Nobody "supports abortion". They simply believe it is the right of the woman to choose; that's why it's called "pro-choice", not "pro-abortion."
Here's my personal belief: since there's not really a concrete answer as to when/if an embreyo becomes a sentient being, the moral thing to do is to air on the side of giving women the choice.
After all, it's certainly immoral to force a woman who was raped to have a baby against her will.
I understand your point
Not everyone has the same idea of what is or is not moral. By saying I am pro-choice, I am saying that I support your right to do what I see as the wrong thing, because it doesn't hurt me, and I realize I am not a moral authority. It means I think each woman should be able to decide between right and wrong for herself.
Actually most people think abortion is wrong but think it's the woman's right. I think the WBC is wrong, but it's their right. It's the exact same thing.
There's a difference between supporting and encouraging. I support everyone's right to own a gun, but will I encourage everyone to shoot others? I support drug legalization, but will I encourage people to get high? I support everyone's right to take their own life, but do I encourage suicides? Nope. I support rights, but I don't necessarily encourage the action the rights protect.
Never use "nobody" because there is always some screwed up person who would disagree with the common belief. Even though it is likely, there's probably some screwed up person out there who supports abortion.
They don't support abortion, they support allowing the woman to make her choice and keep or abort the fetus. It's not a matter of supporting abortion, it's supporting the possibility of it. It's not morally wrong, either, given the situations in which most women consider abortion.
Change nobody to "most people."
@CherryBlossom, I think pro-choice is more accurate because you can support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body without thinking that abortion is the best or right choice. I understand what you mean but I think you can be pro-choice without necessarily being pro-abortion.
Thank you for being the one intelligent voice, realizing that rights expand beyond personal beliefs.
CherryBlossom: There are other reasons to be against abortion - I'm not sure I see a fetus as more important than its parents. However (and when I use "you" I mean it generally, not specifically), think about all the couples who desperately want children and would adopt your baby if you carried it to term. It seems selfish to me to have an abortion just because you, personally, don't want a child; however, it's your body, you're the one who has to deal with the morning sickness, stretch marks, baby fat, etc. I consider abortion as mostly immoral - though there are still cases I find it acceptable - but I also consider it immoral to tell a woman she must accept changes to her life and her body, so really, you've got to choose the lesser of two evils, and for me, that means allowing abortion.
You make a good point though - there ARE a lot of things that don't affect me. I guess the best I can say regarding those is that I think there is a difference between a fetus and someone who has been born, so different rules apply. It's not a good answer, I know, and maybe as I think more about it I'll change my mind, but for now, that's the best I've got.
I do not agree with the KKK, neonazis, or Westboro Baptist Church, but I 100% agree with their right to protest whatever the shit they want. I believe in freedom of speech, but I do not like the KKK.
That may answer your question.
Obviously there is a difference between supporting and encouraging. I could be wrong, but I don't think I mentioned anything about "encouraging." In my original comment, I specified that if someone thought abortion wasn't immoral, then they should have no problem in supporting it. So, someone can support a woman's choice but regard abortion as immoral. Okay. And you can support WBC's right to protest, but not what they're doing. Okay again. But what about the people that think abortion is moral, or what WBC is doing is moral. They would be supporters.
I think everyone slightly misunderstood me. In my comment, I was simply poking at the choice of words, not at whether or not it is moral. If you think something is moral, there should be no problem in saying that you support it. If I didn't think abortion was immoral, I'd have no problem saying I was pro-abortion. That doesn't mean that I'm encouraging abortion. However, the outrage people faced due to simple wording really makes me wonder, yet again, why something that is right should have to be treaded on so delicately.
I guess I'm overreacting about the outrage, more like automatically assumed that I was fighting them. Which in a way I was. I guess I just like throwing in hypothetical questions to start a debate. It's pretty fun:P
What I was just trying to get across is that people should stop worrying about the titles used to describe each group. Pro-life or pro-choice, anti-abortion or pro-abortion. It's the group not the title that matters.
Then what does matter? Whether it's legal or not?
I'm actually here as a representative of the pro-abortion party. Seeing as how this next generation is going, we aim to just mandate abortions for everyone.
I can't tell if you're talking to me or not...
... I'll assume you are! Thanks! You seem pretty intelligent yourself
Oh, I probably misunderstood. Yeah, if someone thought abortion was OK, then they probably support it. But the word choice "support" can kinda be confused with encourage. That's what I was addressing. When you say support, I thought you meant promote/advocate abortion, which most certainly few people do, although many are pro-choice. You can support something and still believe it's the wrong choice, though.
It doesn't have to be treaded on so delicately, it was just a misunderstanding, and no one's outraged. I just thought you meant encourage because sometimes those words are interchanged.
People from both sides try to undermine the other group by focusing on the name instead of the actual position of the group. Pro-abortion doesn't even need to imply anything more than pro-choice does. And the side won't change if the name is slightly different. Plus, I was just saying that if someone thinks it's moral, than they are kind of supporting it, so "nobody" supports it isn't true.
It was a pretty pointless thing for me to pick on, to tell the truth.
@Spareseconds, the difference is that most people that are pro-choice seem to think that abortion isn't immoral. You don't think that things like the KKK, neonazis, or WBC are moral, but what you do think is moral is the right to free speech.
So, maybe not all pro-choice people are pro-abortion, but wouldn't the people that don't think abortion is immoral be? If you thought that what the KKK did wasn't immoral, wouldn't you be actually be supporting them?
@Uzumaki_Naruto So, they basically support abortion? How can they support the choice, without supporting the way to achieve that choice. And hypothetically, can abortion be morally wrong in one situation, and not in another? What I'm wondering is why pro-choice people are so hesitant to admit it. If it's not morally wrong, is there any possible reason why they shouldn't be able to say that they support abortion? If it is morally right, why must they be so careful to select their words the right way?
@Partinobodycular You see it as an immoral thing, which must mean that you see the fetus as a person of value, correct? But you accept abortion because it doesn't affect you? There are a lot of things that don't affect you in the world you know, and I doubt that I need to make a list, do you accept them all as a person's "choice"?
I asked a lot of questions, and I don't mean them to seem "pushy," but I am wondering at the answers.
If something is immoral, and you support it, you are in the wrong because you're contradicting your moral beliefs.
If something isn't immoral, is there any reason that you shouldn't support it? The least you can be is neutral about it. Other than that, there is at least some degree of support.
So if someone is pro-choice, they clearly support abortion. Either that or they're apathetic about it. In which case they wouldn't bother getting involved in the issue at all, so they really wouldn't be pro-choice either.
Many people may choose "pro-choice" because they want to control the abortions that will most definitely happen one way or another, knowing that it will prevent more death and suffering and make it so women have options that are safe and maybe even more educated, so they may change their minds. We do not abort because we enjoy it, or at least a VERY few do (those that do are insane in more than one way), but because of necessity. Since it will be vital to abort one way or another, and both legal and illegal aborting is extreme, they will often abort either way, in unsafe ways, a lot of times at a point that will hurt the child. "Pro-choice" means far more than you give it credit for.
Everyone that supports enforcing Christian values into the government, is Christian.
I just have a question. Do you believe in social dawinism? While those points of yours do make some sense, it seems to be viewed through the lens of.. well an animal. You are dehumanizing people.
what would separate us from animals?
"Can our mind evolve to be something other than an extension of our animal needs" - Julian Casablancas
This idea of superior/inferior genes... while they may and will influence your deicisons and status, it is not a prescribed lifestyle. Being born poor does not strip the potential for sucess.
Some of the best stuff I've read I this whole thread
In my opinion, human lives are no better than animal ones. It's ignorant to assume that we are better.
But genes can help people be successful. And that poster also meant that the persons parents couldn't be that great, meaning their kid won't be either.
No, being poor doesn't automatically flaw your genes. But you're naive if you believe that wealth isn't related to intelligence. And your example of European royals is useless. First of all, I never claimed rich people couldn't be unintelligent. I think many are when they simply inherit their wealth, like in European monarchies. Also, the peasants in the Middle Ages simply had no opportunities; in America, the poor are given free education and, although they don't have the advantages as those born wealthy, they have opportunities.
And I disagree that I'm being contradictory. In America, the poor are given opportunities that those in developing countries don't have. If a genius is born into a struggling family in Haiti, their intelligence most likely won't launch them into wealth. If a genius is born into a struggling family in Chicago, they'll face more challenges than a wealthy child, but they'll likely be able to advance themselves into at least middle class if they work hard in school.
You pull pathetic justifications out of your ass, but you just prove and more that you've got not the slightest clue about anything based in reality
when you said "Hell, not raping every woman you see is preventing someone from being born. Is that considered killing? "
Although I'm still unsure whether I am pro-choice or pro-life, I still see killing of a fetus killing life. It's because the fetus was already concieved, it has a path and will become a baby. Raping women (potential baby bearers).... is different in the sense that there is no fetus, there is no effort or path or potential development. Could you provide one by raping her? yes...but
how about a new choice: pro-life, but pro-choice only if the fetus was concieved by rape.
When I imagine war, I feel sad for all those soldiers, they're dead and unable to give have offspring. It's as if an external force destroyed his family. That's what I feel abortion is like. The fetus dies and so does it's potential offspring
It is killing life, but that life is unaware and unable to feel. So essentially, it is the prevention of senses, much like not having sex is preventing eventual senses.
You're incredibly naive, yet you claim I don't have the "slightest clue about anything based in reality." It's really rather saddening.
Humans are not better, but we have awareness. With awareness comes choice. reverting back to animalistic instincts is just subcummbing to a prescribed lifestyle. You see a hot girl, so you rape her. You now longer have choice. It's like acting like a robot.
It is prevention, but not like condoms or birth pills. When a fetus is concieved, it doesn't matter if it has senses or not. At that point in time, the fetus has developed into something that will become human.
ehh...It's sketchy. One could argue for the same as condoms as pills, but I just think that to kill when it has become a fetus is killing life. It has developed enough.
My views on abortion are still unclear, but this was my initial belief of abortion
Think of this not as life vs death but a mother's rights vs a fetus'. A fetus is basically a parasite in that it can only live because of another organism. If a woman knows it isn't the right time for her to bring a child into the world, she should not be forced to carry this "parasite" for 9 months and endure all the pains and difficult things that come with child birth and pregnancy.
Lastly, pro-choice doesn't cause abortions to happen, they will happen anyway. Pro-choice makes abortion safe.
Its not about Christian values. It's about human morals. It's no ones right to kill.
Abortion causes no pain to the aborted baby. Realistically, it isn't actually killing, it is the prevention of birth. Besides, this world is overpopulated as it is.
Also, the majority of people that consider abortion would provide a poor home for their children, and they simply recognize that fact. Married adults with a steady income will rarely visit abortion clinics.
Anyways, my thought is that if you aren't ready for a child you choose use birth control pills or condoms to lessen the likeliness of pregnancy. But if those don't work, it is your decision whether you should bring a child into this world.
You caused someone not to live.. If that's not killing what is? Your decision is to have sex or not. Not if you want to abort the consequences/results that come after that.
Not having sex is causing someone not to live as well. Hell, not raping every woman you see is preventing someone from being born. Is that considered killing? Should I be arrested for not raping women?
Besides, the fetuses that are aborted are ones that would harm the gene pool anyways. People that get abortions are normally poor, uneducated women who had sex before they were ready without the proper protection. The children born to these women would likely become equally uneducated and poor due to both their family situation and, more importantly, to their genetics.
If you look at the situation completely objectively, you'll realize that the money needed to raise a child in a developed country could save more than one living child from starvation in a developing country. And these living children actually feel pain from their slow death. Of course, I realize that the money saved from not raising a child are definitely not sent to developing countries, but the point is the money needed to raise those children could be used for far better things.
I was with you until this bullshit. Are you throwing out a serious hypothesis that being poor somehow means your genes are flawed? What is wrong with you? Take your elitist, genocidal propaganda and shove it up your uneducated behind. I am appalled at you for perpetuating this. Genetics have nothing to do with status. Look how well inbreeding worked for European royals? Case proven....you can be royalty and have shitty genes. Therefore your stupid hypothesis that socioeconomic status and genetic perfection are linked has been invalided. Now fuck off
I forgot to add that even using your stupid logic, your post is contradictory. You posit that poor = subpar genetics. You say to kill the American poor, who are genetically flawed, to take care of foreign poor.... Are they somehow exempt from your brilliant hypothesis that money inherently gives you better DNA? If not, you fail again
Everyone who supports cutting down trees, is human. Point?
Wrong, what about beavers.
Because fetuses are laaaaame.
They suck at baseball.
I'm going to ask what might sound like a stupid question, but it's one I recently discussed in a Philosophy class. Why are humans more valuable than trees?
Humans think of themselves as more important than trees because humans are biased towards our own consciousness and obviously believe that we are much more important than we really are.
Exactly. Everyone who believes human life is sacred is human. Tell me that isn't bias.
Everyone who supports cutting down trees is not a tree. "That's how oppression works".
Whoop I guess we're oppressing trees nowadays, since we're not giving them a chance to speak their mind. Poor trees.
How can you compare trees to a potential human? Human life is far more valuable.
plants provide the oxygen you breath, how the fuck are we more important?
Why is a tree more valuable? Can you answer that without bringing in religion?
Because I don't remember anything about it, and at that time if I were killed it wouldn't really matter to me. Right now though, things matter. That's why I'm biased towards myself. I want choice.
You can't throw a person into a blender and make paper.
And you know what was written on paper? That's right, the Declaration of Independence.
Actually, the Declaration was written on vellum, so I guess that's a bad example. Which begs the question, why use goat skin instead of human skin? Because without skin, humans tend to die. And the sole purpose of humans dying is to compost and become fertilizer for trees.
Trees > humans
Of course people have bias. I would pick the tree because I am not a tree. That's the only difference. If I were a fish looking in I literally would not care at all, and probably would kill the human so it doesn't kill me. I'm just saying human life is only sacred to humans because we are humans.
If I were being really objective, I wouldn't pick either or, because I wouldn't care, but since I am a human, I am biased towards humans.
@Spareseconds, The answer to that question is probably the exact same one that you'd give if asked why you'd rather support a woman's right than a fetus's.
Point. But I never said I wasn't biased. Also, I could turn that on you and say well, if the nonsentient are more important than the sentient, why not defend all things that aren't sentient, since they all deserve life?
But a sentient human being cannot possibly exist without once being a fetus. If there is no value ascribed to the value of a fetus, than why should a person's choice have value later on. If your parents can terminate you now using a painless method to further their own lives, should they have the right (assuming that you are entirely dependent on them for your livelihood)?
I believe humans can make decisions. Gestation is just like that inbetween period where people become able to make decisions. During that time period, you can't make decisions.
Once you're born you're not entirely dependent on them, purely because you're not entirely dependent on one person. You can be raised by someone else once you're born, but you can't be switched to a new womb.
The difference between the two for me is that one has the potential of becoming a fully sentient being, it's just in an early stage of being, whereas nonsentient things won't. But I never said nonsentient were more important. A human is more sentient than a tree. That's what makes humans more important to me.
well i personally value human life more than a tree.. i never thought people might feel different but okay.
if someone asked you if you would prefer to cut down a tree or kill someone, would you really pick the latter?
okay, you were a fetus once. why are you not biased towards them?
But who's to say who should make decisions for who? What if it was a newborn that was in question? Or a year old child? They can't make their own choices.
Shameless self-advertising, but it completely fits: http://amirite.net/705202
And this year old child would be completely dependent. What if the parents couldn't put the child in another person's care for, let's say, nine months due to specific circumstances?
My post also stated my position on the matter. "Shameless self-promotion" is just something people say when they link to their own post. It's not like I made that phrase up.
And the point was that if we say that the life of a fetus isn't of valuable, then who's to say what life is valuable? It's just subjective, and can depend on various interpretations, such as the "let's classify life according to when people can wear clothes" one.
Yeah I know. How long has your sarcasm detector been out of commission?
The 'value' of life is completely relative. Humans are insignificant. Some are not more insignificant than others.
No one really knows when an egg and a sperm 'become a person', so abortion debates, for the most part, are pointless.
And omg repetitive.
Not only can a fetus not feel pain, but it also doesn't make decisions. It doesn't care if it lives or dies. If someone can't feel pain and is willing to die, then yes you can kill them in my opinion.
Yes, all humans are CREATED equal, but that doesn't mean they are equal. As fetuses, they are equally insignificant and roughly equally painful to give birth to. When they are born, they start to change. A mass murderer and the president are not equal.
You didn't have a sarcasm detector when you were a fetus. You can't detect humour until you can speak a language, which I really doubt you could do as a fetus.
thats a valid point.
You could've just linked the article, not your post.
Shameless? MORE LIKE SHAMEFUL SELF-PROMOTION!
And one year olds wear clothes. So the cut-off point for abortions should obvi be when the child can wear clothes.
Well, I was saying that if it is within the rights of a person to terminate a fetus on the basis that it can't feel pain, then another person's life can be terminated under similar contexts. And it is also subjective to determine who is more insignificant than someone else. So it only makes sense to say that all humans are created equal.
And yup, they are pretty repetitive.
And my sarcasm detector has probably been out of commission since I was born. I'd say since I was a fetus but everyone knows that as soon as a baby exits the uterus it suddenly is a person, and not one minute before.
That's just an awful argument. You've just stated two facts that have nothing to do with each other and aren't comparable. Of course everyone that is pro-choice is alive. Everyone that does anything is alive. That isn't an argument.
I was trying to connect the two.
Also, I refuse to believe a painless abortion of an insentient fetus is even REMOTELY comparable to the horrendous suffering of millions of slaves. One dies painlessly; whether you believe it moral or not, it dies painlessly. The other though, faces a lifetime of torture. Comparing them is ridiculous. It's like me comparing a suicide to the holocaust. Both can be considered bad, but saying they're basically the same thing is pretty insulting.
Just because something doesn't feel pain, doesn't mean that they aren't being wronged. Sure, abortion is the better of two evils when compared to slavery, but that doesn't mean they can't be compared in the sense that their lives are being manipulated in the interest of someone else.
If I dissected an animal, I would be using their life for my own benefit. Wouldn't you believe killing the animal a painless way be better than cutting off the limbs one by one and slicing up its body and organs while it's alive and can feel pain (vivisection)? They are both dissections, but obviously one is incomparable to the horrors of the other.
I FUCKING LOVE ABORTIONS
waits for rage
who doesn't? They're delicious!
Fetus fajitas <3
I came here for the entertaining comments
And all I got was this crappy flame war.
Only things that arn't water support drinking water.
It is neccessary to point out that the fetus is alive as well to make your point more clear and negative.
Statistics and many studies show that abortion is still just as likely to be done whether it is legal or not, and prevents nothing if it is illegal, unlike with murder, and all it does is make it more likely that the miter will die or have her life taken away by sending her to jail. Legalizing abortion makes it so that you can control the epidemic. Illegilizing makes it like Prohibition, only worse and more dangerous. Which is why it is not "pro-abortion" but "pro-choice"
Seeing as there are women who don't support women's rights, I'd wager a guess that there was at least one enslaved person who supported slavery.
Also, separation of church and state. The government has no right to make laws based on Christian values. Go away.
I never said anything about religion, it's my moral belief.
Which you have because of your religion.
Are you stupid?
You're the one who believes in a mythical being in the sky.
See you had a valid argument. Until you said 'You're the one who believes in a mythical being in the sky.' because then you became the ignorant asshole who tells people with different beliefs than you they are idiots.
To me it's not mythical. Your view is like a child believing in Santa. It's more than that, you would have to experience it to know.
Myth: A traditional sacred story, typically revolving around the activities of gods and heroes, which purports to explain a natural phenomenon or cultural practice. Tell me again how religion doesn't fit this definition.
Eh, I believed in god for fourteen years, til I got some common sense and realized how ridiculous the whole thing really is.
Then you never really believed.
Wait, what? Did you just say that someone didn't believe in something because they changed their mind? That's fucking shit. In science, you may BELIEVE something is true, but once evidence is presented to prove otherwise, you would change your viewpoint. But you still believed it originally. I think you're confusing believing with believing blindly, and not accepting any fact to prove otherwise. Those are two completely separate things.
No, sorry if I came across that way. I know you can change your mind on things. But everyone who has experienced God and his spirit never denied him after that. Atleast as far as I know.
Either way, it's ridiculous.
But he did. Many people did. And I won't say those people "came to their senses" because that's obnoxious, and may seem rude to some, because it isn't what you believe. But they realized that Christianity is just a hypothesis, and there is very little evidence to support even Jesus' existence.
It's fact that Jesus the man and self proclaimed prophet existed just as much as the proof cesaer existed. Miracles are the argued part
I kinda merge science and christianity. To me, it makes the most sense, because in my opinion, god created science. I believe in the story of jesus, but not the bible as much... So it's partially agnostic, but hey, i'm episcopal, and we don't really discourage this kind of stuff.
@Yay_im_wrong, It's kind of pointless to say "I won't say" only to actually say it. Just a little tip.
And if you look through her perspective, she's assuming that God is real, and that if you truly believe once than you can't lose that belief. That it would always stay. So if it didn't, then maybe they didn't believe enough or truly, etc. Not in a conscious sense, but on a deeper level. That is entirely reliant on whether He exists or not, or on the paradigm in which you regard the situation, so what she said wasn't necessarily false.
a) I know, that was kind of a dick thing to say, but I just felt that she was being kind of cocky in her belief
b) that's kind of the gist of what I was trying to get across. He DID believe in God, he just didn't believe in him blindly/ he lost his blind belief. I just thought it was ridiculous that she was saying what someone did/didn't believe. If (s)he said (s)he believed in something, (s)he believed in it.
again i apologize if i come around as cocky or something, i just get offended when people accuse me of believing 'a myth'. i don't believe in God because of religion. i have a relationship with God. when you have a relationship with him, you can't just "stop believing" one day. maybe instead of saying he never truly believed i should have said he never built a relationship with God, it was all religion for him so it ended.
i have issues wording things sometimes.
@John_MacTavish, that's not true. All the writings about Jesus came after his death or weren't eye-witness accounts. I'm not saying he didn't exist, he probably did, but there's much more evidence of Caesar's existence. (I was just trying to point out that the evidence is spotty, even at core beliefs, so that's a reason one might not believe in Christianity anymore)
@Pug: Couldn't he have had a relationship with God, but then felt that nothing was being reciprocated, so he stopped believing?
@Wunderscore, that is just one definition of the word myth. I can tell you a traditional story of a hero that can explain a cultural practice, and it can be true, but it wouldn't be a myth because it would be true. Other definitions of myths state that they are untrue. Your definition is a very limited one.
No one can really downvote this simply because it is a fact. I don't, however agree with the standing behind this post, that abortion is wrong.
I downvoted it because I don't like the message behind the post.
Also, after reading the comments, OP kinda gets on my nerves.
i'm just stating my opinion. i'm trying to do so in the nicest way too.. i guess whatever you do will displease someone :p
Oh the commas! They burn!
You know what also, cats are animals. How is that relevant? It isn't. I don't like how you are stating obvious facts in a way where you think the truth is gonna manifest from it.
I'm gonna say my stance on abortion because everyone else is!
If the baby or fetus (I guess what you call it determines your opinion about it) should be aborted if it is causing physical and/or psychological pain, also if it will be born with an abnormality which will cause it to live a painful/short/poor quality life.
I personally do NOT condone abortion as a form of birth control (like they did in China when they were enforcing the one child policy)
My heart really goes out to a woman who has to abort (key term "has" to) because that is not an easy decision.
I love abortion debates. The passion everyone feels, you know? It's awesome.
Yeah I've noticed this a lot on amirite. Everyone that disagrees are the people to comment and blow things out of proportion. They end up thinking they've "won", but neglect to see most people just agreed and moved on.
Don't worry, this post is still in the positives. A lot more people agree with you, even if they aren't saying anything.
lol, people start hating me because of my opinion. everyone calling each other stupid if they think something different. yup, typical internet debate.
*typical everywhere debate
if politicians debated like this, it might be something actually worth watching.
Your point basically collapsed on itself. You're differentiating between a fully grown human and a fetus by saying the human is the one that's alive. That's what we pro-choice people are trying to point out.
She didn't actually say that fetuses are not alive.
Pro-life people agree that fetuses are alive and human, correct? Therefore, according to OP's logic, fetuses could possibly support abortion simply because they're alive. A better argument would have been "Everyone who supports abortion has been born." There's a clear difference between the fetus and the human there, being that the fetus has not been born.
But fetuses are not being compared to people who have been born. What she's saying is, it's all well and good for someone who wasn't aborted to support abortion, because you haven't had to suffer that fate (the fate of being aborted, not having an abortion).
Only alive people get to decide, I think you'll all have to accept it...
My name is not Haley Joel Osment. I cannot see dead people.
With that being said, because I can't see dead people, I can't converse with them or hold intellectual debates or conversations regarding abortion. Thus, I do not know their stance on the topic. Pro-choicers are all alive because well, only Mr. Osment knows whether or not the dead are pro-life or choice. The rest of us unwashed masses must deal with the fact that no, we cannot know what the dead feel about abortion. My guess is that they're too busy being dead to have an opinion. Ergo, since we cannot hear the dead's opinions, only alive people can have a stance on abortion. What is so hard about this that you just don't get.
This is not logic. This is stupidity.
I understand pro-life arguments. I can always see logic where there is logic. For example, if you told me that people deserve to live, I can see the logic in that. I may not agree, but I see where the argument is and I understand.
Saying everyone who supports abortion is ALIVE is absolutely stupid because well anyone who supports ANYTHING is alive. I never mentioned anything about morality, but the fact that you treat this as a legitimate argument is stupid. I wish I could go interview the dead but I can't, therefore the dead cannot speak about abortion, therefore everyone who supports abortion is alive.
That^^ is stupid and illogical, not the pro-life argument in general.
I cannot see you, yet I still know that someone is there typing behind a computer.
It's logic to know a pregnant woman has a human growing inside of her. It is also logic to know that it's a human instinct to live.
oh okay, i see what you mean now. yeah i guess it seems like common sense.
man, i thought i had a really good post here! lol
IDEA! what if we just let those people decide what they want to do rather than giving them grief. If they want to abort their baby, let them live with that. If they don't, let them live with that. Where exactly have we decided it's our right to make other peoples decisions?
You keep bringing up your personal stories, and I'm trying to leave mine out but here you go: When my aunt was 2-3 months pregnant with my baby cousin, she found out that he was going to have serious brain issues and disabilities. The doctors told her to abort him. She refused and kept her child. When my cousin was born, he had asthma. That's it. Doctors aren't fortune tellers. If I found out that my child would die within the first 6 years of life, I would keep him/her. It would kill me to know we have only 5 years together, but it would kill me more to know that I was the one to kill him/her. I would give him/her the best damn 5 years and thank God every day that I had those days to spend.
What about giving the child their choice? Did they choose to die?
I think I just value life differently than you. I think every life deserves to be lived and it's not someone's choice to make
Trust me I value life very much. Knowing my grandmother would've killed me? Yeah valuing away. But please share your opinion on what should've been done when you know your child will die within the first 5 years of life. I'd honestly love to see what you would've done in that situation.
Also, I never said abortion is the right way to get rid of your baby if you don't want it. That IS what orphanages and foster homes are for. But when choosing between that and having the baby suffering its whole life... Watching my kid be in pain would kill me.
let people do what they want to do? we would have no jails. everything would be legal.
but still, i'm not pro-life because i want to control people and i refuse to give people choice. i just don't think it's right to take someones life.
That's pro-choice. You personally wouldn't get an abortion but you're not going to control someone else.
So should people DECIDE that they won't go to jail? What kind of people would we be if they decided not to go to jail for their crime, but we made them! THE HORROR!
You're missing my point. Yes people DECIDE to do their crimes which they have to pay the consequences for later on. Same as abortion. People DECIDE if they want abortion and pay for the consequences later on.
But they don't always have a real choice. I'm willing to bet quite a few people that chose to get abortions do so because their baby could be born with something that could affect them for the negative in their lives.
I never said I thought abortion was ok I just said it's only fair that we give the women the choice of what they want to do. Just like you have the choice of whether or not to get up in the morning. You can chose to stay in bed and deal with the consequences or you can chose to get up and see what happens.
I'm only saying that it is not ok to take choices away from people. If you feel that way you might as well let your parents decide who you're going to marry or what career you chose to go into. You want thoae choices so you understand why they deserve choices too.
People decide to have sex, deal with the consequences.
Yes, and they decide to deal with those consequences by getting an abortion. Kinda a shitty way of dealing with it but what about rape? Did they decide to get raped too? And yes why don't you ask the fetus if it wants to live. Is like to hear that answer. Seriously, its just my opinion just like yours is your opinion. I'm not going out there like "yay, abortion!" I just think its wrong to take away freedom of choice. So yes please explain to me what to do when the pregnancy is caused by rape and/or they know the child will have a disease that will end up hurting them more in life? I would love to know
I think it's wrong for a mother to abort her baby because of the possibility of he/she being handicapped. We thought my cousin was going to be mentally disabled but my aunt had him and he's as healthy and "normal" as you or me. The idea that we need to perfect our population and get rid of the handicapped is wrong. Ask a person with one if they would have rather their mom abort them than have to deal with their shortcomings and you'll see..
Ever heard of adoption? Yes, bad shit happens to people, but I don't believe that they should be immature about it and kill their child because they didn't want him/her and felt their situation was unfair. Someone else desperately wants their child, disabled or not. Whether they got in the situation themselves or someone else raped them, they need to deal with it in a moral manner. Personally, I think abortion because of rape is like 2 wrongs trying to make a right. If the fetus is already developed enough to even have a human disability then I don't see how it's not really "living" yet. Like I said, ask anyone with a disability if they would have rather not even had a shot at life and just been aborted.
You still have a choice ad to whether or not you do that stuff. And yeah again I say its a really shitty choice to make. But look, my aunt got raped and aborted her baby because it was going to be born with a tumor and would've died before it turned 5. Where's the good in that? Wouldn't you rather save the child from the physical pain and the emotional pain of not being able to turn 6? That would personally kill me. And I love how you're like "well even if you're raped you need to take care of this baby." What if you're like 12? Yeah adoption is out there but half those kids won't even get adopted. Yes I get it you firmly believe that abortion is wrong in all situations. And trust me I am no where saying that abortion is right. If my gma had her way I would have been aborted. And how is that immature? That is one of the toughest decisions people have to make. Honestly open your eyes and see all the sides.
O_O Eyes wide open... Not changing my mind
many doctors suggest abortions for babies that will be a 'burden' on society. but you have no idea who that person will be, its totally up to them. someone can become a mass murderer or the most intelligent person alive.
by todays standards Beethoven should have been aborted (he is used as a classic example in genetics). all the odds were against him, yet he was a magnificent person.
I never said the baby wouldn't be a good person. @missalwaysright I guess yours was lucky then. My friends mom was also told to abort and she didn't. Her child won't be able to walk, part of its brain is paralyzed and it has to be fed through a tube. Yes, I do keep bringing up personal experiences because its been a big thing in my life.
Yes pug you don't know how that baby will turn out they could be the nicest person ever or be like Hitler.
And yes unlike some people I don't believe that abortion was the right was of birth control for China. If you want to have sex but no more kids get "fixed"
But I do believe that if the mother is going to he severely injured or die because of the birth... What good comes out of that? Sure there's a baby but in a way that baby kinda killed its mom. Also, if you know the child would be in more pain living than it should.
Isn't that why we put our pets to "sleep" to pretty much make it so they don't have to suffer?
I realize the pets are not children.
And again I'm not all for abortion but underline certain circumstances I do believe its the better choice. I know I know, yall are gonna say something like, "well I wouldn't care if my child
Paralyzed I would still give him the best life ever." Please explain how you would give someone who cant move the best life ever?
No i do not think abortion is right. But if the child is going to wish it were dead or not really even be able to live...
But no one should abort their baby just because they don't want it.
you know what takes away freedom of choice? the law where i have to put on my seatbelt! what if i don't want to?? where is my choice!? and what about drinking and driving.. or any other law? we have LAWS to prevent us from making Bad choices.. abortion is one.
1st off I never said let them do what they want to do. I said let them DECIDE there's a difference.
2nd I understand where you're coming from, really I do, I had an aunt who aborted her baby and feels terrible about it although it did come out of rape and she didn't want the child to suffer while it was alive because of it. And I understand why you think that but there's a lot more to this topic then most think about.
Also, it's an opinion, that's the point of the site but doesn't that also mean respecting other opinions even if you think they're wrong?
And I never said my stance on it because I don't have one. There are so many different sides to this topic.
unneccisary commas are unneccisary... my spelling probably sucks....
Sorry, I wrote this over a year ago and I face palm at my grammar. But the point still stands.
Other excellent points: everyone who supports hunting was not a deer.
Everyone who supports eating broccoli is not broccoli.
Everyone who supports abortion can own a bus our wear a hat.
And a not-so-excellent comment.