Pro Life or Pro Choice?

[nageov3t]

pro-choice, but anti-3rd term abortions except in the case where the mother's life is at risk.

 

[LunarRay]

Being a male I don't have a vote. If I were a female with my mind I'd be Pro Roe...

 

[nehalem256]

Being a male I don't have a vote. If I were a female with my mind I'd be Pro Roe...

Last I heard there was a little thing called the 19th Amendment that guaranteed the right to vote irrespective of gender.

 

[soulcougher73]

Well, deal with it. That's how life is. There is an effect behind every single thing we do no matter how careful we are. Nothing's perfect.. EXCEPT.. NOT having sex when it comes to this (outside, again, of extreme circumstances which we've talked about). That's the only way to ensure you don't get pregnant.

I've accepted that, and so have many others.

The point of sex is first to re-produce.. so if we are having sex at all, it won't be super easy to prevent pregnancy.

I would deal with it by getting an abortion. And im glad i have that choice available to me. Unlike you pro-lifers im not trying to impose my morals onto others to take away their choices to do as they see fit. But as with my first post in this thread..i dont think it should be relied on as a form of BC at all. It should be a last resort when other means of BC didnt work or rape, mothers life is in danger etc.

You want to tell people how to live their lives based on your moral character. I do not. I think religion is retarded and illogical, but i would never try to ban religion. All i ask is you keep religion out of politics, hence the "seperation of church and state" line we always hear.

 

[monovillage]

Being a male I don't have a vote. If I were a female with my mind I'd be Pro Roe...

You had a vote when you stuck your pe..... why should you lose your vote later? If the female can have the child and charge you for it for the next 20 years or so, you should have a say. You (a male) should have a choice to vote "abort it", pay $1,000 and no longer have any responsibility for the child.

 

[Retro Rob]

I've included part of my response to another poster as a clarification of my position.

"Most couples looking to get pregnant don't get a fertilized egg attaching to the uterine wall on the first shot (pun not intended). There are many factors that determine whether or not the fertilized egg attaches correctly and remains there for nine months. Getting pregnant via intercourse only works correctly 50% - 70% of the time. Multiply that by the number of couples across the world trying to get pregnant and you'll see that's a whole bunch of potential human beings not coming to fruition."

The other part that's more of a reply to your partial statement above is that, IMO, a fertilized egg or developing fetus, until they reach a certain stage of development are a potential human being, not a human being. A clump of dividing/growing cells is not a human being; in the same way that a partially germinated acorn is not an oak tree.

Like we agreed before; education, meaningful discussion and, IMO, unrestricted availability of morning-after and Plan B pills and other BC methods will eliminate the need for ~60% - 70% or greater of abortions now occurring.

Well, not a full human, but a developing one IMO. I'm not sure of all the specifics.

I would be more inclined to believe that once it's fertilization's complete, it's a growing life form.

 

[LunarRay]

Last I heard there was a little thing called the 19th Amendment that guaranteed the right to vote irrespective of gender.

So... My choice is to not vote in this poll because I don't believe I have the requisite qualifications necessary to decide for womankind the use and abuse of their bodies. I think with a male mind not encumbered by the chemical let alone the emotional aspects of Choice in the matter of 'Roe'.

You apparently do... so go for it... You may have all those attributes that I lack.

 

[soulcougher73]

You had a vote when you stuck your pe..... why should you lose your vote later? If the female can have the child and charge you for it for the next 20 years or so, you should have a say. You (a male) should have a choice to vote "abort it", pay $1,000 and no longer have any responsibility for the child.

I agree with this as well, unless you meant the male can force the female to abort. That i dont agree with. But i do agree a male should be able to absolve himself of financial responsibility for the child if he wants an abortion and she doesnt.

 

[LunarRay]

You had a vote when you stuck your pe..... why should you lose your vote later? If the female can have the child and charge you for it for the next 20 years or so, you should have a say. You (a male) should have a choice to vote "abort it", pay $1,000 and no longer have any responsibility for the child.

Ok... well.. considering your position I'll vote to cancel your vote... Our votes and positions are therefore moot.

 

[nehalem256]

I would deal with it by getting an abortion. And im glad i have that choice available to me. Unlike you pro-lifers im not trying to impose my morals onto others to take away their choices to do as they see fit. But as with my first post in this thread..i dont think it should be relied on as a form of BC at all. It should be a last resort when other means of BC didnt work or rape, mothers life is in danger etc.

You want to tell people how to live their lives based on your moral character. I do not. I think religion is retarded and illogical, but i would never try to ban religion. All i ask is you keep religion out of politics, hence the "seperation of church and state" line we always hear.

1.) Imposing morality on others is not a bad thing. Thank goodness we have laws against cannibalism. But we are imposing our morality on those who wish to butcher and eat others.

2.) I would say most pro-choice people want to impose their morality on others just as much as pro-life people. Many would have no problems forcing others to pay for abortions. And close to all are in favor of forcing society, and certainly the father, to support the child the woman choose to have.

 

[Retro Rob]

I would deal with it by getting an abortion. And im glad i have that choice available to me. Unlike you pro-lifers im not trying to impose my morals onto others to take away their choices to do as they see fit. But as with my first post in this thread..i dont think it should be relied on as a form of BC at all. It should be a last resort when other means of BC didnt work or rape, mothers life is in danger etc.

You want to tell people how to live their lives based on your moral character. I do not. I think religion is retarded and illogical, but i would never try to ban religion. All i ask is you keep religion out of politics, hence the "seperation of church and state" line we always hear.

Who said anything about religion? I sure didn't... I never even mention God in this thread.

Ranting about something irrelevant to all of my posts here in this thread.

..

 

[nehalem256]

So... My choice is to not vote in this poll because I don't believe I have the requisite qualifications necessary to decide for womankind the use and abuse of their bodies. I think with a male mind not encumbered by the chemical let alone the emotional aspects of Choice in the matter of 'Roe'.

You apparently do... so go for it... You may have all those attributes that I lack.

No the problem is that the system of beliefs you are promoting is inconsistent with reality.

The whole idea or stance of "keep your penis in your pants and keep your panties pulled up" sounds nice and not something with which I necessarily disagree. However, we both know that it's simply not realistic, whether for married couples, single adults or teenagers. Sex is a natural and normal part of life. Education and meaningful discussions will do more good than telling women and men to deny their natural feelings and drives.

Apparently you expect men to "keep in their pants" if they dont want to be a parent, but dont expect women to "keep their panties up" if they dont want to be a mother.

😱

 

[monovillage]

I agree with this as well, unless you meant the male can force the female to abort. That i dont agree with. But i do agree a male should be able to absolve himself of financial responsibility for the child if he wants an abortion and she doesnt.

Not forcing, just making sure if I knocked up some slut when wearing beer goggles that I don't get stuck paying for the kid. I cough up $1,000 or the basic cost of a cheapy abortion and walk away without debt.

 

[monovillage]

Ok... well.. considering your position I'll vote to cancel your vote... Our votes and positions are therefore moot.

You didn't vote though, so mine counts double!!

 

[nehalem256]

Not forcing, just making sure if I knocked up some slut when wearing beer goggles that I don't get stuck paying for the kid. I cough up $1,000 or the basic cost of a cheapy abortion and walk away without debt.

If you believe it is acceptable to have random sex with "strangers" you cannot oppose abortion. If a pregnancy results from such an encounter abortion is the only logical choice.

 

[monovillage]

If you believe it is acceptable to have random sex with "strangers" you cannot oppose abortion. If a pregnancy results from such an encounter abortion is the only logical choice.

I voted pro-choice, but of course you can. Since when do all political and social opinions and positions have to be based on logical choices? If they did we wouldn't have a Democratic party.

 

[soulcougher73]

Who said anything about religion? I sure didn't... I never even mention God in this thread.

Ranting about something irrelevant to all of my posts here in this thread.

..

I didnt say you said anything about religion. I was just pointing out how i would never demand legislation on something i am morally opposed to. That is all. I just used religion as an example. I dont agree with it and think its wrong. But i would never tell someone they cant worship who or whatever they want.

That point is i dont believe in telling others what to do or how to live based on my moral character.

 

[Retro Rob]

I didnt say you said anything about religion. I was just pointing out how i would never demand legislation on something i am morally opposed to. That is all. I just used religion as an example. I dont agree with it and think its wrong. But i would never tell someone they cant worship who or whatever they want.

That point is i dont believe in telling others what to do or how to live based on my moral character.

It's not based on "my moral character"... it's based on life, being responsible.. cause and effect. You have sex, you can make a baby. You put you hand in fire, you get burned... yada yada..

Sure, I have moral character that guides my decision making and lifestyle.. yeah, I will admit to that.

....I would say that people should have moral character and base laws/legislation on that because if they didn't, we really wouldn't have laws that prevent murder, theft, bribery, extortion, loan-sharking, etc.

 

[Onceler]

Pro choice except in the case of rape then it should be mandatory abortions.

 

[Ackmed]

I'm pretty amazed and appalled at how many think abortion is an option.

 

[crashtestdummy]

No, that's not what I am saying, my fiend. The reason why I focused on pre-marital sex is because I think if people who didn't have sex before marriage, that would cut down on child birth and abortions, IMO. I can't back that up.. just theorizing. Where I lived, most people cannot afford children.. and aren't married, but still make babies.

My apologies for jumping to conclusions then.

You're right that if people were to universally stop having sex except for the purpose of procreation, the number of abortions would obviously drop. Even if this were possible I'm not sure this would be the optimal social outcome, but in practice abstinence-only sex education does little to alter pregnancy rates. The reason is that if you're going to tell people to just not have sex, they don't learn proper safer sex practices. As a result, those that do engage in sexual activity are more likely to get pregnant or get an STI.

The end result is that people are going to be having some number of unplanned pregnancies no matter what you do. The wealthy of those will simply find a way to have an abortion anyway, while the poor will be stuck with a child they are incapable of raising.

 

[alzan]

It is a good point to bring up. If the miscarriage is caused by nature it should be treated no differently than if someone dies in your house by natural causes. Nature does what nature does and we either need to gain control over it or accept it as no one's fault.

The goal of an abortion is the death of a human. The goal of a pregnancy is the birth of a human. A natural miscarriage causes the death of a human, but it is not the goal of the pregnancy, it is just one of those things that happens naturally from time to time. It sucks, but it just is what it is.


IMO, if the life of the mother is at risk (or SERIOUS health issues - stretch marks are not serious health issues), then the fetus should be removed and all attempts should be made to have the now human being (due to being born alive) survive. If the baby dies, the baby dies. It happens...but it should not be the GOAL of medicine to kill humans. The goal should be to save lives, not take them.

Not wanting to derail but my question/statement was towards consistency from those in the pro-life camp that believe abortion providers are murderers. Natural miscarriages are a tragedy but should at least be manslaughter if abortion providers are murderers. They both result in the death of a potential human being. If those that believe that abortion providers are murderers and that killing them is somehow okay, then they should be willing to support prosecution of women who've had natural miscarriages, whether a developing fetus or a blastocyst that didn't attach to the uterine wall, or developmentally between.

 

[Retro Rob]

My apologies for jumping to conclusions then.

You're right that if people were to universally stop having sex except for the purpose of procreation, the number of abortions would obviously drop. Even if this were possible I'm not sure this would be the optimal social outcome, but in practice abstinence-only sex education does little to alter pregnancy rates. The reason is that if you're going to tell people to just not have sex, they don't learn proper safer sex practices. As a result, those that do engage in sexual activity are more likely to get pregnant or get an STI.

The end result is that people are going to be having some number of unplanned pregnancies no matter what you do. The wealthy of those will simply find a way to have an abortion anyway, while the poor will be stuck with a child they are incapable of raising.

I understand that entire post and agree with most of it So, I guess in the world as we know and live in, abortion works for what people do. And from that perspective, I understand a little based on what you wrote.

That's why I would not legislate an anti-abortion law. I would just teach that being morally liberal isn't always the best course of action.

 

[LunarRay]

No the problem is that the system of beliefs you are promoting is inconsistent with reality.




😱

I think I said... "I". I think as I think and you think as you think. It really is not going to consequence me at all... The Law says you and all the rest of men-kind will be responsible for the parental aspects of the child along with the mommy... but if there is no child there is nothing to be responsible for... so it boils down to who gets to determine the issue of having the child. Law says the girl does... You get to sit and deal with her decision. That is reality... and the Law.

You may not agree with the Law and that is fine by me. You may not agree that it provides for equality and that too is fine by me....

You see.... I only care what the law says and move back from that. The church is in conflict with the law... but like I said... I live where I do and pay taxes to Caesar so I'll follow his law and try to change what I don't like as you should but I'll be danged if I'm going to let that reality bother me one iota...

 

[alzan]

Well, deal with it. That's how life is. There is an effect behind every single thing we do no matter how careful we are. Nothing's perfect.. EXCEPT.. NOT having sex when it comes to this (outside, again, of extreme circumstances which we've talked about). That's the only way to ensure you don't get pregnant.

I've accepted that, and so have many others.

The point of sex is first to re-produce.. so if we are having sex at all, it won't be super easy to prevent pregnancy.

No the point of sex is to provide pleasure, either for one's self or more preferably for both yourself and your partner. It's also about expressing love, or at least some people's definition of love. The point of intercourse, at least for most adults, if you're not using BC is to attempt to get pregnant. If it's two young teens than it's more about raging hormones and naivete.