Abortion

Let`s start an internet flamewar. Because I doubt there are any pro-life
people on this website, I ask you the following:

How can a woman want to eventually become pregnant and carry the fetus to
term yet when she gets pregnant now have an abortion and not see the
contradiction? How is one fetus deserving of life and the other not? It seems
to me a real feminist wouldn't want her body being "used" by a fetus ever and
wouldn't want to become pregnant.

If these pro-choice women want to become pregnant now they should get their
tubes tied AND use hormonal birth control, a barrier method w/ spermacide, and a condom everytime they have sex. If they ever want to become a parent they should adopt.

In case there are any pro-life people, I ask the following:

30% of all fertilized zygotes die or are spontatneously aborted before or slightly after implantation in the uterus.
20% of all properly implanted zygotes end up as miscarriages.
50% of all fertilized zygotes don't make it. If life begins at fertilization then god kills half of all of humanity for no reason.

>>Let`s start an internet flamewar.

Let's not, and say we did.  Isn't the signal-to-noise ratio around here low enough for you yet?

A fetus does not have any rights.  It is not a living being, but instead a growth similar (certainly biologically, though perhaps not socially) to either a viral infection or a cancer.  As such, I see no problem cutting it out or otherwise removing it, until natural childbirth would set in, at which point it would become an independant, living being. 

Pro-life activists are pretty funny, if you ask me.  It's one thing to say that they themselves would never have an abortion, or even that they think it's wrong, but don't try to inject their morals into other people.  But these pro-life activists really get me.  I wont touch the absurd religious reasons, but let's take a quick look at the practical perspective. 

Save a fetus, because it's a person, too.  BS, but even if so, why not help EXISTING people instead?  Why force a kid into the world that doesn't want it, and then ignore all the other people who already are suffering?

It's such a horrible thing to prevent a fetus from being born.  Oh?  It's not as important as, say, stopping the pollution that will put hundreds of cities UNDERWATER in a few decades?  Or the crimes commited each day by murderers, rapists, pickpockets, and arsonists?  Will a fetus stop your house from burning?  No, maybe you should have tried to help that FIREMAN instead.  Can a fetus perform open heart surgery on you?  Maybe you should have helped the DOCTOR instead.

Put yet another damn mouth to feed on the planet?  Why should I have to suffer because somebody didn't want some bimbo who couldn't keep her legs together to get rid of something NOBODY WANT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Here's my proposal.  If anybody really thinks abortion is a bad thing, THEY can go ahead and take care of the resulting human larva.  People who get abortions (it's not a nice thing, we all know that, but it's often by far the lesser of two evils) will have to carry the burden of their decision for the rest of their lives.  It's easy to say "don't do that, it's wrong!"  Now some pro-lifers are genuinely concerned and have fair enough reasons.  But the vast majority, if they had to carry the responsibilty of the choice of having or not having an abortion would turn right around and shut up.

>>4
Actually, a fetus is a living being.  The word even comes from a Latin word meaning 'baby' or 'young one.'  It has the genetic code of a human being, it's own heartbeat & brainwaves.

I was born via C-section, a most un-natural way.  According to your reasoning, I'm not really a person, since I was not born via "natural childbirth."

Also, where does this leave premature  babies?  They are most certainly not "independant, living being[s]"  They rely on an incubator to act as a sort of makeshift womb until such time that they can sustain their own lives.  According to your reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with a mother waltzing into the premie ward & chopping up her baby & sucking out of the incubator with a hose if she decided she really didn't want it afterall.  Heck, even a normal, healthy, naturally-born baby really isn't "an independent, living being."  How many babies would survive on their own if not fed & cared for by someone else?

As for all this "what about other problems" stuff, that's pretty poor arguing.  It's just a way of avoiding the argument.  Sure, there are lots of other problems in the world, but the existance of those other problems is neither an argument for not against anything.

Furthermore, it's wrong to say that some pople are simply more important than others, fetuses or otherwise.  A fetus won't stop my house from burning or perform open-heart surgery, but, chances are, neither will you.  Nor will my roommate.  Or my grandmother.  Or that kid down the street.  Placing some people's lives above others is a very slippery slope.  Let's say a janitor walks into the ER with some sort of life-threatening emergency, according to your reasoning, the staff should deny him treatment & save the resources in case a fireman or doctor comes in needing help.

>>2
So what?  Life can end due to natural causes; no one has ever denied that.  But there's a big difference between dying of natural causes and being killed by another person.

Personally, I think that regardless of the morals or reasoning involved, if a woman is a legal adult, she may choose to abort her fetus regardless of the reasoning. It is not a matter to be taken lightly, but regardless should be available, and the decision of the woman should be respected (she should not be hassled by any activist groups, etc).

>>7
Morals or reasoning should not be so easily ignored.  If this was just some ordinary elective surgey, I would agree.  But this is a case of life vs. death.  No one, man or woman, should have the right to take another life.

pro-choicers, pls answer >>1

For those who say abortion is fine, do you also agree that it is a logical and consistant action for a woman to today abort her fetus but in the future carry a fetus to term?

Would this woman have any right to be upset if a person punches her in the gut killing a fetus that she wanted to keep? (mad just for killing the fetus, not for punching her)

If you agree, then I suppose your viewpoint is the fetus "belongs" to the mother. Say I owned a plasma TV, I could smash it if I wanted, but then don't parents basically own their young children that are incapable of caring for themselves? Whats the difference between killing a newborn and a fetus? Both are fully dependent and not really sentient.

So say we make abortion illegal, because a fetus is a life.  What happens if a woman that is pregnant would be risking her life by going to term with the fetus?  What if the fetus has a very good chance to survive the birth even if the mother does not?  Should abortion be allowed?  The way I see it, if the fetus is a life, then a life is a life, the mother has no more right to life than the fetus so if using this logic, then the mother should under no circumstance be allowed to have an abortion, even if her death is assured, even if the there is only a slim chance the fetus will survive the birth.

I'm 100% pro-choice under any circumstance btw.

>>10
I think this would fall under self defense.  Even murder can be justified if it's in self defense.  Anyone has the right to defend his or her own life.  And if that's the ONLY way to do it, then it's sad, but it has to be done.  But that's not really an argument to say that ALL abortion should be okay.

>>9
Yes, of course.  Just because having a child now would be a bad idea, there is no particular reason in the future having a child would still be a bad thing.  Of course, abortion should by no means be a means to make up for a lack of safe-sex and birth control. 

Should she be upset if somebody cuts off her hair, presuming it's not a hair stylist?  Of course!  It's her body, and her right to do with it as she pleases.  Pro-choicers realize the importance and value of a fetus, contrary to the pro-life common beliefs.  That's actually the whole point.  It's HER decision, and NO ONE else's, on what she can or cannot do with her fetus.

And yes, a fetus belongs to the mother as much as, say, your thumb belongs to you.

>>5
Well, you've touched on the cetral issue between pro-choice and pro-life.  Neither side agrees on definitions, so it's hard to even talk about it.  But to get right to the point:

In the case of unnatural methods of childbirth, the mother's body has decided it's time for the baby to be born.  It's time for the baby to come out, one way or another.  The specific method isn't the issue.  I'll get to the issue of medical premature birth in a moment.

The point is, a fetus is not a physioligically independant being.  It is absolutely dependant on the host mother to provide ALL of its needs.  Neither the mother nor the fetus has any choice in the matter.  Once it is born, the mother can be replaced by any number of other persons.  More importantly, it is not physioligically dependant on the mother.  Assuming a healthy birth, it has it's own respiratory system, digestive tract, and so forth.  No being has a right to exist inside another being, it is there by permission.  And, as such, that permission can be revoked at any time at the sole discression of the host.

Now, what about viable fetuses?  Do they have a right to live?  Well, if you ask me, no.  But there would be a simple way to find out.  Induce birth medically, and see how it fairs on it's own.  Chances are, it will die, and it's certainly unethical to create life merely to subject it to pain for the entirety of it's short existance. 

But, I will grant, some time before actual birth, the fetus could be viable.  So as far as policy goes -- and this is a comprimise, I would allow abortions up until the water breaks -- I would think it's fair to say that abortions are permissible up to the seventh month of pregnancy.  Anybody who's pregnant for seven months and hasn't figured out they need an abortion only has themselves to blame.

>>12
A human's rights end where another's begin.  It sounds nice to say, oh, a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body.  But when other people are involved, such as the unborn child, it's no longer true.  I have the right to do whatever I want with my body, say, my fist.  But I do not have the right to use my fist to harm other people.

A fetus is a human.  It's not a monkey, or a cat, or a toaster, or anything else.  It's simply a term for a stage in human development, like infant, toddler, adolescent, etc.  When you start saying that humans BELONG to other humans, that's very dangersous.  I remember learning about a time when certain people 'belonged' to other people.

>>13
Let's say I invite you to join me on my boat for a cruise on Lake Michigan.  I've given you permission to be on my boat, and I am your host.  But, a while into the cruise, I change my mind, and choose to revoke my permission.  I throw you overboard. We are too far from shore for me to realistically expect you to swim back, and Lake Michigan is cold, so you'll likely die from hypothermia or something anyhow.  But, hey, it's my boat, right?  Does this sound right to you?

>>14
Again, this is the disagreement of terms used.  Anti-abortionists feel that a fetus is a person.  It is not.  A person is a physically and physiologically distinct being.  A fetus is neither of these things.  A fetus is intrinsically dependant on the mother.  A baby is not.  That's what the difference is.  If you have any arguements as to why a fetus should be considered a human being, feel free to share them.  However, arguements based on religion, morals, or feelings carry little to no weight, and aren't worth the time to type out.

As for the boat examle, by inviting somebody onto your boat, you are assuming responsibility for them.  So doesn't the mother responsible to the fetus?  Yes, and in many cases (and it's only for her to decide) an abortion is the responsible answer.  It all comes down to one thing.  A fetus has no rights.  It is not an independant being.  Prohibiting abortions if anything is taking away fundamental human rights, not granting them.

>>14
Again, this is the disagreement of terms used.  Anti-abortionists feel that a fetus is a person.  It is not.  A person is a physically and physiologically distinct being.  A fetus is neither of these things.  A fetus is intrinsically dependant on the mother.  A baby is not.  That's what the difference is.  If you have any arguements as to why a fetus should be considered a human being, feel free to share them.  However, arguements based on religion, morals, or feelings carry little to no weight, and aren't worth the time to type out.

As for the boat examle, by inviting somebody onto your boat, you are assuming responsibility for them.  So doesn't the mother responsible to the fetus?  Yes, and in many cases (and it's only for her to decide) an abortion is the responsible answer.  It all comes down to one thing.  A fetus has no rights.  It is not an independant being.  Prohibiting abortions if anything is taking away fundamental human rights, not granting them.

>>14
I think that boat analogy needs a little more accuracy. As it stands it would work if the mother first wanted to have a baby and then suddenly decided that it's not cool and hip and wants to have an abortion. Unfortunately we're usually talking about babies that were unwanted to begin with. I think more correct would be something along the lines of: If a person snuck onboard your boat and stayed hidden and you discovered him not until you were so far from land that he wouldn't be able to swim his way back to the shore, would you throw him overboard?

Most people would of course answer negatively, but it's kind of irrelevant for the reason already pointed out: disagreement of terms.

I agree with reply number 15, as long as it cannot be proven without doubt that the fetus is aware and that it can survive as a singular beeing (which it cant), it is not human. It is simply a hump of cells (to be crude) that may (if everything works out) one day be a human. Untill that day, it is not. Meaning, it has no rights (again, to put it in a crude way).

The way i see it is, its better to remove the fetus (note: this does not yet have a sence of awareness, it is as much aware as the couple of billion germs that you kill with even breathing) than to possibly ruin the lives of several people (including that of the fetus).

If the mother doesnt want the fetus, its means she doesnt want it (duh :)), then that means that either the child will grow up in a orphanage and most likely have a very small chance of happyness in its life, or the child could still end up with its mother and/or father, who didnt want it. This means that the fetus again be limited in its chance of happyness.
Either cases it would also mean that the parents also could be marked for life, possibly ruining their shot at becomming something in life too.

And for what? So that certain religious people, who they have never met, can sleep easier at night?

Hey, but then again, what do i know, right?

Fortunatly for the rights of all those men and women, our law states that you can have an abortion up to the fifth or sixth month.

>>17
But fetuses don't just sneak into women's wombs.  They are created there by a decison on the part of two people (except in cases of rape).  Pregnancy doesn't just happen.  Like it or not, a woman is, in effect, allowing the fetus in by choosing to have sex.  (Again, rape is a separate issue altogother.)

>>18
If it's the happiness of the fetus you're worried about, perhaps you should consider another A word, adoption.  The whole "well, you won't be happy anyhow, so I'll just kill you now & save you the trouble" argument disturbs me.  There is no shortage of people who want babies but can't have them.  In fact, people go through all sorts of time, trouble, & money to get their hands on a baby.  As such, very few newborns go unadapoted.  The children who do end up growing up in the foster care system were either born with some disease or defect, or were more likely orphaned some time later in their life (parents dying, taken away due to abuse, etc).

And what do "religious people" have to do with this?  Yes, there are a lot of people who use that as their sole argument against abortion, but that's bad arguing, & I haven't seen much of that here.  Whether or not a fetus is a person can be argued entirely on a scientific basis (does it feel pain, does it have consciousness, etc).  Being religious is by no means a prerequisite for caring about life.

>>19 Whether or not a fetus is a person can be argued entirely on a scientific basis

Yes, exactly, and it's a fairly distinct "no, it's not."  Hence, it has no right, and killing it is no more problematic than removing a cancer or killing bacteria.

>>20
Who says?  Cancer or bacteria do not have their own heartbeat, their own brainwaves.  They do not feel or react to pain.  Cancer or bacteria will not grow into a baby.  Only a fetus can do that.

>>19

Modern medicine can care for fairly premature babies and one day probably grow a zygote into a full term fetus outside of a woman's body. You can't grow a tumor or bacteria into a sentient lifeform. Thats a pretty weak argument.

What I find annoying is that pro-choice people don't want to reduce the number of abortions happening. They see it as a form of birth control. On the other end the pro-life people are usually the type that supports "abstinance only" sex ed. Sure its 100% effective, but unless you get the media and society at large on the same page you won't change kids minds.

People in europe have as much or more premerital sex as americans, but the abortion rates there are much less. Why isn't reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies a goal everyone can agree on?

>>22

Abstinance only education 100% effective?  You probably meant abstinance itself, cause yeah, that's 100% effective, but the education side of it is practically 0% effective.  People are going to have sex regardless, so they may as well know what they're getting into.  That will definitly keep the number of abortions down.

I don't know of any pro-choice advocates that think that abortion should be used as a form of birth control.  It's definitly a serious issue, and it's not like pro-choice advocates don't understand the importance of a potential human being.  It's just that that is all it is, a potential.  By removing the choice of abortion, the rights of a potential human being are given more weight than a real human being.

>>21
So what if it has a heartbeat and brainwaves?  That alone hardly makes it an individual.  Does a fetus feel pain?  Sure, but again, so what?  Most parts of the human body feel pain, it's not surprising that the fetus, a part of the mother's body, would feel pain too.  Many pain impulses don't go to our brains, but the spinal cord instead; you can't argue that just because feelings go to the fetal brain it's a human being.

Pain itself is a physiological response.  A reaction.  As humans, we associate negative feelings with it, but in the end, it's just nerve impulses traveling around.  Same thing with brainwaves in general.  They're physiological patterns, but nothing particularly more.  As long as the host and fetus are connected, they're one entity, not two.

>>22
Interseting point.  It seems the anti-abortionists will scream and hollar about taking care of a fetus, but once it's born, often into welfare or other suboptimal conditions, they'll do very little to care for it.  Abortion should be a right because it's the mother that would have to care for the child.  I'll take anti-abortionists seriously once they come forward and say they'll take responsibility for the resulting baby.  It's easy to tell somebody to carry to term when you don't have to bear the consequences yourself. 

>>19
Pregnancy can happen accidentally for a variety of reasons. Intoxication and being a dumb and naive teenager are two that spring to mind. Sure the fetus did not sneak into the womb, but neither was it explicitly and conciously invited there as your example implied.

Also decision to have sex is not a decision to have a baby.

>>25

evasion of personal responsibility?

>>26
Does it have to be punished so severely?

>>27
Actions have consequences. Welcome to the real world.

>>26
Having an abortion is taking responsibility for the pregnancy.  It has to be dealt with is some way, and if the mother feels it's the best choice to abort it, it's her decision to make.

>>28
Yes, sex can lead to pregnancy, and pregnancy can lead to an abortion.  Nobody takes abortion more seriously than the woman who is about to have one.  We have the ability to make those consequences much less negative.  Pro-choice advocates understand the real world better than anti-abortionists who try to paint it black and white, ignoring that having a baby can be a very bad thing, too.

People who say they are "pro-life" are not. They're generally only "pro-birth". That is, they want to make sure that every pregnant woman has her baby no matter what, but don't give a shit after the baby is born.

I think abortion is a necessary evil. I don't advocate it, but I realize it isn't my choice to make whether someone has an abortion or not. Moral responsibility cannot be taught by force.

>>23
A friend of mine (a nurse) once told me of a woman she had met. This woman had (at the time) had 5 abortions (and has probably had more since), she claimed that getting an abortion was easier than the use of other forms of birth control. She also went on to say that the decision to do such a thing gets easier every time you do it.

This way of thinking is NOT uncommon

>>32
It's too bad people use abortion as a form of birth control, but as with every right, people will abuse it.  Free speech is abused daily, though nobody would claim it should be done away with because it's used in poor judgement. 

Here's an idea: instead of teaching abstinance-only, try actually educating students in SexEd about sex, love, and pregnancy, and maybe they'll start making better decisions.

I agree with >>29 and >>33. I also feel that parents of teenagers should be responsible and let them know about the consenquences of unprotected sex.

I am pro-abortion, and anti-life. I think that we should have mandated baby killing. Every firstborn can be kept, but all others are put to death in monthly, in public ceremonies.

>>2 So we should add to the problem...why?

>>36
Because having another child in the world is not a good idea in many cases.  But the point is that just because there is a fertalized egg doesn't mean it will become a child.  Abortions are a natural thing.

Question, doesn't the would-be father's opinion count?
I'm Pro-Choice because even though I don't like abortions,
it's not my place to tell other people what to do. It's their child. The problem with adoption and the like is 1)government money is involved 2)the kids are abused and screwed for life.
In many cases abortion would prevent the would-be child from
living an abusive life. Although both sides of the argument
have blind people who are too dumb to even hear the other side,
I find that most are in the Pro-Life category. Most of what the say is half-baked BS and most should be brutally killed along with the useless "Christian" groups that fight for BS reasons.
Just my half a cent.
oh, and BTW, a fetus is a living thing. It is NOT a person.
It is NOT aware. A newborn is PARTIALLY aware. So in fact an unborn child is a parasite with the POTENTIAL of becoming a person. Killing it is like getting rid of a tapeworm. Although a tapeworm can't get child support after 9 months. :D

>>37
I am also a dude who is pro-abortion and anti-life. I seriously think they should give the death penalty to attempted suicide to end their misery in a cruel fashion AND to prevent others from attempting suicide. :)

>>37
I am also a dude who is pro-abortion and anti-life. I seriously think they should give the death penalty to attempted suicide to end their misery in a cruel fashion AND to prevent others from attempting suicide. :)

>>39 and >> 40
In that case why not have suicide booths a la Futurama?

How can they charge someone who kills a fetus while attacking a pregnant woman with homicide and yet allow a doctor to do the exact same thing and not get charged?

I think the pro-choice argument is that a fetus is the property of the mother. If you think the above attacker should be charged with homicide you can't be pro-choice. I think the best and most legal thing you could charge such an attacker with is destroying property in addition to injuring the mother. I'm sick of people having it both ways. Its a person when you want it and not when you don't. MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

>>42
Eh. In the end, it has to deal with the court. You can convict him  of vehicular manslaughter if you can convince the jury this (even with no car). I wouldn't call that homocide but if you add the lawyer mumbo jumbo, you can incarcerate him as if it were (i.e. "future emotional issues" or something). You have to keep in mind that the government right now is mixed in both sides. There really is no "winner" as of yet so expect a lot of hipocritism on both sides. All issues haven't been addressed.
Just another half a cent.

You guys seem to be missing somthing.  The purpose of sex is to procreate.  It's not there to just run out and do.  Yes, it is quite a good thing that can be lots of fun, but, in the end, its underlying purpose is to create another person.  If you dont want a baby, keep your legs shut.  Its that simple. 

As for your arguments as to its a cancer and such, every fetus has a distinct genetic code that is not that of the mothers.  If it were hers, if it was just part of her body, it would be genetically identical.  But its not.  It is true that it also has its own branwaves and heartbeats.  It is a separate living entity, even though it cannot take care of itself.

>>29
Having an abortion is not taking responsibility for the problem. If they have sex, they signify their want for a child. That is sexs purpose. It's not for people to "show thier love for eachother".  Thats how STD's get around.  Its easy to say I love you lets screw, then later so, well, not really.  Then you could get a pregnancy that is unwanted and an STD. Killing the fetus becasue you screwed up is not taking responsibility, its trying to get out of it.

>>44

Logical fallacy. Just because sex is our only natural means of reproduction it does not follow that reproduction is its ONLY purpose.

pregnency is a natural side-effect of sex, if you arnt prepared to raise a child DONT HAVE SEX! why is it called the reproductive organ? hmm, i wonder. im 17, as much as i would like to have children in the future, i know im not ready for them now, so i dont have sex.

Or learn how to use a condom. That works too.

>>44 It's not there to just run out and do. 

Like hell it isn't.  Sex has no meaning other than what we give it.  It's the mechanism used to procreate, but just because procreation is inextoribly linked to sex does not mean sex is inextoribly linked to procreation. 

It's silly to say that having sex means wanting a child.  People have sex ALL THE TIME without wanting a child.  In fact, half of all children are the result of an unwanted pregnancy.  Sex is just a biological function.  What we do with it is up to the individual.

OF COURSE it's irresponsible to have sex without protection and get pregnant.  But instead of making the problem worse, deal with it!  Take responsibilty for your fuck-up, and abort the fetus.  Does an abortion primarily serve the (possibly selfish) self-interest of the mother-to-be?  Sure.  Trying to get out of it would be blaming others, trying to make somebody else (in most cases, the State) to properly care for the baby. 

Who does the mother-to-be have a responsibility towards?  First of all, herself.  She needs to provide her own sustinance and well-being.  The father-to-be?  As far as a child goes, yes.  But even so, law and biology have worked out to make it the mother who by far carries the burden of bringing a new child into the world and taking care of it.  In any case, her responsibility to herself comes first.  Society?  Yes, a new life will consume resources from the community.  Could it be worth the investment?  Maybe, but it could also be a huge drain.  Historically, it's by far the latter. 

Anybody else?  The fetus?  No, the fetus is not an individual.  It is a symbiant life wholy dependant on the mother for sustinance and survival.  Until it is born, it is merely an extension of the mother.  The mother has a right to determine how her life, which at that point is the same as the life of the fetus, is to go.  She has to take responsibilty for herself, and if that means killing part of her, that's how it has to be. 

Genetics is just as losy an arguement.  Viruses are not genetically identical.  Event the mitochondria in every single cell in your body is not genetically identical.  And it's by no means "separate."  It is fundamentally unable to be cared for by any other person than the mother. 

In a more perfect world, I'd say every pregnancy should be caried to term.  Since it's a more perfect world, there would be no problem having the rest of society care for an unwanted child.  But in our real, practical world, unwanted pregnancies happen.  Even if there were something fundamantally objectionable to abortion, it's a necessary option that outweighs the negative consequences. 

"Pro-life" as a term is almost a joke.  It's placing a potential being over an existing being.  That's anti-life.

And geez, finally, even if an abortion is a "get out of jail free" card, so what?  It's still the woman's right to use it.  If you think it's morally objectionable, so be it.  Lots of morally objectional things happen, but that's why we have rights.  Even if somebody doesn't like what we're doing, rights protect all of us from eachother's subjective, individual zeals.

Yes, women can get pregnant through having sex and then carry and birth a child.  But a woman is a person, a full human being with sentience and independance--which a fetus is not--not just a baby factory.  Sex *is* a pleasurable activity and an expression of affection between people; it's as much psychological as it is physical.  It's about making children, but it's not *only* about that, at least not to everybody.

Kindly remember that not everybody shares the Christian view of sex, nor are they obligated to--religious affiliation is a choice that somebody has to make, and if you're American the Constitution says that the government isn't supposed to force you into the religion that they think you should choose. 

Besides, if you respect humanity so much, why reduce people to nothing but slaves to their biological functions?  The pro-life movement basically says to women--whether consciously and intentionally or not--that they're not important as people but only as a carrier for a baby.  Needless to say, this makes many women uncomfortable and unhappy.

Besides, "if you don't want a baby, don't have sex?"  We're not just talking about a bunch of irresponsible teenagers here.  There are adult women who are responsible enough to know that they can't provide for/don't want a child; some of them are married.  Why is it okay for you to tell them that they're not allowed to have a physical relationship with their committed partner/husband?  Sex is a vital part of a romantic relationship in our society--sexual problems can complicate or ruin a relationship just as much as money or personality problems.

Adoption is a better alternative for the child in the sense that they're alive, but we live in the real world.  Unfortunately, *not* all children are wanted.  And people tend to want a child that's actually blood related to them.  Look how many people who have trouble having children spend a fortune on fertility treatments or surrogate mothers/fathers rather than adopting some poor kid already here that needs a family.  And it's sad to say, but if a mother who doesn't want her baby isn't white, it's more likely her child will go unadopted--white children tend to be far more in demand (at least they used to, and I haven't seen statistics indicating that's changed--if somebody can point me to any reliable ones, I'd be glad).  And what about women who have genetic disorders, illnesses or drug problems that they pass through to their children?  Not as many people want to adopt a child with those sorts of problems, as it's a much more difficult commitment than raising a 'normal' child.  Yeah, there are people who want children and have trouble having them, but that doesn't mean every, or even the majority of, unwanted children will actually be adopted.

And as has been said, most pro-choice people don't advocate abortion as birth control.  Planned Parenthood, for example, provides a lot more than abortions, they provide safe-sex information and resources, and counseling.  All of which has been shown in studies and in multiple countries to prevent spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies/abortions better than abstinence only education.

>>49
lol @ trying to justify another use for baby factories

>>52
YOU! YES YOU! STOP REVIVING OLD THREADS! OR SO HELP ME I'LL RAPE YOU IN THE FORM OF A SWAN!

ahh, very old thread, but it was bumped so i just thought i should commend >>51 for a great, well-thought-out post. really hit the nail on the head talking about the difference between a human being and a living incubator.

Women shouldn't be in charge of their own bodies.

>>55

truth was told

The question is not about women. Women don't come into the real question. The question being, "Is the fetus alive?"

>>57
Oh, it's not about women, is it? It's their body, they can do with it what they damn well please. Anyone notice who mainly makes up this anti-abortion crowd? Men. Who the hell are men to tell women what the hell they can do with their bodies?

>>58
On the other hand, who are women to tell a fetus what it can do with it's body? Or what about my right to beat you to a pulp with my fists? I can do what I want with my body, right?

I agree with the pro-choice crowd, but that's a pretty stupid argument.

>>48

TRUTH WAS TOLD

If it can survive outside the womb and it is aborted, it is 1st degree murder! I say we dig up old hospital records and try and get as many feminists on death row as possible.

Less women, more lolis.

>>62
KILL ALL WOMEN!
SAVE THE FETUS!
then fuck it raw. >D

>>63
No, just put an end to the cancer of puberty in females.

sterilise all Negroes.

You think pregnancy can be planned??

My personal view on abortion is that if the mother doesn't want or didnt plan to have the child and she wants to abort then its ok. Becos its better to have not birth a life at all than to birh a life than will not be cared or wanted. And don't tell me about orphanages/foster parents etc. Those only sometimes work. (note sometimes).

Now when we talk about abortion we are talking about abortion within that certain time period (i forgot what it was). But after X period the abortion cant go ahead. So main debate wubd how much self-awareness does the fetus have at X time. Some say the moment sperm meets egg. Some say when the brain is developed and so on.

>>66 is a girl. A stupid one at that.

birh a life than will not be cared or wanted.

Life want to live, even if nobody else wants it to.

>>68

and how the fuck do you know? are you a gypsy? are you one of the X-MEN? oh wait, God told you this as he gently raped the virgin mary in a dream you THOUGHT you had, right?

how about this:

NO.

Japanese should have larger families whilst Africans need to be castrated.

>>70
Agreement and willingness to cooperate

>>69
I dunno, mate. I've never met a person who wanted to die.

Even people who commit suicide usually don't want to. Witness the majority of failed attempts.

If women want to abort, that's fine (I'm pro choice you fag), but it's still killing life.

>>72
so what? whoooooo cares? There's literally billions of LIVING children who wereborn into DEATH and no one really seems to give a shit. so who cares about some slut's dago-wap fuck-baby who was ill-concieved via the "pull out" method?

Just because someone fails at suicide doesn't mean they didn't FULLY intend to kill themselves. That's just chock full of stupid.

>>73
So you are saying baby's which are killed that could survive outside the womb are less important than those that die daily due to Fidel Castro's oppresive policies towards his people?

We must invade Cuba then!

no one really seems to give a shit.

We don't care about some people, so let's not give a shit about anyone. I like the inductive logic.

Just because someone fails at suicide doesn't mean they didn't FULLY intend to kill themselves.

People who really want to be dead go for the kill, not some half-assed measure that might not work.

>>74
>>75

How is the logic flawed? If you are judgemental enough to make an everyday decision about who lives and dies inside of a grown woman's cunt, then why doesn't that same mentality extend to outside of the womb?

I don't understand your approach, sir. You'd gladly bring a child into this world, without assuming any casual social responsiblitiy for it. You'd gladly bring a child into this world, without personally insuring that this is a *safe* world for it to live in.

Morality isn't a fucking Burger King and you are not in the Burger King kid's club. You are not Jaws. You are not Wheels and you can't just "have it your way" all of the time.

Ethics isn't a bag of chex mix, you can't just pick over it- eat up all the got damn cereal bits and leave the rest of us pretzels.

As for the suicide thing- you have no way of knowing what was certainly going on in any one person's mind during suicde. Stop with the hypotheticals.

If you are judgemental enough to make an everyday decision

I don't make the decision, you fool. Furthermore, in case you missed it (twice), I'm **pro-choice**.

There, did you get it this time? What the fuck is wrong with you and your eyes? You show this selective attention in every thread you've fagged up. Can you read?

any one person's mind during suicde.

Sure we do. The many survivors, and the myriad suicide notes left behind by the successful.

BTW, good job on not inserting gay innuendo in there for once. Amazing.

I wish I were aborted.

I'm a super-conservative pro-lifer. By my standards every guy who jerks off and cums is committing genocide since sperm are living organisms in the same sense a fetus is a living organism. For that reason, I hereby declare everyone on 4chan guilty of super genocide.

>>79

I'm a socialist. By my standards those poor souls need to have welfare, welfare and more welfare. From the tissue paper to the grave.

>>58
Women shouldn't have complete control over their own bodies, their husbands should. And why men have a say in this is because they're men. That gives them every right.

>>77

I heard you the first time, dickbrain. Pro-choice is well and good. But what you said still implies an opinion on the ethics of abortion where such an opinion shouldn't be formed (by you, a man).

If you care so much about "Life" then you should be out there making "Life" better. Do you care about "Life" at all? If you did your "YHEY DE5ERVE TO LIVEEEEESSS" would extend to others outside of the room. It doesn't, so your point of view- like your mouth in a gay-scat contest- is full of shit. You ideas are fine- until you're called to take responisbility for them.

What "life" means to human beings is being outside of the womb, walking around doing shit. Any person in a vegitative state serves as proof enough- as a matter of fact- go ask your mom, dude. She's going to being in a coma for couple of years because of that deep-dick boning I gave her last night.

>>78

When I'm forced to be social with such unintellectual, plebian uber-faggity gaylord fuckhead assholes, yeah, I do wish I was aborted.

where such an opinion shouldn't be formed

Why not?

would extend to others outside of the room

y yes it does. Except this topic is about abortion.

>>83

Because you're man, most of all, you're a man who's line and morals and ethics changed depending on how much work he has to put in.

And while the topic is abortion, it's also framed around this lofty, over-sentimental idea of preserving life. An idea which is proven to be false by your unwillingness to preserve "life".

 

Because I'm a man I'm not allowed to have an opinion?

I'll let women do whatever they want, but I'll have an opinion regardless.

If the fetus can survive outside the womb, the child is your responsibility. So if you abort it it's 1st degree murder and if it survives the abortion it is criminal neglect, grievous bodily damage and attempted murder.

So... You don't really have much of a case liberals.

>>86
Ah but can it? Without medical assistance. And more to the point, will it function correctly? If you're willing to rip one out of someone and prove this I'll be all for it.

>>85

That's fine, dumb-dumb. Just long as you know that your intellectual superiors see you as an ethically dupliticious piece of shit.

>>87

HERE HERE

>>88
Ooooooooh... and why's that, Sir Faggot the Second?

Also, lol @ "dupliticious", you intellectual superior, you.

duplicitious*
obviously that was a typo, cockmutt. If you didn't suffer from crippling GayDD you'd be able to focus on the fundamental flaw in idea "Caring about Life" enough to want bastard fucktards running around- while at the same damning them 19 or 20 years down the road when they are dropping out of college and raping up your daughters like Rape is going outta style soon.

right and I know what you're thinking: "Rape will never be out of style, Anti-chan" - I KNOW THAT, therefore one doesn't need to rape in a fashion that is indicative of this happening

PLUS YOU ARE GAY

no u

>>1

Yeah, you were right about the flamewar.  I'm just curious as to why you wanted to start it.

>>92

Because 4chan is so easy to troll, good practise for the REAL boards out there since this one is due for it's annual failure.

bump

The fucking feminists deserve to suffer. The feminists are enabled by kikes.