The Political Soap Box

[Maelstrom]

It isn't about the level of dependency, but about the fact that the child resides WITHIN another person, and therefore is subject to the governance of that person over their body.

That person's governance over their own body (with the exception of rape) is the reason that being was created within that body in the first place. They had their choice. They maybe kinda should live with that choice.

The thing with abortions is that pregnancies are mostly noticed after a certain time of development during which I don't think it's okay to end that life.

Erick. For you and your logic, it's okay to kill an unborn child even up to seconds before it actually leaves the womb. That's pretty messed up.

[Maelstrom]

because we should force a mother that doesn't want a child to carry it to term, undergo immense physical pain, literally have her psychology rearranged forcibly by her hormones so she will be less likely to want to kill the child, then either raise it while resenting it or give it up for adoption where it is in no way guaranteed to have a good life. (living in orphanages/foster homes has been proven to increase the chance of axis II mental illnesses)

No one forced her to have sex. (putting rape incidents to the side, for now)

No one forces people to drink and drive. And even if nothing happens or a person can prove they can legitimately operate a vehicle beyond the legal limit, they are forced to undergo a long, painful, expensive legal process that leaves a giant black scar on their future. Because of all the shit that could have happened. An abortion is about the shit that DID happen. Think about that.

There is no guarantee to a good life. They have the right to pursue happiness. They don't have the right to kill anything that just happens to be a roadblock to their happiness. Like their boss, their ex, that person that is just better at the same job... However, we generally agree that everyone needs a fair chance to prove themselves worthy and deserving of a good life.

I'm one of those people that don't mind the removing of some cells... up to a certain point. Cuz after a while, a fetus is just an unborn baby. One doesn't just kill babies. After a certain point, the difference is only a matter of semantics.

There is that gray area. Like if you're building a tower from the ground up. At what point does the construction cease to be 'just a building' and become a tower? Is a 10 story tower any less of a tower than a 50 floor one? Is the 50 floor building less a tower than a 20 floor building just because it is supposed to be 70 floors upon completion?

Good or bad pivots upon a point of view, Erick. So 'best event of one's life' or 'punishment for sex' is totally dependent on the person's mindset. Someone with the latter opinion really shouldn't be risking sex. They can. No one is stopping them. Too bad their gamble didn't pay off. If only I could get my money back if I don't win the lotto or get my car insurance premiums refunded. At least, if I declare bankruptcy, someone doesn't die over it.

You see, this shit right here is just wrong. The fetus/zygote/whatever the fuck it is ISN'T its own person until it's out of the pregnant woman's body. If it was its own person, it'd be able to survive without the mother, but that's clearly not the case. The mother has full jurisdiction over what goes down in and on her body, even after she's fucking dead.

You're not your own person till you have your own job and pay your own bills and pay for the consequences of your own decisions. You are just a leech till you move away from home and support yourself completely. Without your mother and socialist programs like orphanages and foster homes, you wouldn't be able to survive on your own until you are strong enough to make a living wage. So why can't a woman throw her 5 yo off a bridge and be done with it when she gets tired of being responsible?

[Deleted User]

I've come back to a whole heck of an argument here. Jeez, well I don't think there's anything I can really say that hasn't been said. I will clarify one thing.

Babies typically can have brainwaves detected after 6 weeks from conception. The child is 'alive' from conception, I'd personally say they're a 'person' at the point where brain waves can be detected.

Neo you said even corpses, who are in face DEAD, have rights, so why does an unborn child not deserve those same rights? A corpse would likely sit and rot, it can't fend for itself, yet it gets rights, so to deny something that actually is ALIVE those same rights, is outright hypocritical.

PSA: I do like discussing politics and social rights in this thread, but if it continues on the way it has recently coming very close to breaking the rules, it will more than likely have to be shut down, so lets keep it civil please.

[The Fush]

No one forced her to have sex. (putting rape incidents to the side, for now)

Problem is, sex is a natural biological urge; it's not simply a matter of deciding not to have sex for your whole life; following in that decision will likely either result in failure or a life of heavily surpressing natural urges, so for pretty much every woman in the world, the chance of having a baby exists, because protection never fully guarantees lack of a baby.

Honestly though, I'd wish not to debate over this first point, because that's pretty much just us having different viewpoints over the right of the woman and the right of her unborn child.

2.

[Dei]

I'm pro-choice. Why? I have way too many reasons to be:

1) The most obvious one is rape. Detecting rape is not as black and white as people think. For many, it can take months for a rape to be proven. By then, the woman's body will already have been altered too much, and a lot of doctors wouldn't follow up with the abortion after the woman has been pregnant for a certain amount of time. So yeah, that means she'll have to carry the aftermath of her rape. Not cool.

2) Making abortions illegal won't stop abortions; it'll stop safe abortions. There'll still be those back-alley abortions happening, which are more life risking. So basically, you'd be telling women to get a procedure that'll probably kill her and the fetus. Not to mention that women have methods to induce the death of the fetus if she really doesn't want it. That still greatly puts her at the risk of death.

3) I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of a 12 year old being forced to do something her body probably isn't ready to do. Keep in mind that younger people are more likely to be coerced because they are not as knowledgeable and educated on the topic of bodily-autonomy.

4) Body-autonomy. A woman should be able to control what goes on in her body in the modern day. As somebody mentioned, by taking away her right to get an abortion, you're giving women less rights than that of a corpse. This is very chilling idea, honestly. A living human having less rights than a dead human. Yikes.

5) A fetus is not a human. It's a living being, but it's not human until very long into the pregnancy (I forgot what the exact time was). As a matter of fact, for most of the pregnancy, the fetus is more comparable to a parasite than a human.

6) My religion says that people shouldn't be committing mass genocide against other humans (aka war) and people should keep all the money they earn (aka no income tax). Ok I'm kidding, but guess how many government officials would give a shit and stop building armies because of my religion? How many would stop collecting income tax? *cough* In other words, religion shouldn't be a reason to keep it illegal at all. Your religion doesn't like abortion? Well, I have bad news for you. Nobody. Cares. Logic, science, and human advancement trumps thousand-year-old, probably-outdated traditions anytime.

7) Some people just aren't mentally and financially ready for a baby. Stuff like postpartum depression can be the results of pregnancy, and unless you don't care about the mental health of the woman, you'd do well to keep this in mind.

8) Our planet is already over-populated enough as it is.

Also, keep in mind that telling women to "not have sex" would be you pushing double-standards. I'd be ok with this if both men and women were told the same thing, but they are not and I'm pretty sure that we'll never have a society where the majority tell men to stop having sex. Trust me, I hate the idea that people keep having sex without a care in the world, with how rampant STDs and unwanted pregnancies are, but it's not going to stop or slow down a lot anytime soon, or at least, until we educate people better.

The ONLY and I mean ONLY reason I'm against abortion at all is because of the female-specific abortions that seem rampant in place like India and China. But those are only in specific areas and slowly dwindling, so soon they won't be a problem. And like I said, making it illegal won't stop women from getting them, so... And also, I'd be against abortion if a huge catastrophe took place and wiped out the majority of the human population. But well, 7 billion people are on this planet with the number multiplying rapidly, to a point where earth might not be able to keep up with us. Why do you think we're having the Mars Mission in a few years?

Anyways, where I live abortion is legal, so I don't have to worry about much. The majority of people here are for it and greatly outnumber the pro-lifers, so women here don't have to worry about not having safe options, if they need them.

EDIT: Actually, scratch the part where I said there's a specific amount of time before fetus can be considered a human. Everybody has different ideas on that, including researchers, so it's a very difficult subject.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Dei

[CURIE]

Just today learned about what the Ferguson case was, is it just me or is it the exact same story as a few years ago with Trayvon Martin? Right down to the media misidentifying both the shooter and victim, and witnesses lying about what actually happened (the false claims were the exact same as last time, and what really happened is also the exact same). I bet if I looked farther back on this thread, I'd see the exact same flamewar comments. Although the ending is slightly different (new guy isn't even going to be charged, while last time the guy was charged but found not guilty). At least this time, we didn't waste nearly as much time and money dwelling on it.

[Deleted User]

It's the same in both cases that we don't really know what happened.

There weren't really any witnesses in the Trayvon Martin case, but the witness(es) very well may be lying in this case. The autopsy and crime scene suggest as much. The case should not have yet come to a close in my opinion. There was still too much that we didn't look into. I also would have liked to have heard more from officer Wilson himself.

The fact remains, the media got what they want. Another story for click bait, controversy, and further driving a wedge between the people of this nation.

[Chase]

I'm pro-choice. Why? I have way too many reasons to be:

1) The most obvious one is rape. Detecting rape is not as black and white as people think. For many, it can take months for a rape to be proven. By then, the woman's body will already have been altered too much, and a lot of doctors wouldn't follow up with the abortion after the woman has been pregnant for a certain amount of time. So yeah, that means she'll have to carry the aftermath of her rape. Not cool.

2) Making abortions illegal won't stop abortions; it'll stop safe abortions. There'll still be those back-alley abortions happening, which are more life risking. So basically, you'd be telling women to get a procedure that'll probably kill her and the fetus. Not to mention that women have methods to induce the death of the fetus if she really doesn't want it. That still greatly puts her at the risk of death.

3) I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of a 12 year old being forced to do something her body probably isn't ready to do. Keep in mind that younger people are more likely to be coerced because they are not as knowledgeable and educated on the topic of bodily-autonomy.

4) Body-autonomy. A woman should be able to control what goes on in her body in the modern day. As somebody mentioned, by taking away her right to get an abortion, you're giving women less rights than that of a corpse. This is very chilling idea, honestly. A living human having less rights than a dead human. Yikes.

5) A fetus is not a human. It's a living being, but it's not human until very long into the pregnancy (I forgot what the exact time was). As a matter of fact, for most of the pregnancy, the fetus is more comparable to a parasite than a human.

6) My religion says that people shouldn't be committing mass genocide against other humans (aka war) and people should keep all the money they earn (aka no income tax). Ok I'm kidding, but guess how many government officials would give a shit and stop building armies because of my religion? How many would stop collecting income tax? *cough* In other words, religion shouldn't be a reason to keep it illegal at all. Your religion doesn't like abortion? Well, I have bad news for you. Nobody. Cares. Logic, science, and human advancement trumps thousand-year-old, probably-outdated traditions anytime.

6) Some people just aren't mentally and financially ready for a baby. Stuff like postpartum depression can be the results of pregnancy, and unless you don't care about the mental health of the woman, you'd do well to keep this in mind.

7) Our planet is already over-populated enough as it is.

1. Rape has already been discussed on this thread, and it alone is not a conclusive reasoning for "wide-spread" legality. I will concede that rape victims -should- have a protected right to abortion within a specific time-frame. (meaning the incident must be reported to the authorities sometime before it is glaringly apparent a baby was conceived,) There are other cases where this should be also be the case, such as imminent fatality to the mother that could be prevented. This point doesn't mean we should allow it to be wide-spread, it just means that the right needs to exist on a case-by-case basis.

2. Actually, you would be be telling women to seek out other methods of getting rid of her child and to go through with the pregnancy. Yes, back-alley abortions would increase dramatically, but it's the WOMAN's choice to follow or disregard the law. Yes, wide-spread legalization would allow women to legally choose to abort, but that doesn't mean that makes it a "better" approach to the goal, no matter how much safer and better sterilized and government supported it is. You can outlaw burglary, and it's still going to happen. This applies to any law set in place.

3. If you have a 12 year old that is going to give consent, SHE thinks shes ready to go through with what her body isn't ready for. You -are- right. Kids make stupid decisions and are more prone to doing so than adults are. Again, put this against other "laws" and ask me if they do not still suffer consequences. Heck, Neo claimed earlier that children aren't punishment, so lets put it up to something that isn't even illegal and ask me if making a decision still doesn't rend consequences. If the child is raped it's one thing, but if you're concerned about children, then people need to start being better parents.

4. A chilling idea to me is a yet-to-be-born, would-be human having less rights than a corpse. Which is what you have when you allow wide-spread abortion.

5. The end result justifies the wait. What is going to be at the end of the pregnancy period? A "Human"-being.

6. You invented a religion to basically make an argument that nobody here was making...Bravo? Yes, there's a reason separation between Church and State exists. You're 2 for 7.

7. and your first follow-up paragraph.....oh, I'm sorry, six again.... There's a reason abstinence is advised to begin with (for both MALES and FEMALES...) If only a minority tell men to keep their pants on, we're much worse off than we thought....and as much as it's going to keep happening, it doesn't mean we should just allow as such with a defeatist attitude.

-actual- 7. While this may be a fact in the general sense this is hardly consistent throughout the world, and as such, this just sounds more like an opinion to me.

Here, it's a hotly debated topic where no two areas have the same stance, and Pro-Lifers have more grounds than just religious beliefs to go on.

As for Ferguson, I'm saddened to hear that things are still going on over there. The Police there is going to be under heavy scrutiny (and rightfully so) and businesses that get targeted by looters are going to continue to suffer under the circumstances. Not-to-mention, the rioters there are going to become less and less peaceful and that makes their cause (a good one) tarnished.

Nobody will win in that situation.

[The Fush]

I've seen pics of the KKK parading in the streets, Darren Wilson remaining completely out of the chaos and media outlets blindly ignoring the chaos going on in there. What the fuck has developed over there since all those months ago?

[Gyaradoskiller]

I've seen pics of the KKK parading in the streets, Darren Wilson remaining completely out of the chaos and media outlets blindly ignoring the chaos going on in there. What the fuck has developed over there since all those months ago?

Pretty much nothing I guess.

[Chevaleresse]

why can't black people die without it being a goddamn race issue every time? People get shot by the police sometimes. I don't remember it being a race issue when an immigrant (idr where he was from, I want to say Middle Eastern but idk) was literally crushed to death by cops.

[Shanco]

Comment on a picture of a looted store:

LET'S SHOW EVERYONE HOW INNOCENT AND OPPRESSED WE ARE BY LOOTING AND SCREWING OVER NORMAL PEOPLE YEAH THAT'S A GREAT IDEA

The logic.

Maybe with this man's sarcasm the people in the protest that aren't actually assholes will step aside and we'll see who the true dicks of society are.

[Neo]

why can't black people die without it being a goddamn race issue every time? People get shot by the police sometimes. I don't remember it being a race issue when an immigrant (idr where he was from, I want to say Middle Eastern but idk) was literally crushed to death by cops.

I'm gonna have to politely ask you to shut the fuck up.

[Chevaleresse]

I'm gonna have to politely ask you to shut the fuck up.

I can't remember the last time I saw and/or heard about a black person getting killed without someone calling it a race issue. Meanwhile, plenty of other people are wrongfully killed by police, and all we do when that happens is shake our heads, murmur about how it shouldn't have happened, and then go find some case that'll pull more viewers.

That's a nice argument, by the way. Really making the case for your side.

EDIT: Let it be known that I'm not saying that what the cop did was right, or fair in any way. I'm just saying that "the guy who died is black obv cop is a kkk member or something" is getting old.

[Deleted User]

Murdoc, you worded your previous post pretty poorly. Perhaps re-read through what you've posted next time. I can't blame him here.

[Chase]

I think the issue is because the person that was shot was presumably discriminated against and was not given a fair trial. There -is- a stigma against African Americans and presumable guilt, and it's something that, while I also believe other people are wrongfully killed by the police, places blacks more -at risk- because of aforementioned "guilty-before-proven-innocence".

The Ferguson rioters, and Neo for that matter, -do- have a point, and the cause of the riots is completely justified. The issue we are seeing is that not everyone seems to be taking the high road, and it's hurting the image of the rioters and black people in general.

[Chevaleresse]

Murdoc, you worded your previous post pretty poorly. Perhaps re-read through what you've posted next time. I can't blame him here.

What is there to change? I made exactly the point I wanted to: it only ever comes up as a "race issue" if the victim is black. I provided an example of a member of another person who happened to be a member of a minority that was killed, and how no one even mentioned race; they simply spoke about police brutality.

[Dei]

Actually, pro-lifers don't have much logic to go by. When somebody gives them a fact, they go and twist it around. As I mentioned, rape justice is a very gray area, and you go and say, "There should be a time..." Why would they let a woman abort the child when they don't even have any proof that she was actually raped? Do you know ANYTHING about our judicial system? Based on your comment, I'd assume not.

When somebody mentions the mother, they don't give two shits because apparently, women don't matter; the only thing that matters to them is the "baby". And hell, half of you don't even care what happens to the "baby" once it's out of the body (and actually becomes a baby). You say things like "If you're not ready to take care of a child, put it up for adoption." You might want to get an opinion from a primary source of adoption centers and the children who've had to live there for a good portion of their lives. It's not a nice lifestyle.

And no, my last point is NOT an opinion, it's a fact. Our world is over-populated, period. There's no way around that fact. We can barely grow food for the ever-growing population. The only solution is to leech off another planet (that's if we can find a sustainable one, otherwise, we're all screwed) or legalize abortion so maybe, just maybe the population might drop to sustainable amounts.

I made up a religion, yes, because religion is one of the bigger excuses pro-lifers make to not make abortion legal. You might not use that as an argument yourself, but there's no doubting that the most powerful and loudest pro-lifers use this as an excuse more often than not.

"If only a minority tell men to keep their pants on, we're much worse off than we thought"

...Yes, yes we are. Come on, you're living under a rock if you think the majority of people are telling men to stop having sex. They're doing exactly the opposite. It's women they're shaming for sex. Double-standards solve nothing. I love how you actually ignore my argument about post-partum depression and other pregnancy-caused disorders. Thanks for proving my point; that's pro-lifers in a nutshell.

"The end result justifies the wait." Speak for yourself. Not all people are ready for children, men and women.

For your reply to number 3: I'm not talking about punishments from family and stuff. I'm talking about the girl's body. Girls that young are more likely to die from pregnancy than someone who's 18 or older, because more often than not, their body isn't ready for it. Where I live, kids are allowed to have abortions but need parental consent. I think this method is kind of flawed, but at least they're allowed to.

4: A fetus doesn't have any rights until it's out of the body. If you want a fetus to have rights very badly, then send some support to the artificial womb research. Until then, a fetus requires a woman's body as an incubator, and if the woman decides she doesn't want something to form in her, she should have the right to change that safely and not go through a unhygienic, risky, shady type of procedure.

If you think that a fetus being a potential human is a crime to kill, then I guess men should be put in jail for masturbating. All those potential human beings going to waste! And I guess women who induce miscarriages should also be put in jail, huh?

My bad about using the same number twice. That was bound to happen, with me. >.>

Trust me, I used to be a pro-lifer, too, when I was younger. Then I educated myself more on the subject and its details. Until I get a good, well-researched, argument from a pro-lifer that doesn't say something like "But muh religions says..." or "It's a POTENTIAL human!", I think I'll stand by my stance.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Dei

[Deleted User]

Actually, pro-lifers don't have much logic to go by. When somebody gives them a fact, they go and twist it around. As I mentioned, rape justice is a very gray area, and you go and say, "There should be a time..." Why would they let a woman abort the child when they don't even have any proof that she was actually raped? Do you know ANYTHING about our judicial system? Based on your comment, I'd assume not.

When somebody mentions the mother, they don't give two shits because apparently, women don't matter; the only thing that matters to them is the "baby". And hell, half of you don't even care what happens to the "baby" once it's out of the body (and actually becomes a baby). You say things like "If you're not ready to take care of a child, put it up for adoption." You might want to get an opinion from a primary source of adoption centers and the children who've had to live there for a good portion of their lives. It's not a nice lifestyle.

And no, my last point is NOT an opinion, it's a fact. Our world is over-populated, period. There's no way around it.

I made up a religion, yes, because religion is one of the bigger excuses pro-lifers make to not make abortion legal. You might not use that as an argument yourself, but there's no doubting that the most powerful and loudest pro-lifers use this as an excuse more often than not.

"If only a minority tell men to keep their pants on, we're much worse off than we thought"

...Yes, yes we are. Come on, you're living under a rock if you think the majority of people are telling men to stop having sex. They're doing exactly the opposite. It's women they're shaming for sex. Double-standards solve nothing. I love how you actually ignore my argument about post-partum depression and other pregnancy-caused disorders. Thanks for proving my point; that's pro-lifers in a nutshell.

"The end result justifies the wait." Speak for yourself. Not all people are ready for children, men and women.

For your reply to number 3: I'm not talking about punishments from family and stuff. I'm talking about the girl's body. Girls that young are more likely to die from pregnancy than someone who's 18 or older, because more often than not, their body isn't ready for it. Where I live, kids are allowed to have abortions but need parental consent. I think this method is kind of flawed, but at least they're allowed to.

My bad about using the same number twice. That was bound to happen, with me. >.>

If the woman at least suggests rape, then that immediately causes more trouble for both of them involved,most people would think twice about getting an Abortion rather than going through traumatic experiences with someone they probably love. If the woman suggests rape it would be permitted, it must be testified and officially on record. If it's with someone they love, is it worth all that trouble? It's not a fool proof system, but it's far better than just saying that an unborn child who did not ask to be brought into existence be put down without a say.

Your ignorance is showing. Newborn infants hardly ever have a difficult time finding homes. It may sound like a barbaric analogy, but aren't kittens and puppies more sought after than their grown counterparts? Maybe the woman should have given a darn about her body and considered the potential consequences of her actions in the first place. Or would you rather put down a child who had no say in the matter in the first place. Brain waves start on average at 6 weeks. You can't say at that point that it's not a living being.

I'm Agnostic. I'm pro-life. Go figure.

Yeah she pretty much agreed that men should be held more accountable. That's why it's called a commitment or a relationship. If a woman can't trust a man to be there for her if things go wrong, should she trust him in bed? Should a man get into bed if he's not willing to be there for her if things go wrong? BOTH SIDES ARE EQUALLY AT FAULT. It takes two to tango as they say.

Once again, newborn infants are almost always adopted and there are alternatives.

How does one determine if whether or not a females body is in fact capable of handling pregnancy?

[Chase]

- That's the whole point of the notice I was trying to elaborate on. Let there be an investigation that takes place BEFORE it's too late and birthing the child is the best option anyway. There should be a time period that isn't harmful to the fetus whenever people decide it "is" a human, and there should be enough time for an investigation to take place. Rape is easily the best logical reasoning for abortion rights at all, as the consequences of sex were forced upon the woman as opposed to be chosen. In order for an abortion to be warranted, a trial must take place at the very least. Maybe throw in the requirement that the woman testify in court before having the operation.

- Women -do- matter, but the moment you make the decision to have sex, you make the decision that potentially yields the right of importance to the "baby" - be it intentional or otherwise. As a woman, it's pretty damn selfish in my opinion to think abortion is okay and terminate the life and rights of another "potential" person just because I made the wrong decision. That's the price of parenthood whether it was asked for or not. The least you can do is let the fetus develop and grant the fetus it's rights. I don't think a dead person is worth more than a fetus.

- Why are there still uninhabited areas that rend all the required needs for survival then? I'm not saying it's -not- a fact, but that it's not consistent throughout the globe. You have yet to refute that.

- Depression is either completely avoidable by abstinence, or would be protected with amended abortion rights. There was nothing to argue there, it's not a sound reasoning.

- Fine, then we are worse off than we should be. I'll agree on one thing, Men -do- need to be more accountable, regardless of your stance on Abortion.

- If you know you are not ready for children, then the choice to stay abstinent is still there, or you -would- have abortion rights if the pregnancy was forced upon you under amended rights. I don't think you can equate the "need for sex" to say "sexual orientation" when it comes to the make-up of a person. You wanna be a pro-choice? CHOOSE to not have put yourself at risk if your not ready for the potential consequences.

- I can assure you that those pro-lifers that do use religion to make their voice heard have the stats I use as well. It's easy to rally the base when Christians themselves, for example, think that abortion is okay. That's how politics works. You bait your target audience before you educate them.

- I think the fact that children think having sex is okay is kinda flawed. Is it more risky for a woman who is young to be pregnant? Absolutely, but she chose to go through with the act (or like I said before, would have protected rights if she didn't.) I find it ironic that I respect the girl's right to concede more than you do, as a Pro-Lifer. If she thinks she's a "big girl", let her understand why her actions were brainless. That's how people LEARN to not make mistakes. (Also, you can detect if a pregnancy -will- or -will not- be fatal. If the mother is affirmed to be at risk, she will have protected rights after amendment.)

I don't think sex, on the individual level, is as important as say, OXYGEN. It's whole anatomical intent is to spur conception, and here we are equating the "pleasure" we receive from it to that of a drug.

I'm one of the oldest users of this site, and I've done my own critical scholarship on the issue too. I'm a Pro-Lifer, and I'm not going to waver either. Wide-spread doesn't need to be a thing to get the job done.

[Dei]

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly I said that's ignorant. All I've done is stated some reasons and facts I've come across for the pro-choice side.

You both have yet to refute anything I've said. All I've read is "Abstain" and "abstain" and...."don't have sex".If that's really what makes up the majority of pro-lifer's arguments, then it's no wonder most people here are pro-choice. We actually use logic and reasoning rather than say "Well, you shouldn't have done that!" (As if that's ever helped anybody.) If a person gets their house robbed because they left the door open, should the government not help them because "You should bear the responsibilities of your actions"? Of course not. That's just a cop-out. If everybody thought that way, we'd never have gotten to this point, we'd still be a primitive species as a whole. >.>

"Why are there still uninhabited areas that rend all the required needs for survival then? I'm not saying it's -not- a fact, but that it's not consistent throughout the globe. You have yet to refute that."

I can't refute something that makes no sense. The only area I can think of off the top of my head that fits those requirements is Antarctica, some mountain areas, and some extreme parts of Russia, too. I don't think much abortion is needed there, though, since people don't stick around much, or the conditions are harsh enough to not have people moving there in hoards. Again, there are 7 billion people on the planet, with the number rapidly rising. Whatever your argument is trying to say exactly can't take away from that.

So basically, kids should be punishment "for doing something bad"? I'm definitely digging this argument. Let's punish women for having sex. Not like the higher chance of getting permanent STDs than males isn't enough. Not like we don't have to pay a ton of money for the abortions. And it's kind of sad that a person thinks children should be used as punishment. This proves my point that pro-lifers don't care about what happens to the child when their born. Children shouldn't be used as a punishment, that'll only make their lives worse.

There are tons of kids that are never adopted. Acting like we like in a rose-tinted world where everything is nice doesn't help anybody. Plenty of kids are thrown around in the system for 18 years and then thrown out; non-white kids being the most likely to have that happen to them. There's stats out there that show that blond/blue-eyed/light skin are much more likely to be adopted than kids with non of those features. Good luck to the rest, am I right?

I find it sad that a woman can be pro-life. I mean, it's bad enough with males since they can't experience what females can, but even people who can experience it will think that way? But lo, that's the result of years of brainwashing. Reading this comments threads makes me thankful I was born and raised in a place that isn't as restrictive and where we're promoted to have scientific thinking and use logic.

Welp, as you can tell, I'm done here. This really isn't getting anywhere. If I stay here, all this'll turn into is a broken record of the same arguments over and over. Not going there. Been there, done that, not doing it again.

Glad to see some people agree that men should be held accountable, though. At least we managed to agree on something.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Dei

[Deleted User]

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly I said that's ignorant. All I've done is stated some reasons and facts I've come across for the pro-choice side.

You both have yet to refute anything I've said. All I've read is "Abstain" and "abstain" and...."don't have sex".If that's really what makes up the majority of pro-lifer's arguments, then it's no wonder most people here are pro-choice. We actually use logic and reasoning rather than say "Well, you shouldn't have done that!" (As if that's ever helped anybody.) If a person gets their house robbed because they left the door open, should the government not help them because "You should bear the responsibilities of your actions"? Of course not. That's just a cop-out. If everybody thought that way, we'd never have gotten to this point, we'd still be a primitive species as a whole. >.>

"Why are there still uninhabited areas that rend all the required needs for survival then? I'm not saying it's -not- a fact, but that it's not consistent throughout the globe. You have yet to refute that."

I can't refute something that makes no sense. The only area I can think of off the top of my head that fits those requirements is Antarctica, some mountain areas, and some extreme parts of Russia, too. I don't think much abortion is needed there, though, since people don't stick around much, or the conditions are harsh enough to not have people moving there in hoards. Again, there are 7 billion people on the planet, with the number rapidly rising. Whatever your argument is trying to say exactly can't take away from that.

So basically, kids should be punishment "for doing something bad"? I'm definitely digging this argument. Let's punish women for having sex. Not like the higher chance of getting permanent STDs than males isn't enough. Not like we don't have to pay a ton of money for the abortions. And it's kind of sad that a person thinks children should be used as punishment. This proves my point that pro-lifers don't care about what happens to the child when their born. Children shouldn't be used as a punishment, that'll only make their lives worse.

There are tons of kids that are never adopted. Acting like we like in a rose-tinted world where everything is nice doesn't help anybody. Plenty of kids are thrown around in the system for 18 years and then thrown out; non-white kids being the most likely to have that happen to them. There's stats out there that show that blond/blue-eyed/light skin are much more likely to be adopted than kids with non of those features. Good luck to the rest, am I right?

I find it sad that a woman can be pro-life. I mean, it's bad enough with males since they can't experience what females can, but even people who can experience it will think that way? But lo, that's the result of years of brainwashing. Reading this comments threads makes me thankful I was born and raised in a place that isn't as restrictive and where we're promoted to have scientific thinking and use logic.

Welp, as you can tell, I'm done here. This really isn't getting anywhere. If I stay here, all this'll turn into is a broken record of the same arguments over and over. Not going there. Been there, done that, not doing it again.

Glad to see some people agree that men should be held accountable, though. At least we managed to agree on something.

If anything pro choice is more logical? Don't want to have bad things happen? Take the steps to assure it's not an issue in the first place? How ISN'T that logical? If the 1/1000 odds that a pregnancy will occur over the course of a given year for any couple while on the pill aren't good enough for you, then be abstinent. But if you're taking the risk, be prepared to deal with the consequences and not force the child to pay for YOUR mistake. But nah, that's not logical at all. Keep mud slinging bro. If someones house gets robbed AT ALL the Government DOES NOT help them, if they have insurance the insurance might help, Are you from the United States? If you are, this clearly goes to show me you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

There are 'pockets' of the world that COULD support human life right now, that we choose not to. Los Angeles for example, was actually a baron desert. Plenty of other places COULD adapt, but that's not my argument to defend. FWIW, the estimates are that the world COULD sustain up to 10 Billion people. (There are currently 7 Billion). Although the growing number of people, the intro to idiocracy explains it all pretty well.

Back to the main debate.

Children aren't 'punishment' as you keep saying, they're the consequences of your actions. The old expression 'you reap what you sew.' IN WHAT WAY DOES THAT SUGGEST THAT PRO LIFE PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT CHILDREN ONCE THEY'RE BORN? THAT IS NOT LOGIC AT ALL.

Did you even read what I posted bro? Infants are almost always adopted. Yes it's sad that there are kids who live in orphanages, but that's hardly ever the case since infancy. Once again, you're showing just how ignorant you are and you clearly didn't read what I said.

Brainwashing? Trust me, I'm more of a skeptic than anyone you know, sorry if I feel like the human a couple is responsible for brining into existence should get a chance instead of just being tossed in a garbage can.

Yes, men, women each provide %50 of the action and %50 of the DNA, hence they should be held equally accountable.

[Chase]

- Firstly, the reason you hear "Abstinence" over, and over, and over again is that if you DON'T partake in the act, then conception is not an issue. I don't view bearing children as a PUNISHMENT, but I do see it as a result of one's choice in most cases. You can crave the pleasure in sex, but you can't deny that it's anatomical function is to produce offspring. The -best- way to avoid conception is to avoid the cause of conception. It -really- is that simple.

- Secondly, you can look at "this point in time" in two different angles. I don't think the successes we see in history are due to more and more freedom as much as they are more and more discoveries, inventions, and knowledge being unraveled. At "this" point in time, people view sex as a leisurely activity and because it "feels good", people don't stop to think about what that action could bring. It's unfortunate, and it can even cause some serious issues, but if in the time period humanity has existed we're still looking at sex as a pleasure bringer and treating it like a drug, I wouldn't call that progress from your "primitive" era at all. Bearing the consequences of your actions is part of being an adult. If you are not one, then I completely understand why you feel like giving someone the choice to literally "off" their offspring is a progressive idea.

-...continuing on with the theme of "progress" people CAN live in Antarctica, and people do live in mountainous areas and in Siberian areas. Technological advancements have enabled humans to adapt and make suitable shelter in those conditions. The grounds free for the taking. Sure, your population is rising, but there's still acres of land out there a human could possibly live on. Especially one that was allowed to live by it's mother. Unless you live in a congested area of the world where resources are thin, I don't understand how "too many people as is" justifies killing your offspring.

- not a punishment. Consequence. Different meanings. Every decision you make in life has 'em, and they can be good or bad. You choose to have sex, you may have just chosen to have a child, because that's the course of action. You can't just tell your body "Hey self, don't conceive please, It's only a one night stand." no matter how much protection is used, and no matter how much thought you put in before going through with the act. If 12 year old Sally wants to take a chance, then she should at least expect it to happen and be mentally prepared. If that's impossible, she shouldn't be making that choice. Again. That simple.

- the demand for newborn babies is much, MUCH, higher than children that are not newborns. Most parents that don't have the ability to conceive want to experience the ENTIRETY of the child's life. You can't compare apples to oranges here. If you choose the adoption route in a timely fashion, that child is getting a good home, and you don't have to worry about him/her/xym OR yourself. Is depression a lingering issue? Sure, but it's not going to convince me killing my child was the better alternative.

- Take a look at the developmental phases of a human fetus. Take a look at how many pro-CHOICERS think killing a BABY -after- BIRTH is okay. Then tell me it doesn't make sense for a woman to not be heartbroken about the development abortion has caused. Shame on -ME- as a woman for caring about others instead of myself, right? You completely disregarded the fact that I've done my own research, and you don't know what my background is. I wouldn't say I was a church-kid, but then again..

You don't know me.

[The Fush]

- Firstly, the reason you hear "Abstinence" over, and over, and over again is that if you DON'T partake in the act, then conception is not an issue. I don't view bearing children as a PUNISHMENT, but I do see it as a result of one's choice in most cases. You can crave the pleasure in sex, but you can't deny that it's anatomical function is to produce offspring. The -best- way to avoid conception is to avoid the cause of conception. It -really- is that simple.

Because trying to be abstinent while craving for the pleasure of sex is totally something that can work.

[Chase]

Most certainly possible, Fush... This topic isn't entitled "How to gratify one's self". and I'm not going to delve any deeper than that.