

Eat chicken? Fish? Any kind of meat? Every stepped on an ant or a roach? They all deserved to live just like you do.

(Although most so-called Pro-Choicers would be livid at me if I did) And I also got few issues with welfare mothers trying to get by. And IDK if abortion is rare. When it involves life, it's too much. It's not about telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body(although again, most so-called Pro-Choicers look the other way when the government tries to do this in other aspects of life), it's about telling her what she can and can't do with another life. And yes, it is a life. I see you draw the line at 4-5 months tho, and many abortions are performed then and later. So when is the magic moment when it goes from "clump of cells" to baby? I've always wondered that, and I always get different answers. There must be a magic moment afterall.

When it can survive outside of the mother's womb, then it's a baby. Simple enough? You have late term abortions that fit this criteria but are still perform when it risks the mother's health. You already said you don't have any problem with THAT, but you have a problem with aborting something that will have ZERO chance of survival if it's perform when it's supposed to be? I see.

And I don't support the idea of killing children because they are unwanted.

If I drowned all 5 of my kids in a bathtub like that bitch in Texas or Susan Smith did, then I'm totally with you. Those children were born and they lived. I'm not "killing" a child when it's not a child.

Once you create them, they are there. I suppose we could apply that logic to born people too, killing the ones society doesn't want. Oh wait, we've done that in history already. Nevermind then.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Answer this: would it have been a bad thing if Hitler's mother had got an abortion? How about Dahmer? Or Charles Manson? I'm reaching a little bit here with those examples but the fact of the matter is, it wouldn't have been a tragic thing if those people had never been born. Let me ask you this: are you for or against the death penalty? Point is, you can't kill something that is not living.

CatEyes10736 wrote:What's worse, a woman who's had 7 abortions or a woman who has 7 kids that welfare pays for? Pro-lifers kill me. They want to protect the rights of feeling-less cells taking shape in the body of some woman that they don't even know, but how many of them volunteer to put it on their insurance or babysit after the zygote turns into a baby?

Although I can't imagine myself ever getting an abortion, I'm still pro-choice. My "choice" would be to not have one. Yes, women who use abortions as birth control are annoying, but I'd bet that they tend to be more of the exception than the rule. In the meantime, don't tell me that a 20 year old girl who dropped out of high school, works part time at 7-11, lives with her parents, and would have no support at all from the guy who knocked her up is making some egregious decision by deciding to terminate her two week old pregnancy.

Also, it is pretty careless to negate a physicians recommendation for a medical abortion, after they tell the mother that the child will most likely be born with a debilitating birth defect that will make it virtually impossible for them to have a functioning life. These are the same people who would have someone who is fighting a painful, losing battle with cancer prolong their suffrage by not allowing the machines to be turned off, even if they ask for it.

AtownPeep wrote:I just wanna say that "pro choice" doesn't automatically (or even necessarily) mean pro-abortion. ITA with this...

CatEyes10736 wrote:What's worse, a woman who's had 7 abortions or a woman who has 7 kids that welfare pays for? Pro-lifers kill me. They want to protect the rights of feeling-less cells taking shape in the body of some woman that they don't even know, but how many of them volunteer to put it on their insurance or babysit after the zygote turns into a baby?

Although I can't imagine myself ever getting an abortion, I'm still pro-choice. My "choice" would be to not have one. Yes, women who use abortions as birth control are annoying, but I'd bet that they tend to be more of the exception than the rule. In the meantime, don't tell me that a 20 year old girl who dropped out of high school, works part time at 7-11, lives with her parents, and would have no support at all from the guy who knocked her up is making some egregious decision by deciding to terminate her two week old pregnancy.

Also, it is pretty careless to negate a physicians recommendation for a medical abortion, after they tell the mother that the child will most likely be born with a debilitating birth defect that will make it virtually impossible for them to have a functioning life. These are the same people who would have someone who is fighting a painful, losing battle with cancer prolong their suffrage by not allowing the machines to be turned off, even if they ask for it.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Actually, you can't equate it with bacteria. And you're right, it's because we're humans and we're supposed to have a higher respect for human beings.(God forbid) That's why our laws apply to human beings and primarily protect human beings. But oh yes, human beings are on the same level as any other living creature, maybe we should start charging bacteria taxes then. By YOUR logic, what does it matter if it's a baby or a twenty-year old, if it's okay to kill a baby because it's okay to kill bacteria, then it's okay to kill somebody who is fully grown for the same reasons. Clearly you also place humans on a higher level.

Life isn't contingent on birth, it is contingent on existence. Perhaps in the future Science will be able to make what you say happen. However, life requires certain things, such as nourishment. A baby cannot feed himself so should we starve babies in closets?(Excuse me, nevermind) Likewise, babies in the womb cannot nourish themselves and thus require nourishment from their mothers' bodies for nine months. They also need a sheltered place to grow, but they will grow into what society recognizes as a person(even though they are one already). Bacteria won't, ever. You can't equate the two. You are every bit as much a clump of cells as the kid is. The difference is you are just a bigger clump of cells.

No actually, I am against abortion at ALL times. I don't buy the idea that abortion itself is ever really necessary for the mother's health. The child may die as a result of some action to save the mother, but directly intending the child's demise doesn't ever help the mother. So wrong again. Unless you can provide scientific evidence beyond the "how can THAT be alive" claim to show me that the child is just bacteria, I have no need to alter my argument. It's got all the traits of being a human, it will grow until a recognizable human given time, and when most abortions are done the baby has probably already grown to the point were calling it a mere "clump of cells" is just so laughably ridiculous that I am amazed people still use it. Maybe the next time somebody wants to shoot up a school, they should pull that defense, it makes as much sense.

And a child's life is contingent on whether it can survive outside the womb? So maybe people's lives should be contingent on whether they can survive without any medical treatment then? If you need an inhaler, we shoot you. Yes it's an extreme example but the same logic. The idea that personhood is defined by being able to survive without help is ridiculous. Just cause the baby requires the womb for 9 months doesn't degrade it's humanity any more than a person needing an inhaler to not die of an asthma attack degrades theirs.

But it is a child, and it is one by every valid scientific definition. I am sure Hitler(to use your example) could justify killing jews by saying they were not people. Why was he wrong? What makes somebody a person? When you can say one group of people aren't people, then you can say that about anyone. IMO, drowning your five kids in the tub is no different from having an abortion, other than the fact that the former leaves more hysteria.


In hindsight, perhaps a greater good might've come out of it, but you cannot judge a child for something that could happen before their born. One could also say shooting Hitler at age 4 would've been good in the end but we can't go shooting up pre-schools to justify such a ridiculous notion. You can't justify abortion because a child could possibly turn out bad. One could ask if the world would be better off had any of the great doctors or leaders throughout history were aborted. If Washington was aborted? FDR? Obama? What if they were aborted?

As for the death penalty, cold-hearted killers are clearly different from unborn babies(and Pro-Choice people who find Pro-Lifers for the death penalty to be hypocrites, well, Pro-lifers find Pro-Choicers who get all upset about a serial killer being put to death equally hypocritical) I personally feel the death penalty should be rare but an option if there is an unrepentant killer whose existence is a threat to society. IMO, you have to support the death penalty in extreme cases in order to be Pro-life.(Example: Obama Bin Laden, the worst serial killers) Babies and people intent on killing other people are not the same thing, but of course, people who support killing babies go out of their way to make sure the serial aren't harmed. Double standards much? Innocent life be damned but protect the killers. Blurring distinctions has really got our country screwed up when killing killers is no different than killing kids.

Your turn for a question: Why shouldn't somebody kill you? Because you are alive? Why? Because you can take care of yourself, is that all? Cause you are wanted? Cause you aren't a burden? What makes your clump of cells any different from one in the womb? (I have a feeling I know what the answer will be but will give you the chance to answer)

And wow, that's long. Darn long posts eating up my time.

Nystyle709 wrote: Answer this: would it have been a bad thing if Hitler's mother had got an abortion? How about Dahmer? Or Charles Manson? I'm reaching a little bit here with those examples but the fact of the matter is, it wouldn't have been a tragic thing if those people had never been born.

Supernova wrote:

Tell you what, the day you can tell who and what a baby will turn out to be before it's even born, and be 100% accurate with it, then we can talk about 'justifiable abortion'. The day you can accurately predict WHO will be the next Hitler, next Gacy, next Saddam, then let us know.

Actually, I can. I'm God.

Nystyle709 wrote:Forget this. I don't have the energy. You believe what you want. I'm just glad that the "choice" to have an abortion is still legal. And if there ever a situation where it might be banned, best believe there will be a revolt. Keep subscribing to that moral bullshit rhetoric and live your life the way you want to. I and every other sane person will live mine.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Let them revolt. When slavery was abolished, there was a revolt. Evil doesn't go quietly. The day abortion is illegal, life and true choice will both have won a great victory.

Nystyle709 wrote:LOL, you are truly hilarious. Now you're comparing terminating cells that have no sentience to slavery? Well, sucks for you.....abortion isn't going to be illegal. As long as they're are sane people walking this Earth.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:Well, abortions aren't terminating just cells that have no sentience. They terminate small human beings who people just have decided they don't want.

LOL, okay.

I think it's hilarious that the person who compared human embryos to bacteria is laughing at the notion of comparing abortion to slavery. (What is the difference anyway? Both involved somebody exercising their free choice at the expense of the choice of another who was not considered a whole person. Sounds quite similar.)The same arguments that can be used to defend abortion can pretty much defend slavery too.

No it can't. The damn embryo is not living. It's not a human being. YOU said the embryo was a life. I compared LIFE to LIFE. LOL, what aren't you getting? You can't compare a non-living thing to slavery. It's nonsense.

Oh I think it will be one day, precisely BECAUSE we have sane people walking the earth who can see past the ridiculous notion that it's okay to kill human beings because they are inconvenient. I am sure people said the same thing about slavery back a few hundred years.

Nystyle709 wrote:

LMAO. Whatever man. Oh, and you're a man on top of it? Telling me what I can do with my body? You think you're protecting the "life" inside of me? Where do you live? If I ever get pregnant and I decide I don't want it, I'm going to have the baby anyway and specifically drop it off on your doorstep. I hope you give my child the best life possible! And I want him/her to get a good education.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Well it is a living thing, a human being. That's just how it is. And yes, I can compare abortion to slavery because both effect living things who were considered "not people."

IYSS.

Oh please, the "it's my body" is not only such a crock of a defense, it's also an inconsistent one when applied to other areas of life.

Well, it is my body. You're going to dispute that?

Where do I live? You know, so I don't have to repeat it.

Your "twisted mind"? Well, you're right about that one, it damn sure is. I'm a bit twisted too so I'll find ya! . And you better not give my kid up for adoption. I want YOU to take care of it. Your son (I'm assuming based on your avatar) I'm sure would enjoy another playmate.

Nystyle709 wrote:

Your "twisted mind"? Well, you're right about that one, it damn sure is. I'm a bit twisted too so I'll find ya! . And you better not give my kid up for adoption. I want YOU to take care of it. Your son (I'm assuming based on your avatar) I'm sure would enjoy another playmate.