It's just another fear tactic so that people remain sexually isolated and ignorant.

Remember, white America was first settled by European prudes.

>>8013499
so would you say that most conservatives who are heavily into the bible think pre marital sex is bad. And so they do not want others to be promiscuous, so they are anti abortion. Therefore it would encourage less sex all round?

Are there any republicans that are pro abortion or is it pretty much a clear cut thing that most of them are against it?

>>8013475
I like how blind you are. You think the problem is within America when the real reason are opposed to abortion are religious reasons. All of the Abrahamic religions (judiasm, islam, christianity) are opposed to abortion. Because more than half of America is composed of Christians then that is why so many are opposed. This applies to all countries. Any christian, catholic, muslim, jew, etc. are opposed to abortion. This is the end of this thread btw.

>>8013475
>So many accidental pregnancies.
>accidental pregnancies
No such thing in the Western World.

Because it's destructive and people don't have an excuse for accidental pregnancy.

Do unbaptised babies go to hell? What kind of god would allow that form of eternal punishment to an innocent? To punish the mother? Sick.

Do unbaptised babies go to heaven? They have never had a chance to sin, so they are guaranteed to get into heaven, right? What kind of religious mother would not want this for thier child?

No, there is no solid argument based on religion that is opposed to abortion, unless you posit that god is a capricious, arbitrary dick.

>>8013518
condoms only work 99% of the time. Sometimes they break as well

>>8013475
I think abortion is necessary in select situations, but I rage so hard over abortion due to carelessness. Not like anything can be done about that.

Taking an extreme stance is stupid, whether it be the religious one or the feminist "fuck yeah abortion" type.

>>8013547
Why? Personally, I rage at people who have kids due to carelessness. That's even more careless.

>>8013526
how is it destructive? Do you mean the process of abortion or the being able to fuck anyone then get an abortion mentality?

There are accidental pregnanices. They do happen

I disagree with abortions on demand, in a way. I mean to say that they should not be considered a form of contraception. Anybody who is opposed to abortion AND contraception AND sex education is a hypocrite whose real agenda, the prevention of sex before marriage, is clear. The rights of the child are just a pawn in thier true, religious agenda.

>>8013539
birth control pills, etc. Also even IF you are accidentally pregnant, there's the morning after pill and ultimately abortion. No kids are unwanted, is my main point here.

>>8013565
Seconded. Fuck single parents and unfit parents who "just couldn't do that!" to get rid of the foetus.

>>8013566
The only accidental pregnancies are when the woman is raped. Otherwise the woman chooses to have sex.

And the fetus is destroyed, it prevents someone from being born.

What are we protecting here, a human baby, a person or a soul?

I don't think we ever have a soul, so any arguments based on that fall flat for me. I don't think we have full personhood until well after birth, so the feotus is not in that category. And it is human in the sense that it has human DNA, like an arm or a leg.

Abortion is not good. But nobody argues that it is. But until the days of perfect contraception, it is necessary.

>>8013580
Unless they intend to get pregnant, it is an accidental pregnancy, in the same way that when someone breaks his leg skiing, it is accidental.

Not having sex in the first place would also prevent someone from being born. Successful contraception would prevent someone from being born. It's not destructive.

>>8013571

Unless the mother thinks it is a sin to take steps to prevent pregnancy. That results in a lot of unwanted kids.

>>8013547
Why would you give a shit? If someone has sex in the back of a car or in some alley way so some random guy cos they were horny and did so anyway without protection, who cares? It is not a behaviour I would engage in but if they want to live their life like that then it is up to them. They think it feels good, go for it.

People take drugs regularly. I do not. But I don't give a shit if they do unless it directly affects me. Eg. Your house gets robbed cos they want crack money.

I don't care if the chick gets pregnant and has an abortion. She hsa to go through the mental trauma and the pain of it. It only matters if she pays for it herself or not. I don't want my taxes going to pay for chicks who have multiple abortions a year, year in year out.

It would be worse if she brought the child into the world and then you have to pay for his welfare so he can smoke pot all day or go surfing with his welfare buddies.

Her abortion does not affect you so why should you care? There are more benefits of her having one rather than her raising the child.

Do you think that a woman who gets pregnant and wants to abort the baby is capable of raising it if she was forced to have it?

>>8013603
But it doesn't have to. If she's *that* religious she won't be fucking unless it's to have kids anyway.

>>8013597
Pregnancy isn't just a risk involved in sex, it's the primary purpose of sex. When you choose to do something, you choose all the consequences, especially when the consequences are as immediate as "sex leads t o pregnancy".

When an embryo/fetus is formed the process of life has already begun, and without positive action it will result in a human being. It's not the same as not having sex in the first place.

>>8013499

The most widespread and vocal opposition to abortion comes from the Bible Belt and flyover country in general. Folks there are largely of Scots-Irish descent. When the Ulster Scots came/were deported to America they were largely unchurched. Christians from early American urban centers used to do missionary work among them.

The Puritans who we like to blame for our prudish politics were the ancestors of today's Boston Brahmins; an almost universally liberal subculture.

America's generalized fear of sex and our use of the Bible to justify that fear have more to do with the social fragility of racist settler cultures. Every element of oppression and domination must be maintained lest they all fall apart. Our bloody history of slavery and genocide has warped every aspect of our social consciousness.

>>8013617

You expect a consistent set of morals from a religious person.

>>8013621
Who cares about positive action? It is not currently a person; therefore it has no rights.

Also, yes, pregnancy is a potential side effect of sex, but we have abortions. It's like putting aloe on a sunburn or getting a cast for a broken leg. You don't want to have to do those things, but the option is there.

I don't know why abortion is considered progressive.

I thought liberals stood up for animal rights and stuff like that.

White people seem to think that having children is sinful and backwards.

>>8013642
Liberals also stand up for human rights and personal freedom.

>>8013636
It should have the right not to be killed for the sake of convenience. You'd give a dog that right.

>>8013634
No point trying to argue about it then if we are going down that route. Religious people are unreliable and arbitrarily pick and choose which rules to follow when it suits them.

Still doesn't change the fact that there are no unwanted children in the Western World. If you truly don't want kids, there are many methods to prevent them. Therefore, logically, all children are wanted.

>>8013647
Dogs get killed for convenience all the time.

>>8013647
A fetus is not a dog. A fetus has the rights of a kidney.

>>8013646
>personal freedom
don't know about that one.

I think the reason that liberals are in favour of abortions is to identify as a liberal (because conservatives oppose abortion)

>>8013662
So you give a dog more rights than a human in early development?

>>8013668
Sure, I give a dog more rights than a fetus.

>>8013646
"Liberals" do those things when it benefits their agenda. Most liberals are not for free speech, hate smoking in private businesses, etc.

>>8013647

I'd abort a fetal dog just as I'd abort a fetal human.

I wouldn't kill a dog that has been born other than out of mercy or self-defense just as I wouldn't kill a human that has been born other than out of mercy or self-defense.

See how that works?

>>8013668
Of course. Dogs are self aware, globs of developing cells are not.

>>8013681
Why is a human who has been born more important than one who hasn't?

Does something magical happen upon passing through the uterus? Babies have been born as early as 22 weeks and lived.

>>8013697
Then any "babies" 21 weeks or younger are fair game, right? Cool.

Alright, guys, consider this.

Let's say the best violinist in the entire world has a disease that requires him to be attached, physically, to one particular woman for nine months. During these nine months, it would be the woman's responsibility to stay healthy to ensure his life. If she drinks, smokes, whatever, he could end up dying horribly. At the end of it, the woman must undergo a very painful process to remove this violinist from her.

Should the woman be forced to give up her body this way, even though another's life may be at stake?

>>8013678
This is seriously low tier trolling.

>"Liberals" do those things when it benefits their agenda.

Yeah, it's not like Conservatives also do this, or any other political stance.

>Most liberals are not for free speech, hate smoking in private businesses, etc.

0/10

>>8013659

I still say there are, among religious families. They do not want a child, but feel obligated by thier faith or pressured by thier families to keep and raise it.

By your logic there have never been any unwanted children ever, since even in the third world the mother could simply leave the child to the elements if she didn't want it.

I'm saying there are degrees of want, and reasons to want the child that are good, ie, just plain wanting to have children and a family, and reasons that are bad, ie, getting pregnant to keep a relationship working, to gain financial support from the father or the state, because it would be socially unnacceptable to renege on it once pregnant (because the religious dislike contraception more than they dislike pre-marital sex, at least when it comes to themselves), and so on. There are a lot of bad reasons to have a kid, and these unwanted, ie, wanted for the bad reasons, children get a really bum deal in life.

>>8013678
What? As a liberal, I support free speech and have no problem with smoking in venues as long as there is a sign indicating that there is smoking.

>>8013704
She'd be a bitch if she didn't

>>8013704
>Implying unwanted and unborn foetuses are as useful as "the best violinist in the entire world".

>>8013720
What about you? You could donate one of your kidneys right now to a stranger and save his life. Do you still have both your kidneys?

>>8013621
blox
>Pregnancy isn't just a risk involved in sex, it's the primary purpose of sex
Most people have sex for pleasure, not to make a kid.

>>8013571
>birth control pills, etc. Also even IF you are accidentally pregnant, there's the morning after pill and ultimately abortion. No kids are unwanted, is my main point here.

I am a dude so I totally forgot about all those other things. I only think of condoms mainly when I think contraception. However, even with the morning after pill or the contraceptive pill, some people will be careless. Think of a chick who doesn't have regular sex. So she is not on the pill. She meets some guy and has sex with him without a condom. She doesn't know about or can't be fucked getting a morning after pill. Then a few months later realises she is pregnant. It would be better for her to abort if she wants to rather than be forced to raise the child.

And another example would be the female who thinks she wants a kid then after a few weeks or months decides not to have one. Would it be wise to force her to have that kid?

I just don't understand why some people feel it should be the law to force someone to have a child. Then have to raise the child. It isn't like there is a child shortage in the world or anything.

Sometimes when I think of it, it almost seems surreal. Like this is some kind of futuristic sci fi movie like logan's run

>>8013725
If I did, I wouldn't be able to donate my rare blood that saves the lives of newborns.

>>8013716
>>8013710
Maybe you do, but try saying "The Holocaust was exaggerated" and see how many people try and silence you. If they get upset, that's fair enough, everyone can find it offensive, but many people who identify as "liberal" have a serious problem with free speech.

>>8013716
>no problem with smoking in venues as long as there is a sign indicating that there is smoking.
You are in the minority, like me. It is illegal in many countries run by "liberals" to smoke in bars, for example.

>>8013697

Why yes, something "magical" does happen. THEY'RE FUCKING BORN.

They no longer exist as a literal part of another organism. That's pretty major.

>>8013731
>I just don't understand why some people feel it should be the law to force someone to have a child. Then have to raise the child. It isn't like there is a child shortage in the world or anything.

I know where you're coming from, but white people seriously need to have more kids

>>8013697

A person, ie a fully developed human person in it's own right, has some value to itself, and we all depend on others recognising this value in us, so we recognise it in others. Before a human being is a full person, during childhood, it has value to it's parents and we all respect this value in others, since we want them to respect our value for our children. Before a human is born, and not into late pregnancy even, but before they are even a independent living thing, they have value to the mother. This is why we do not allow mandatory, enforced abortions, but we do allow the mother to choose whether to continue with the pregnancy and have the child.

>>8013741
And what's so special about being born?

Is whatever pops out first more important than the rest of the body?

>>8013720
Isn't it her choice, and not yours, though?

>>8013738
At least in the US, no one will actually try to silence you, they'll just accuse you of being trolling/nuts/wrong and they'd be right. And you'd get accused by both the left and the right.

Also, in the US, it's usually conservative groups who try to censor movie and television content.

>>8013731
>It would be better for her to abort if she wants to rather than be forced to raise the child.
I'm not arguing with this point, man, I agree.

I said there's no such thing as an "unwanted" kid because they are so preventable in the West.

>>8013735
Do you think that everyone else should be legally mandated to either donate blood or kidneys?

>>8013755
Not saying I believe that, by the way. Just an example. Another is the use of "the n word" oh man people sure hate words.

>>8013621
>Pregnancy isn't just a risk involved in sex, it's the primary purpose of sex.

This is true in species where females have prominent "heat" cycles and neither seek out nor enjoy sex when they're out of heat.

Human females tend to seek out sex with more frequency when they're ovulating, but the fact that they can and do enjoy/seek out sex at any point during their menstrual cycle points to sex serving purposes beyond basic reproduction in the human species.

>>8013753
The "magical" part is that the newborn baby is no longer essentially a leech on the life of the woman, and the most risky part of pregnancy for the mother (childbirth) has taken place.

>>8013753

"They no longer exist as a literal part of another organism. That's pretty major."

Don't anger the robot by making me repeat myself.

>>8013773
So, until the cord is cut it's not a person?

>>8013763
Sure, but there's context behind the words. I mean, personally, I don't really give a shit, but it makes sense. I mean, imagine if whenever you walked around, people insulted your dead family members or something.

The stupid part of the conservative argument is that it claims that abortion is okay in cases of rape, for instance. However, their argument is that abortion is killing an innocent person.

Now, what separates a person conceived of by rape than a person conceived of any other way? Either way, you're still murdering an innocent person by this logic, and furthermore, you're punishing a child for the crimes of its father. Not only is this a ridiculous double standard, but it also just doesn't make sense.

And really, to be perfectly honest, killing a baby is less immoral than killing a grown human being. Human beings gain worth as they gain knowledge and experience. Some moreso than others. That being said, babies are still much more valuable than say, animal life.

But a fetus totally lacks the neural differentiation to be considered an infant. It's only in about week 27 of fetal development, the start of the third trimester, where the brain can be considered developed enough to be "human".

For this reason, I'm completely opposed to abortions that take place after the beginning of the third trimester, with the exception of cases in which the mother's life is endangered (justified by the reasoning that adult human life is more valuable than infant human life).

>>8013783
I wouldn't give a shit. Humanity needs to evolve beyond being offended by language. Only real threats such as "I'm going to kill you" should be taken seriously.

>>8013757
but if the female was careless and had sex, knowing full well that she doesn't want a baby, then wouldn't this be an unwanted pregnancy?

Even if she knows she will get pregnant, but doens't want it, it is still an unwanted pregnancy.

It is like if a guy eats 10 big macs a day. He will get fat. He might not want to get fat but knows he will get fat eating that much. You can't say that because he ate that much, he wanted to get fat. He might still not want to be fat, but wanted to eat the big macs anyway.

According to my resources, it causes prolonged psychological problems.

Although, I am pro-death; it is the most economically efficient. Which is the same reason I don't oppose the death sentence. If people loved children like they should then I would be anti-choice.

>>8013784
>punishing a child for the crimes of its father.
And only God can do this.

>>8013781
It doesn't matter when it is or is not a person.

Even assuming it was, for all intents and purposes, a fully-fledged human being as in the example given in >>8013704, the woman should not be forced to give up her body to another human in that way. It's her body, so it's her decision.

>>8013803
I agree, and legally, that should be (and is, to my knowledge) the case.

But similarly, you can't make it illegal for someone to be offended.

>>8013807
unwanted pregnancy is not an unwanted kid. Abort that sucker.

>>8013817
zsad
>you can't make it illegal for someone to be offended.
Indeed. That is a problem people need to work out by themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with being offended, for the right reasons.

>>8013784

Yep. If your platform is that abortion is the killing of an innocent, any exception in the case of rape or health or any reason, is ridiculous.

And it exposes thier real agenda, which has nothing to do with the life of the child. It has only to do with the prevention of the sin of adultery, thier disgust at pre-marital sex. This is why they oppose contraception and abortion, because they are get out of jail free cards for having sex at will. Opposition to contraception is a more difficult sell, since any adult will quickly realise how prudent and sensible it is, but opposition to abortion is a lot simpler to get people riled up over.

>>8013784
I actually hadn't thought of this argument before.


Nice.

>>8013807
You're comparing two different things. (Kind of) There's a difference between eating and fucking. But he could actually get one of those gastric bands to prevent being so fat just like a woman could get an abortion to prevent a kid,

>>8013836
Yep. Time for me to head to the gym. This has been a friendly conversation.

>>8013784

Punishing a child for the actions of it's forebears is par for the course for these people. Original sin being passed down to everyone, and the blaming of Jews for the death of christ to name the two biggest ones.

>>8013851
well I think it is not too much different for the purposes of comparison. He wants to eat, then say gets liposuction. It is painful and costs him money and comes with risks. There is a healing period etc. If he wants to subject himself to over eating then liposuction, why should anyone care?

Same as if a chick wants to fuck a lot of dudes then get an abortion, why shoudl you care? As long as she pays for it and knows that she is fucking up her body and emotional state, it is not your problem

The alternative is that she has the kid then does a shitty job raising it. This causes more problems. Not only for the child, but for society in general

>>8013859
Exactly. See here: >>8013814
Their own God openly admits to punishing people 3 or 4 generations down the line for their great-grandfather's sins. Good luck getting into heaven if your granddad did something wrong.

>>8013872
Can I just get something straight here? Are you directing "you" to me or just people in general? Because I do actually agree with that point. It's not one's concern what another does with their body.

>>8013882
people in general blocks blox a

It's a smokescreen. It's a non issue that is there to distract the feeble of mind from real issues.

>>8013784
The abortion issue is rarely about the logic of the thing, and has always been, more or less an "us" vs "them." Scenario.

There are many well reasoned arguments out there to pick from, for either side - but as you pointed out, there is almost always inconsistencies.

The only consistent quality to the abortion debate that has persisted from the beginning, has nothing to do with the life or actions of the child.

It has everything to do with the sexuality of the woman. Those who are typically against abortion, are also against the propagation of female sexual freedoms. This is to say, should a woman be able to behave, sexually - as a man does?

This is a bit off of course - since men are not mandated to act in a certain way EITHER - but there enlies the perception. Sexual freedoms have been an issue since time immemorial. Sometimes sexuality is more free, sometimes less free. But human investment in its perception and social capital have always been high stakes.


We are insidious creatures, and both sides of the abortion debate are not fighting for noble causes, but wholly self-important greedy ones. There is no noble cause in this fight, only rhetoric and power.

>>8013757
It's still possible to get pregnant with multiple forms of birth control.
The pill is only 99% effective as are condoms. This percentage goes down if even the smallest mistake is made. If you don't take the pill at the exact same time each day or if you miss a day it becomes less effective.
Condoms do break.
I personally think it's crazy to depend on condoms alone because they seem really unreliable.
And If someone doesn't realize the condom broke (maybe their partner didn't tell them) or wasn't educated enough about the pill, how would they know to get the morning after pill?

There are a lot of circumstances where pregnancy could be accidental. And I think it's really ignorant and misogynistic to say otherwise. The problem with anti-abortion people is that they put everything on the woman. Men are free to leave because they themselves cannot physically become pregnant.

If a man can just leave, why can't a woman decide that she isn't ready or able to support a child?

Cons are against killing a mass of goo without sense of consciousness and ego, but they are for killing young people and young and old people from other countries.
Not to mention, death penalty. They're very coherent, you know.

>>8013929
I agree completely.

However, I still feel the need to dismantle logically any argument that is illogical. Holding a position like this not only prevents ethical and moral action from being taken, but it is a god damn affront to the potential of your brain as a human being.

And if the argument changes to one of sexual freedoms, it is almost painfully obvious which side is in the right. Simply put, sex produces happiness. A lot of it. Clinging to sexual morality not only doesn't make sense, but it's an emotional throwback to a period in evolutionary history that technology has made obsolete.

Be a good person.

Let women fuck.

>>8013944
blox
>why can't a woman decide that she isn't ready or able to support a child?
>Implying I am not completely for this.

Might want to fucking read what I posted.

>misogynistic
Get the fuck out. Seriously.

>>8013929
I do base my pro abortion on selfish reasons. I do not want a child to be brought into this world who may end up robbing others because he had little chance of doing anything in the envoronment he was brought into

However, I see it as a net gain for the woman as well. Not forcing her to raise a child she does not want. Therefore less financial burden on her. Not to mention her life in the first few years having to look after the kid.

Then there is the kid's welfare. How can you let him/her be raised in an environment where he/she was not wanted?

These aren't selfish reasons to be pro abortion. The way I see it, anti abortion is more selfish. People think that others should behave in a way that they would when it doesn't hurt them.

>>8013929
But, the violinist argument is pretty logical... isn't it? I haven't seen anyone pick that apart, yet.

I mean, when you get right down to it, how is letting the woman decide for herself "selfish"? I suppose I'm self-interested in that I'm standing up for the morals I think are correct, but then we're all "self-interested" in any debate topic at that point. Right?

>>8013984
You're missing the point.
Pregnancy is not as preventable as you're saying it is.
You're oversimplifying the situation.
Probably because you're insanely ignorant.

>>8014020
First of all, pregnancy isn't the point here, have a kid is. Being pregnant does NOT mean having a kid. Can you morons figure this out?

Secondly, it is pretty damn preventable - from both sides.

>>8013977

The equity between men and women sexually is only part of it. If they had their way, men would be much more constrained sexually (at least as a societal norm, personal indiscretions would still be rampant) and sexuality would be reserved and mitigated as a cultural influence.

Sexuality is chaotic - always has been. Therefore the more 'orderly' in mind prefer to mitigate, imprison or otherwise subdue the beast.

Apart from that relative impossibility, the notion of sexuality producing children is important - becuase it creates consequences to action, and this is the main goal of the position. To have a tangible consequence that can dictate and control peoples reactions.

Of course - there are other problems with this position. It doesnt control actions - only punishes them (this kind of poetic vengeance is popular with this crowd), chaos isnt all bad, and can be associated with freedom, etc.

This argument is actually very little about the pragmatic approaches to life and the very real genuine and different ways people can live out their lives - and far more about those inscrutable instincts for conformity and power and fear that both sides possess.

Both sides are guilty of it. The pro-choice advocate harbors hatred of anyone who would tell them to do ANYTHING with their body (or mind, or spirit), and the pro-life advocate harbors a hatred of anyone who would upset the norm, orderly conduct and special privilege.

This is why it's not up to voting. Nor should it be. Because everyone is just piling on logical and rational arguments to what are, fundamentally, irrational and hostile emotional responses to other people. This is why no one ever changes their position on it (or very very rarely). It's about identity, not about good policy.

>>8014019
The world's best violinist (an adult) can hardly be compared to a bunch of unformed cells though. Abortion should be legal, and is.

My opinion is this. Republicans are hypocritical in most of their views.

Here is my big thing that I tell republicans: What is there view on welfare? 9/10 republicans hate or are against welfare. Also 9/10 are against abortion. So, if republicans had it their way--they would make a woman have a baby and if she could not afford it the baby would just die and probably the rest of the family because there would be no welfare system to assist. The only reason the welfare system is there is because republicans are so against abortion, so they are hypocrites.

The thing is these christians and conservatives think that because abortions are legal, people use them as another form of birth control. This thought is absolutely absurd, abortions are a horrible process to go through, physically and definitely emotionally.

Then again not having the abortion will lead to the same efffects, only drawn out over many years. The parent may feel regret and depression if they were not married or very young when they had the child. And the child may be orphaned and feel unloved their whole life.

It seems to me that the whole debate is chocked up to when life starts and basically is the essence of the Western (religious) sex stigmata.

>>8014055
Most people are hypocritical in most of their views.

It's not special to Republicans. The media plays upon this idea only because strongly held beliefs are always more catastrophic in their failure when the hypocrisy is exposed.

>>8014037
That's an excellent argument.

However, regardless of oughts, this is a matter that WILL be decided by policy, and as such, a policy which will maximize utility is the one which should be used (assuming you are not operating under the basis of moral absolutes; if you are, you're retarded).

Given the choice, the "pro-choice" side allows for greater freedom. Advocates of abortion and sexual purity are allowed to exist, nobody forces them to be sexually active or have abortions. Meanwhile, advocates of choice and sexual liberty are also allowed to exist, nobody imposes their will upon them.

The alternative to this is that one side (pro-life) forces the other to comply with their will on threat of punishment. This seems to me as less than ideal.

Really, the only two arguments I can see against this position is if you feel afraid that your social norms are being overturned. In which case, I present to you that your morals and social norms are outdated. Alternatively, some individuals may feel that this is truly a matter of the "souls" of the unborn.

If this is the case, we need to have a different discussion altogether.

>>8014065
>people use them as another form of birth control.

True, in less than 3% of abortions the pregnancy is a risk to the mother's health

I agree with you OP.

sage because just talking about pregnancy makes me feel sick

>>8014088
why would a female want to go through an abortion when she has easier choices? And who pays for it? Doesn't it cost money for her as well?

>>8014079

My very dear sir, you are trying to engage me (quite well) in an argument about the policy choices as is. I am not making that argument or having that discussion.

What I have been discussing is the meta-argument. The motivations that underpin and lie at the center of each main group's focus. The subtle reasons for why people do what they do, rather than the rational arguments they can construct on TOP of those desires, are the chief cause for why they VOTE the way they do.
And, in our system - the vote determines the individual, who's own desires will then be manifest in another VOTE to determine final policy.

In the age of mass media and higher voter turn out, but lower resistances to one's internal motivations and insidious calculations - the emotions of the thing are what determine, in the end, final policy.

All the grand and quite poignant rhetoric is meaningless in the face of instincts unsurpassed.

To make matter again these very reasonable arguments from both sides - would require our society evolve again (or devolve) into a state in which the personal point of view was always appended for the greater good in a reasoned moment. From time to time this kind of behavior is rewarded and exalted in society - which leads to a rise in it's usage and commonality. But we do not currently live in such a time. Ours is the age of demagoguery - and these too have their place.

>>8014116
But pray tell, good sir, what your opinion is on a pragmatic resolution to the situation at hand? Regardless of the underlying motives and opinions of representatives on both sides of the debate, is not a mere analysis of these a mere foray into sociology?

As this debate drags on, it only cases unwarranted human suffering in the meanwhile. I feel it is my duty to push for a resolution as quickly as possible, and while you are quite right in that no amount of rhetoric and logic can sway a population dead set on their beliefs, I'm of the opinion that the attempt to do so is more noble than idle (if scholarly) observation.

And regarding your thoughts on a society where individuals look past their self interest to act for the greater good in moments of reason, I have a feeling that a society which does this is well on the way to utopia.

>>8014188
Two things - a resolution to what end?

You presume the conflict between the ideals, is, itself, bad. I do not. The conflict has always been thus, and will always thusly be so.
Order and chaos have always fought, and it is good that they do so. So when you ask me what my solution is - I must ask, to what problem?

Secondly, history has had on several occasions in which duty to others is more highly prized and valued and therefore rewarded than instinctive beneficial moments. It comes in waves, as all human endeavors and insights do.

The age of enlightenment, in which the U.S. Constitution was written was such a time. And those who constructed that document were clever enough to recognize the needs at hand. They disagreed with one another furiously - but always their goals were to the function rather than the results of that function in their new government. This has done us well for some time.

No system is perfect however, nor any human who might craft it, and emotions will always play their role. But when we can use emotional gratification in self-sacrifice for greater noble causes, we do ourselves justice.

However, note that these causes for which we might ordain ourselves prophets, are never summarily judged as righteous until long after we are dead, for logical reasons. Until then, it is only our internal logistics, spirit and heart that carries us to fruition.

And so, long ago - I came to the conclusion that I would much rather watch, than rule.

My view on abortion?

Whatever some woman wants to do is none of your fucking business. That shit is between the father and the mother alone. No. One. Fucking. Else. God damn.

>>8014265
Personal responsibility and freedom? We can't have that.

life or not, willing partaking in an action that is guaranteed to ruin your life on the basis that you simply arent ready to handle it yet is fucking retarded.

think of it like this.
you have a gun and for whatever reason you've decided to shoot your hand, but you don't necessarily want to ruin your hand. now, you can shoot your hand now, or wait a week til you can afford a bulletproof glove.
hur dur.

I think we need to do way with instain mothers who kill thier babbys. becuse these babby cant frigth back? It's only reasonable.

>>8014304
It is completely legal to be an idiot.

>>8014265
Oh yeah, the father should be allowed to prevent an abortion

I don't understand the "abortions as contraception" argument. I have never heard of a single woman who thought abortions were "no big deal" and would rather shell out $400 or so each time they got pregnant instead of getting condoms or birth control for free (and you can).

I figure anyone who is going to get an abortion probably isn't a religious person, so they already know about safe sex and have attempted to practice it.

I notice a lot of people who are against "abortions as contraception" are all very religious sheltered people, who in general seem to think anyone who isn't religious loves to kill babies and does so as much as they can.

>>8014343
I know I would, but I'm a socio-ah fuck it.

I like how the GOP is always so staunch about the right to life until the minute your head crowns out of your mom's bloody pussy lips, then YER ON YER OWN BOY NO FREE HANDOUTS ROUND THESE PARTS HERP

Abortion is a completely legal medical procedure, and yet it always seem to be old balding fat men who want to decide for women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Pro-abortion is such a fucking bullshit term. Nobody is pro-abortion, we are pro-choice. A woman should always reserve that decent and fundamental right to choose, especially if her own health is ever in question.

DERP DERP BABYKILLER BABYKILLER DERPITY DOO

because just like the Muslims who people often point fingers at, westerners aren't nearly as liberal minded as they think. just as cliquey, irrational and stupid as people they criticise.

I personally wouldn't have an abortion because I know I wouldn't be able to bring myself to kill something that was a part of me and a part of someone I love/d. That being said, if other people was to kill a part of themselves/their partner, then power to them. Rock on.

>>8013475

Don't misunderstand us, we CAN see the benefits of abortion, but once you accept it's basically infanticide, everything else basically becomes weak justification for murder. There's a lot of people the world would probably be better off with, but it doesn't make killing them right.

As for teen pregnancy and rape and such, it's sad, but it's not a statistically significant demographic. And again the question becomes "Should we kill person A so person B isn't inconvenienced?"

>>8014436
>inconvenienced

Gee, you make it sound like having a child you didn't ask for is such a small thing.

>>8014436
>infanticide

it doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>8014458

A red herring over pointless semantics. I could use the harshest language in the english tounge to describe the troubles brought by unwanted pregnancy, and it still wouldn't justify murder.

If you proposed the same scenario with anything other than an unborn child, people would think you're crazy, the double standard is staggering.

And the argument rolls on.

Lol, and people wonder why.

>>8014486

>Infanticide is the practice of intentionally killing an infant. [1]

>1 : the killing of an infant
>2 [Late Latin infanticida, from Latin infant-, infans + -i- + -cida -cide] : one who kills an infant


No, I think it's you who doesn't understand, or doesn't have an argument he can actually use.

a child has to die because of the carelessness of the whore? i think not

No-one really thinks abortion is "baby killing" it's just rhetoric. Ask someone who jabbers on about baby killing about if they would force a rape victim to go through with the pregnancy, or if the mother would almost definitely die and 90% of them will want to make an exception. Would they agree to an actual bay, ie not a fetus being 'killed' if it was discovered it had been conceived as a result of rape? If there were a mother and an actual baby in a burning building and they could only save one, would they choose the mother? Of course not. Why do you think that when they show placards of abortions it's always the tiny percentage of late term abortions? Why not the vast majority of them which are pretty indistinguishable from a heavy period? I mean, whether it's 4 weeks or 5 months it's still 'baby killing' right? Bullshit, these fuckwits know as well as anyone else that a fetus isn't the same as a baby, 'baby killing' is just a handy slogan.

Abortions are perfectly fine. The arguement of "You made the choice to have sex now you have to deal with the consequences" is totally invalid due to the fact that now, we can just halt the development of the fetus.

Most people who get abortions are too young to care for a child/not financially stable. Once again, the arguement "OMG BUT DEY HAD SEX AND THEY TOOK ONR SESPONSIBILITYS OMGH!!"

People will never stop having sex. I, and most of the people in the world will not change due to your personal beliefs. I and most people don't care if sex is the biological method of reproduction, it's for pleasure.

I'll give you a scenario.

My gf is 18. She's on the pill, we don't use condoms, and we don't want children now.

let's assume she gets pregnant.

She will get an abortion.

How does this effect you?

>>8014561
Guess you didn't hear about all the catholic raped wimmenz who were forced to birth their rape-produced children

>>8014366

You're not pro-choice, you're pro-"I'll do what I want, because freedom shouldn't have to come with personal responsibility".

>>8014575

>How does this effect you?
>this effect
>effect

>>8014586
Technically, that is freedom.

People are free to make idiotic mistakes and avoid consequences. People will always try to do that - are you surprised?

Whether or not they are successful is a completely other matter - and what you're trying to suggest is that curbing others success of escape is acceptable. That's curbing freedom by hampering other peoples escape routes.

Moral or not - your point is moot.

Also, abortion isn't murder either. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being.

>>8014561

Do you realize that fetus is Latin for unborn child?
And I do equate abortion as killing a child.

>>8014601

There are always consequences. It's simply shifted to someone else. In this case it is the unborn child, who is ripped apart and flushed away.

>>8014618

"The word fetus is from the Latin fetus, meaning offspring, bringing forth, hatching of young." Not that it really matters.

Just to check, what sentence do you think a woman who gets an abortion should get, bearing in mind you think it's child murder? Death penalty?

If abortion were outlawed, does that mean that any woman who has a miscarriage needs to be investigated as a murder suspect, to ensure she didn't do anything to induce the miscarriage (hot bath and gin, a tumble down the stairs, maybe even not eating enough to lose weight in the hope she loses the kid)? Otherwise a lot of women are going to get away with "murder" when they should be in jail or the electric chair.

>>8014525
>implying you didn't try to associate abortion with infanticide.
>implying you're not back-pedalling because you are clueless on the subject of abortion let alone the legal definitions which constitute law.

** INFANTICIDE, med. juris. The murder of a new born infant, Dalloz, Dict. Homicide, Sec. 4; Code Penal, 300. There is a difference between this offence and those known by the name of prolicide, (q.v.) and foeticide. (q.v.)
2. To commit infanticide the child must be wholly born; it is not. Sufficient that it was born so far as the head and breathed, if it died before it was wholly born. 5 Carr. & Payn. 329; 24 Eng. C. L. Rep. 344; S. C. 6 Carr: & Payn. 349; S. C. 25 Eng. C. L. Rep. 433. **

Christ why is this thread still alive....

It's none of your fucking business. Stop poking your nose in people's shit. If a woman wants an abortion, then that's she wants. Whatever you say is moot because that baby is dead once the choice is made. Why?

BECAUSE IT'S THEIR FUCKING BODY AND THE CHILD NOT YOURS.

Now, repeat after me.

It's. None. Of. My. Fucking. Business.

>>8014618

Latin major here. It isn't, lol.

>>8014575

The day will never come when that unborn child's research contribution to science result in a 1000 year lie span, or that unborn child wouldn't be able to kick down the door to my burning house and save my family from dying horribly.

>>8014586

You're not pro-life, you're pro-forced-pregnancy.

>>8014697
>It's none of my fucking business who I decide to drag into my backyard to murder IT'S MY BACKYARD LOL

>>8014718

No, actually, I'm pro-death, see >>8013813

And no one can force you to have sex, except in rape and I think the punishment for that should be having to take care of your bastard child, or imprisonment if you don't impregnate her.

>>8014645
Yeah - but people shift responsibilities all the time. What's your point?

Your still resting your concepts on the idea that it's an individual, where as your opposition contends it's not.

You're allowed to be offended, you can be appalled, you can hate, scream, yell and chastise. But surprise?
That's beneath you.

>>8014750

>pro-death

Wow you're almost *too* edgy, if such a thing were even possible, which it isn't.

>>8014766

I always tell people I'm "Pro-Abortion"
No life and no choice.

That way everyone loses.

>>8014766
Being edgy is so overdone these days, it's cooler to be mainstream.

>>8014761

So it's wrong to make someone else pay for your actions.
The reason we're going into into a recession now is because the leadership when Clinton was president borrowed money from now to pay off the debts then, and those debts came from when Regan was president the leadership borrowed from the future to pay for those debts. Is it fair that now this is happening to you and I now because the leaders didn't feel like taking responsibility 30 years ago?

>>8014766

The intent isn't to be edgy, the intent to help me keep in mind that I am choosing money over human life.

Shit, if abortion is really child killing then pro-choicers shouldn't just be trying to change US law, they should be campaigning to invade all countries where abortion is legal. No-one in their right mind would stand by while a country murdered that many 'babies', we invaded Iraq for far less than that. So, treat women who get an abortion the same way the legal system treats a guy who strangled a four year old to death, treat any country that's advanced out of the stone age like Nazi Germany, treat women who miscarry as murder suspects.

All sounds pretty sensible to me.

>>8014829
Do you plan on fixing every moral wrong in the country?

If not - why do you choose to focus on this one?

And if you let other moral wrongs go - how do you delineate between them and triage them into importance.

Do you demand that other people also triage morality as you do? Perhaps people who are pro-choice also feel abortion is wrong - but it's lower on their "to fix" list.

Do you demand they raise it? And if so - how would you make those demands? How would you justify them, considering they agree with you, just not in the level of your priorities?

Abortion is the only reason I'm not paying 20 or 30% of my paycheck to some slut now just because the fucking condom was torn. Every time I see a bunch of these fucking anti abortion moralfags I want to go on a killing spree. This is not the middle ages and not Iran.

lol pro-choice
KILL BABIES
SPARE CONVICTED MURDERERS

>>8014916

Yeah, we should murder our young, that's the enlightened modern thing to do.

>>8014730

Those two are fundamentally different things and you're a grade A retard for believing otherwise.

I do try to fix every moral wrong I can.

I only dwell on this one, because it's one where I can really take a stance that gets movement from both majorities. I do most of my trolling in real life.

Morality is a difficult issue, I was going to try and make excuses. I never really know how to respond.

No, I do not demand they raise it.

>>8014994

Another thing: It's near virtually impossible to make abortions illegal. Want to know why? Because nothing stops a woman from shoving a coat hanger up there the moment a pregnancy test turns up positive, and no one would ever know.

So stop bitching. Whether you like it or not, babies will be aborted by the hundreds, and no amount of BAWWWW will change it.

>>8015004
So then if you're the minority, you accept that reality? (This presupposes you're the minority, but the question is about your ability to handle the opinions of others)

Also, on moral outrage:
You could take up a cause against hunger, or poverty.
You could take up a cause against discrimination.
You could take up a cause against the death penalty.

You could take up a cause in many many moral stances, publicly there are many to choose from - so saying "this is the one you can impact" isnt entirely true. You can impact whatever cause you hold. So again, I ask - why THIS one?

>>8014957
>Implying a formless bunch of cells without conciousness deserves the same right as a human being

Oh you.

>>8015038

Any human being can be described as a "lump of cells". Your argument is invalid.

>>8014856

THIS!

And everyone in here supporting PRO LIFE needs to shut the fuck up and stop trolling.

"If they're so pro-life I'd like to see them link arms and block the entrance to a cemetary!"

THERE'S OPTIONS!

Fuck off.

>>8015032
What's it matter? Can someone only take up a cause if they have a good backstory to go with it?

>>8015038
Dehumanizing the enemy. Never change, pro-choice. Never change.

>>8015032
I actually put forth effort in other moral issues.

In this one I know someone such as myself would convince very few people of my stance. (Which is abortion is in itself an abominable deed, but it is an advantage to more people than the unwanted child being born.) So I converse on the matter because where I stand tends to make people on both sides mad.

>>8015059
I'm not implying that - thought it may seem it.

The question is simple. Of all the choices to invest in, why invest in those that you do?

You can invest in as many or few as you choose - like anyone. The point is that you DO invest in some, and specifically this one. Why this and not others?

Why form the triage you have? And why does it matter? Becuase when you argue with anyone else who holds a different position - it is not for the merits of their or your argument that emotions touch upon - and instead only that people do not construct themselves the same way.

In this topic - people get angry and heated. Why? Because they're dealing with others who hold diametrically opposed positions - and there is an undercurrent of violent hostility and, should the opportunity arrise, the malevolent destruction of the opposite opinion would be sought.

For a moment, pretend you have a button - that could convince every prochoice (or prolife) advocate, that the opposite is better, and they change (instantly) their position on the matter.

Would you push it?

(If you notice the obvious pitfalls, good, if you ignore them, then I have my answer.)

>>8015140

This wasn't me >>8015059 this was >>8015125

And I wouldn't press it because I agree with neither side.

I love abortion sometimes

>>8015125
So if it is an advantageous of 51% of the population to consume the other 49%, what must be done must be done, right?

>>8015229

Is one life the equivalent of about 148,000,000 people in your opinion?

>>8015140
>For a moment, pretend you have a button - that could convince every prochoice (or prolife) advocate, that the opposite is better, and they change (instantly) their position on the matter.

This is a less difficult question for me than you think it is.

I read it as:

For a moment, pretend you have a button - that could convince every person about murder someone that not murdering someone is better, and they change (instantly) their position on the matter.

You may say "Oh no, you're imposing your will on them, you fascist!" but I fail to see how every aborting woman is not imposing her will onto the fetus in the must destructive way available.

People in general should stop having babies. Lets save the world by adopting and cutting down on kids.

Seriously, we are all human who cares if that newly adopted baby did not come from your dick.

>>8015264
>(Which is abortion is in itself an abominable deed, but it is an advantage to more people than the unwanted child being born.)
Motherfucking Shirley Jackson's The Lottery.

>>8015267

It is the imposition of will, but that's not the only pitfall. And she might be imposing her will over that of the "child" (presuming it has will to be imposed over), but so then are you imposing yours over hers.

The question is not one of the imposition of will - we impose will over each other all the time. But we're against it sometimes, and for it others, - how do you determine which is acceptable and which is not? It is not sufficient to suggest that you do it for others who cannot - for then you would feed the hungry and starving as well.

There is always, and will always be, a logical incongruity in these arguments, when taken to their logical conclusions, every person, on both sides - is a hypocrite when trying to discuss this topic.

So the question then becomes one not of how well reasoned an individual might be over the choice or opinion they hold - but the emotional gratis and gratification found when one exalts the position they hold, and demonizes the other.
If you're pro-choice, great. If you're pro-life, fine.

But do you imagine that your opposite is evil?

I do not.

>>8015301
They support the right of a mother to kill her child when it becomes a burden for her.
That is straight up, black and white comic book evil.
And your wordy diatribes won't change that.

>>8015295

Are you inferring that stopping working people from losing a tangible %10 of their income to kids no one wants, is the same as keeping with a tradition to a god you don't even really know exists?

>>8015329
Wait, are we talking about alimony now?
Are you telling me that a human being isn't worth 10% of a paycheck?

>>8015267

THE FETUS IS A PARASITE. IT IS IN HER BODY, SUCKING HER SUSTENANCE. LIKE THOSE HEALTH-INSURNCE NIGGERS IN THE GHETTO ARE SUCKING THE BLOOD OF WHITE AMERICA

>C.M.A. be pro life
>be

>>8015327
Do you believe that's actually how they see it?
Do you imagine everything they say to the contrary is merely a way to disguise their evil?

Do you imagine when they say they do not see it as "life" that they're lying? Or wrong?

If they're lying - then yes, it'd be easily categorized as evil.
If they're wrong - it's a difference in opinion, and you're presuming that yours is truth, and theirs is false - along with the notion that yours should be the opinion heeded, and theirs ignored. Just as they are of you.

I'm sorry that the world is not as simple as you'd prefer - we'd all like easy answers. Sadly, there are none.


The fact that your position is intractable - and does not allow for any communication and exchange of ideas, is also why you're position is readily ignored. As you have you wants, your vote, your wishes, and you've made it clear what you believe - after that, there's no point in discussing things with you. Perhaps this is what you want - to conquer the worlds mind through force. I do not wish you luck - but then, you wont be getting it either.

>>8015346

I was talking about foster care. I would give up 100% of my paycheck if that were all it took, but it is not my burden alone to bear. Everyone who works pays for children in foster care so for the good almost everyone two losses aren't much.

>>8015375
>everyone has opinions and they're all right.
>who are you to tell the rapist that rape is not ok?
>who are you to tell the murderer that there are other ways?
>shame on you for declaring that people shouldn't kill each other

>>8015406
Then this IS the lottery, only with money being the central motivation instead of crops.

>>8015437

Present me with a logical opposition, I'm easily swayed by good logic. "Yelling" and pointless responses only impede your position.

>>8015418
I dont remember shaming you for anything.

Here, let me fix those for you.
>everyone has opinions and they're all opinions.
>how do you determine that rape is not ok?
>how do you determine that murder is not ok?
>shame on no one

I didnt say I dont agree that we have a duty to impose will - i said so explicitly. We do, and must impose will from time to time. Your examples are good ones.

Now do you know the reasons why? Can you point out the differences in every single context of human behavior, for "why this, not that, yes this, no not that either?"

If not - then why are you arguing with anyone?

>>8015468
>>8015468
"i said so..." I'm on a roll, twice now I cought you making mistakes, Qes, you're better than this.

>>8014586

Are conservatives for the government invading personal privacy or not? They talk this grand game about DONT TREAD ON ME and GET OUT OF MY PRIVATE LIFE and then they are all for getting the federal government to tell women what the hell they should and shouldn't do with their own bodies under penalty of law. Fucking hypocrites.

>>8015484
Lol, i want to see this collection of mistakes - you do realize they're out there in droves, do you not?

Typing skills, spelling, and grammar have never been my strong suits, ever.

>>8015462

I think you're confusing a direct and open effect by an action with wishful thinking and coincidence, then crediting your pointless action with the serendipitous event.

>>8015494
Yeah, but while it is a poor tax, and insidious in nature - I cannot help but wonder if that price for "hope" (if truly found thusly) is actually quite small and reasonable. Sadly, it only lasts a day/week.

>>8015490
Well you're my hero on 4chan as pathetic as it sounds, your intelligence is vast, I feel great and now sad that I noticed your mistakes.

>>8015521

I'm sorry I didn't understand your response. Would you rephrase, please.

>>8015528
Heroes are built up then torn down. It has always been thus, and thus will always be so.

I know a lot of people who have been born to teenaged mothers and they're all much more productive members of society than I am. People say "But what about the poor mother?!" but what about them? They had their chance at life and they fucked it up big time, now give that chance to someone else who might learn from your shitty example.

>>8015571
Naa, nevermind. I was just commenting on the value of the lottery - to which I thought your response was aimed.

Basically - I'm not sure how to feel about it, it's an insidious tax, but if it brings hope, it might be undervalued.

Ignore me.

>>8015596

Only a truly evil person would rather keep that %10 than help some children not die. Even so, it doesn't mean people should have to pay for even more children who are unwanted.

>>8015585
so are you saying force her to raise a child that she does not want because she had sex unprotected? Real freedom there

>>8015585
It should be her choice to have the baby or not. Just because she got pregnant doesn't mean she should be forced to give birth

>>8017790
If only there was a way to give birth to a child and then give it to another family to raise.
IF ONLY THERE WAS A WAY.

>>8018114
so force her to have it then give it up for adoption. Man these anti abortion people are really fucked. Why would you force another child into the world when it wasn't wanted.

Stay out of other peoples' fucking business

The pro-lifers believe that abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human life. Surely you can see why they find any state sanction of this abominable, no matter the circumstance?

>>8018114
I'm adopted. And I'm pro-choice, politically.
Nao wat?

>>8018134
Nobody's being forced. She can give it up to adoption if she wants to, just like how she can have an abortion if she wants to.

The problem with the American mindset is that it holds every ideology over pragmatism, ironically. Absolute consistency and lockstep is required for every decision, varying from it makes you a traitor to your party, blah blah. When it comes down to the morality of killing unborn babies, they see it as killing, no more no less. To them, it would be like seeing Hitler exterminate the Jews and just saying "Meh, they wouldn't want to live in a post-Hitler world anyways, let 'em all die".

Of course, the mindset makes some sense, until you compare it to other ideas within the same ideology, such as abstinence-only sex education, and the restriction of contraceptives, especially to minors. At that point you kinda realize that they're all a bunch of crazy loons who have way more voting power than intelligence :|

>>8018294
she is forced to have the baby and raise it if abortion were to be illegal. This is what the anti abortion people want. Her only other choice would be to give it up for adoption.

So it's either have the baby and raise it or have it and then give it up for adoption. This will lead to many females trying to get rid of their babies by other means.

>>8018234
but think of what would happened if your mother aborted you. That guy from earlier would never find a hero that 4chan needs and deserves.

>>8018338
IF WE DON'T LET WOMEN ABORT, THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY. THAT'S WHY IT SHOULD BE LEGAL.

ALSO, RAPE.

I can see why they see it as murder. And of course they would think that murder is murder no matter what. But it all goes back to the argument of where life begins.
>>8018219
See
>>8014856
You also need to look at the problems faced with a world with no abortion

>>8018352
I do think about it sometimes.
And I came to the conclusion - so what?

My life is just as rare as would be my non-existence.

Ethically? I'm pro life. Morally? Pro life.
Politically, jurisprudence? Pro-choice.

Existentialism for the win/lose.

BECUZ FETUS = BABY U WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND

>>8018374
So wait, are you encouraging pro-life people to go out and shoot abortion doctors? Because a few have taken that idea and ran with it.

a fetus is not a human being. it's in a woman's body, and she should be able to do what she wants with it. it's like having any other sort of abnormality growing within you.

there should be a penalty for getting *excessive* amounts of abortions (i.e., using it as an alternate method of birth control), but being against abortion in principle is fucking retarded.

>>8018407
I don't see it as murder. I am saying I can understand why some people think that it is murder though. But because I am pro choice, I view it as the decision of the mother

>>8018411
why? If the bitch pays for it then it is not anyone else's problem. Of course a woman having a lot of abortions may be mentaly unfit so she may need help. But it shouldn;t be illegal to have a set number of abortions per year

>>8018411
Why? You just said the mother owns the fetus and can do with it whatever she wants. Why does this change when she utilizes that right more times than you would prefer?

>>8018438

well, i don't mean "penalty" as in hurr durr illegal. but maybe forced to attend a sexual education class, so she can prevent further unwanted pregnancies in the future.

You can't murder goo and that's all it fucking is. If you want to take the "It's a potential person" route than in an age where we can create clones with nothing more than your tissue, blowing your nose should be a crime as well.

If abortion is made legal what's going to happen is the poor will be stuck either having their babies or getting dangerous back alley abortions while the rich will go somewhere where it IS legal and get it done there.

>>8018411
>a fetus is not a human being.
It has human DNA.
What, is it a puppy until it's born?

>>8018498

Err, make that "made illegal"

when the sperm has fertilised the egg - not life
when the zygote divides for the first time = life.
for it is now a gestalt entity of its component parts and has exercised an act of will in choosing to live and established sovereignty over its selfhood

>>8018499
a foetus is not self aware. Therefore you can see how others see it as not life right?

If abortions were actually murder, don't you think it would be illegal world wide? Where in the world is murder legal?

>>8018684
Infant is not self aware either.
It's OK to kill infants, then!

>>8018499
Your shit has human DNA. Maybe that's the reason you don't flush the toilet and live in a shithole. You don't want to kill precious human DNA. Imbecile.

>>8018729
How do you know that? Fucking retards.

Plants and animals are alive and we kill them anyway. Virus and bacteria are alive. Antibiotics are anti bios, against life, so stop taking them.
And the hills are alive, for that fucking matter, with the sound of music.

>>8018729
infants are self aware. Your argument is invalid.blox

3 things.
A. Adoption.
B. Take Responsibility for Actions
C. Less than 1% of all abortions are from rape. Therefore, "accidental" doesn't cut it.

>>8018889

Prove to me that infants are self-aware.

Oh wait you can't, just like with feti. Best to be on the safe side and assume that they are, right?

/thread

someone asleep isn't self aware either - can we kill them?
someone in a coma isn't self aware - can we kill them?

what the fuck does this nebulous notion of 'self aware' have to do with being deserving of life anyway?

>>8018929
people should be able to abort their foetus if they chose to do so. You are wanting to make it law to force a person into having a child against their will.

None of your arguments are entireley valid.

>A. Adoption.
Make her carry child for 9 months then give it up versus aborting it in it's foetal stage
>B. Take Responsibility for Actions
People do stupid things sometimes. Would you deny someone the right to medical care if he participated in a street race and crashed his car? Street racing is dangerous and illegal. Should he be refused medical care because of his actions?
>C. Less than 1% of all abortions are from rape. Therefore, "accidental" doesn't cut it.
Rape is only a part of the larger argument. There are many more reasons for abortion in this thread. They all make sense.

as always the moralfags and religiousfags sticking their noses into other peoples business when it doesn't belong. They always think that their set of values is superior. No wonder so many people hate extreme religousfags

>>8013475
Pro-abortion.
I feel the same way you do OP, you summed it up very well.
Amerifag.

>>8019071
>Would you deny someone the right to medical care if he participated in a street race and crashed his car?
He should be given proper treatment, and then sent to prison.
But you'd give him a new racecar, and say "oh, people do stupid things sometimes, everyone deserves a second chance"

>>8018499
Tis a fetus, or maybe you can't understand that fact.

>>8019139
>They always think that their set of values is superior
Look who's talking.

Why not just put your kid up for adoption? There are PLENTY of people out there who can't have kids.

I think the only time adoption doesn't work is when mother has a crack baby.

But why not adoption as the solution for everything else???

Young foetuses aren't alive.

They have potential to be alive.

>>8019220

Because the people who oppose abortion don't actually want to adopt these babies. They just want to impose their religion on others.

(And it is almost always religious nuts)

I wouldn't personally suggest a girl abort a kid for any reason other than health issues or rape, but I have no problem with the concept that a woman's body is her own business. I was born to very young parents and I turned out fine, even though times were hard, so I guess it's a subject I'm invested in somewhat.

>>8019174
no. analogy is bad blox

>>8019253
>Because the people who oppose abortion don't actually want to adopt these babies.
That is non sequitur. It doesn't matter if one group of people don't want to adopt. Plenty of other people would gladly adopt those kids. The waiting list to adopt is HUGE. I know a couple who waited 6 years to get a kid.

>>8019212
you should allow others to do what they want to their lives unless it directly affects you. This is why religiousfags are hated. Because they want to impose their beliefs on everyone. They think everyone who thinks otherwise are sinners and bad

>>8019220
a woman should not have to carry a baby inside her for 9 months if she does not want to. It is not your body and so it should not be your choice. Saying she shouldn't have had sex is not a valid argument because people will always do stupid things. It is not your right to deny them of the choice

Because everyone knows it is murder but sometimes rationalizations have to be made to protect the psyche of people who have killed.

>>8019298
And you think that everyone who thinks otherwise is religious fanatic or bigoted far-right retard, yes?

>>8019340
no. They're just stikcing to their beliefs which are wrong in this case. They don't see it benefiting them so they don't want others to benefit from it. They don't have to raise the kid, so fuck it.

>>8019318
>a woman should not have to carry a baby inside her for 9 months if she does not want to.
Valid arguement.
>It is not your body and so it should not be your choice. Saying she shouldn't have had sex is not a valid argument because people will always do stupid things. It is not your right to deny them of the choice
I see what kind of person you are now. You always ASSUME what other people believe. You put words into their mouths.
I never said any of the above. I never made those arguments. I only said "Hey, what about adoption?"
So grow up or STFU.

>>8019372
adoption is a choice. Some choose to take it. Others do not want it. Therefore you always need abortion as an option as well. I was saying that other stuff before you or anyone else imposed it as a point of argument. Stop being so defensive.

>>8019428
>adoption is a choice. Some choose to take it. Others do not want it. Therefore you always need abortion as an option as well.
Valid argument.
However, I don't want my tax dollars supporting something I am against. If they pay for it themselves, that's fine.
>I was saying that other stuff before you or anyone else imposed it as a point of argument.
Not necessary. Putting words in others' mouths is bad form. Not a very good practice and that would never fly IRL.
>Stop being so defensive.
LOL Really? "defensive" doesn't mean what you think it means.
I merely pointed out that I didn't make any of those arguments so therefore they are not part of this discussion. I never defended myself or my point. You put words in my mouth and I said "Bad Anon."

Anti-abortionists make out like pro-aborionists like abortions, or think of it as a contraceptive. Nobody is "pro-abortion", everyone agrees it's sad, but the alternative is worse

>And some people do not think about consequences either.

THIS. A THOUSAND TIMES THIS.

I can understand abortion for rape, but because you didn't think about the consequence? You shouldn't be having sex if you don't know that THAT'S how babies are made.

Some people say that the end never justifies the means.

Pro-if a woman wants to have an abortion she will by clothes hanger or any other dangerous way,abortion save woman's lives in exchange for the "live" of a braindead hunk of flesh

No one should have an answer to whether or not abortion should be allowed.

Unless you've knocked someone up and realized you're about to have a life sharing your blood come into this world.

Did you ever read Brave New World? That's why I am against abortion as a form of birth control.
If you don't want a baby give it to somebody who does. And before you idiots start going on about how adoption fucks people up, death fucks people up too.
And before you start going on about how a fetus is not life, it will be in the future. And unlike you shortsighted fucks I care more about the future(inb4 overpopulation and other ill thought out arguments).

There will always be abortion. But it shouyld not be pleasant, or the first choice for ANYBODY unless it is truly necessary.
I can understand a rape victim or somebody with a medical condition. But those 20 year old college students who have done this 5 times and act like it is nothing can kiss my fucking ass.

OP, by your logic, people in Africa should never have children because they will grow up poor. Regardless of the fact that there is no such thing as a 100% miserable life and if you ask a child in Africa if they would rather be alive or dead, they will not say dead.

Crime happens abortion or no abortion. Poverty happens abortion or no abortion.
Abortion has not, and never will, solve or make worse to any social ills whatsoever on any meaningful scale. So that is a load of shit.

I am against people killing all potential for happiness their future children have to save themselves a little discomfort. The fact that our society considers slapping nature in the face necessary for individual rights is disgusting. Abortion is not a right. It is a god damned medical procedure and we should keep it that way. Stop idealizing this shit and admit it is an ugly thing that should be avoided at all costs. If a women does not want a baby use the pill or a fucking condom, but abortion as birth control is sick.