• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

The Great Big Abortion Debate (READ THE FIRST POST!)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I'm too lazy to read everyone's posts, so I'm just gonna throw my two cents in. This is a topic that really gets me thinking. Personally, I am a Christian. Not an overly religious person, but I do believe in God and it influences the way I live. Hence, I am pro-life. I understand many of the pro-choice arguments, and they are very good ones. Shouldn't a woman have the right to control what takes place in her body? Yes. But in most cases, sex is a choice and a risk, and everyone does know it can result in pregnancy. Now, this is where I hit a grey area. Rape obviously isn't a choice, and I am kinda in the middle on that one. I personally believe the fetus is alive at conception, but when it comes to law, I'm not really sure who's decision this is to make. This is one of those topics that I just can't come up with a clear cut answer for because you have to take so much into account. I am biased in that my Christian views do sway my opinion in how the government should handle it. But then again, separation of church and state kinda negates that. Overall, I am pro-life, but I can understand both sides of the argument.

Now when it comes to government health care paying for abortions, I am definitely in opposition of that. I'm opposed to almost all government health care/medicare/aid/welfare/social security etc. in general; but in the case of abortions I very much oppose hard earned taxpayer money being put toward something that so many people are very much against. Especially in the case of the poor. I'm not trying to pick on the poor or anything, but it's pretty simple--don't have sex, and you won't wind up with a baby (discounting rape). Many Americans like myself do not want their hard earned money going toward abortions for the impoverished.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
I am religious and I believe the fetus will not be born if God doesnt want it to, so pregnancy and birth is his way of getting a soul on earth.
Um, what? How do you know God doesn't want the abortion to happen? If the abortion happened.. couldn't you just say God wanted it to happen since the woman actually has the power to get it?

Even if you do not believe in God, killing an unborn child is killing it's one chance at life, since if YOU are reading this, you did not get your chance terminated so why do it to someone else
I don't see why this is relevant. If I was aborted, I simply wouldn't be here. There would be no me to complain.
 
Sigh, all these debates go in circles because they're fuled with emotion rather than pure facts on this site.

It doesn't matter if there is or isn't a god. It's a moral choice based on what you understand a fetus to be.

Might as well add to the party!

I am personally against abortion. BUT! Here's the amazing thing! I don't give a damn what other people do with their bodies if they're not in a relationship with me...so I am pro-choice. You know why? Because the most fantastic thing about having a choice is that you can choose not to have one if you're against it while those who are for it and want one can go get one! Mind blowing. I know.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
I honestly don't understand how people can make those statements about how they are 'pro-life', yet support mothers being able to abort babies from rape. Could one such person please answer this?
I will not abort my wife's unborn child, but if my sister or aunt, friends wants to get one, that is their choice and is not my concern. I will advise against it but I will support the choice they make for themselves.
 

TheWatersGreatGuardian

Legendary Trainer
I'm too lazy to read everyone's posts, so I'm just gonna throw my two cents in. This is a topic that really gets me thinking. Personally, I am a Christian. Not an overly religious person, but I do believe in God and it influences the way I live. Hence, I am pro-life. I understand many of the pro-choice arguments, and they are very good ones. Shouldn't a woman have the right to control what takes place in her body? Yes. But in most cases, sex is a choice and a risk, and everyone does know it can result in pregnancy. Now, this is where I hit a grey area. Rape obviously isn't a choice, and I am kinda in the middle on that one. I personally believe the fetus is alive at conception, but when it comes to law, I'm not really sure who's decision this is to make. This is one of those topics that I just can't come up with a clear cut answer for because you have to take so much into account. I am biased in that my Christian views do sway my opinion in how the government should handle it. But then again, separation of church and state kinda negates that. Overall, I am pro-life, but I can understand both sides of the argument.

Now when it comes to government health care paying for abortions, I am definitely in opposition of that. I'm opposed to almost all government health care/medicare/aid/welfare/social security etc. in general; but in the case of abortions I very much oppose hard earned taxpayer money being put toward something that so many people are very much against. Especially in the case of the poor. I'm not trying to pick on the poor or anything, but it's pretty simple--don't have sex, and you won't wind up with a baby (discounting rape). Many Americans like myself do not want their hard earned money going toward abortions for the impoverished.
Even with rape, you still shouldn't kill the baby. Instead, if you don't want the child, put it up for adoption for someone who does.
 

Diz~

Combat Specialist
You couldn't win an argument in General Pokémon Discussion, and you won't be winning here anytime soon.


I'm fine with abortion. I don't think it is a good thing nor do I think it is bad. I think if the woman doesn't want to be a mother, then she doesn't have to be.

I think you got some issue or something. Not only that, but you just basically agree with me. So I don't know what you talking about little buddy.
 

raticate7

Well-Known Member
Um, what? How do you know God doesn't want the abortion to happen? If the abortion happened.. couldn't you just say God wanted it to happen since the woman actually has the power to get it?


I don't see why this is relevant. If I was aborted, I simply wouldn't be here. There would be no me to complain.

God doesnt want an abortion to happen. If he doesnt want the pregnancy to hold he wont let it.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
And if he didn't want the child to be aborted, he wouldn't impregnate millions of women who do.

See what I did there?

God's will can be spun to anything.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
You stole my thunder Ghost :( I was going to say that! After all if god didn't want the abortion to happen, he'd find a way to stop it.
 

TrollsterInc

The Renegade
As far as I'm concerned, if both parents wish to get rid of the child before the appointed times, then that is their perogitive. If one parent wishes to have the child, however-and this is where the grey area comes in, especially if the mother wishes to keep it and the father does not- then it is much more difficult to decide, especially as society is-in my opinion- more likely to take the mothers side in these matters, for several reasons.

Its a very grey area, but in all honesty its for the mother and father to decide, and no-one else. My own opinions on it are a moot point, as I don't intend on having children and will probably get a vascetomy whenever I start getting consistently sexually active. Which I am not.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Remember it only takes once to make a baby, and condoms occasionally fail. So you may wanna reconsider when you get snipped Trollster.
 
This is going to be a looooooong debate if you seriously think this can't be used.
I think it is convenient how you ignored the reason for that rule, which was the continued existence of black market organ sales.

Personally, I don't care if you consider a zygote or a fetus to be "human." What I beg to question is whether the life of that fetus takes precedence over a woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body.
The violinist analogy contains at least one error that cripples its effectiveness. Someone has kidnapped the woman in this analogy. I'm glad you recognize that it is most similar to rape, but the analogy should only apply to rape, because the general case of being pregnant does not involve the woman being the victim of an illegal action.

I agree with this - finding an exact moment where "life begins" is just silly. That's why I like Thompson's argument so much - it can work on the grounds that "life begins at the moment of conception" (or hey, erection) if that's what you want, as ridiculous as it is to call a zygote or sperm a person. Her point is that whether it's a person or not, a woman should still get to decides what happens inside her body.
You seem to have ignored what I actually said in my OP. A fetus is both human and alive. Sperm are human reproductive cells, but they are not a human (they lack a full set of human genes).

Also, in many cases, she already gave up some control of what happens in her body.

And BigLutz...I really don't follow your argument. People can be forced to endure hard lives for all kinds of reasons. Just because you try to "eliminate" homosexual people (because that's always worked out so well), doesn't mean you won't still get transgender or cisgender people, for instance. But we're also becoming a society that's for more accepting of those differences.
Some people argue that abortion is about he woman's right to choose, yet many seem uncomfortable allowing them to have a bigoted reason for making the choice to abort. Indeed, you yourself appear to be uncomfortable with this. It cannot be the fundamental right of a woman to choose until she makes the choice for a bigoted reason.

Abortion of a fetus conceived from careless unprotected sex is dangerous, irresponsible, and ridiculous IMO, but it's still not anyone's choice to make aside from the mother (and for the father to maybe have input in, depending). People are allowed to have opinions and dislike what someone else does with their life, but I think the line should be drawn when they try to moderate what they do with their bodies -- and as long as the kid's still in there, it's still part of her body.
Just to let you know, the Supreme Court made it illegal to require a husband to be notified before an abortion. This means he doesn't have to have any say in he matter at all. The couple could agree to have a child, then the woman could decide later on that she just doesn't want it. The husband has no legal recourse. This is wrong.

I honestly don't understand how people can make those statements about how they are 'pro-life', yet support mothers being able to abort babies from rape. Could one such person please answer this?

If you consider the unborn to be alive, a person, all that, then why should you agree that women should be able to get away with what you would at any other time have called murder? Would you think it's right for a woman to kill her three year old just because his scumbag of a dad had been sick enough to rape his mother? The only difference there is the passage of time, provided you agreed with the first clause.

If one considers abortion to be murder, it just seems so strange to me that anyone agreeing with that statement would then say, "Except if the father was a rapist, anyway. Then it's fine."
I might not fall into the classification you mention, because I don't think abortion in the case or rape is really a good thing. I would answer that since the woman is a victim, it would be hard to argue that the government must criminalize abortion in that case. This is especially true since, as I recall, pre-Roe Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape. I'm not going to say that is definitely something that a mother should do. I'm not convinced that all abortion is murder, even though some of it clearly is unjustified, premeditated, intentional killing of a human. Basically, in cases of rape, it is hard to argue that abortion is definitely not justified.

If I found out that my child was going to be retarded, it's getting aborted.
You could easily replace this with, "If I found out that my child was going to be gay, it's getting aborted." Just like BigLutz's point.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
I think it is convenient how you ignored the reason for that rule, which was the continued existence of black market organ sales.

GhostAnime said:
I'll respond later
As it turns out, someone responded right before I could anyway.

I have a busy week this time around and can only make two or three good replies to key points.

Now that I'm here, I'll just go ahead and mention this: please do not start a debate the way you did with this topic and among other topics. It's incredibly hard to reply and digest tons and tons of information like that. It would be better to focus on key points and go from there instead of attempting to refute every single possible thing a pro-choice person would bring up. You only set yourself up for a debate filled with nothing but endless quotes and confusion.

The other issue is how you quote people; which normally wouldn't be an issue if they already posted it in another recent topic in the forum.. but it's all about context and I'm not the only person complaining about this anymore. Why would you quote old words from an old thread and post them in a new one to respond to an argument? Not only is there a large possibility that you leave out other important sentences that could easily change the context (i.e. quote mining), but it looks petty and feels more like you want to respond to a some old grudge argument last year or someone who doesn't even post in the forum (Mister Zero).

I understand that it's helpful to start a debate with as much information as possible. That's fine. Instead of immediately responding to those arguments and only putting up what you "feel" should be the flow of the debate (as said by Psychic), it would be much better to begin on a neutral post as opposed to a pro post.
 
Last edited:

Peter Quill

star-lord
I have to say that the OP kind of annoys me in that all it does is talk about whether or not something in the womb is human and if killing it is right. What it ignores entirely is does a woman have the right to dictate what happens to he body?

Thank you. This was my entire issue with the OP (As well constructed and informative as it was). Many people don't see it as a battle for the right of the child inside the body as much as they think it should be a right for women to be able to do what they want with their body. Another kudos to you because I wanted to bring up the violinist article, because I remember you posting it sometime and I thought it was a pretty interesting read.

In any case, I refuse to believe anybody who calls themselves a feminist but is adamant on being pro-life. The definition of feminism is about getting equal rights for both genders.

Even with rape, you still shouldn't kill the baby. Instead, if you don't want the child, put it up for adoption for someone who does.

What an incredibly disrespectful view towards women, and I don't think that you understand the effects of Post Traumatic Stess Disorder in Rape Victims. A pretty quick overview of it, but one of the more important ones there is reliving the experience. Sexual assault is an experience where the victim doesn't have any power over anything, not even their own body in some cases. (Probably most.) Nobody wants to relive in. Nobody should be forced to relive it. Carrying a child for 9 months based off a situation where you had absolutely no control in the matter should be seen as morally wrong.

Before you say it again, a victim of sexual assault is in no way responsible for their circumstances. One of the most obnoxious and annoying defenses for this is because of "provocative clothing". If I can go into a club wearing something similar to what a male escort would wear, I would still have less of a chance of being raped than a woman wearing normal clothing. It's a matter of that a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants without being judged or having the chance of being raped, which is unfortunately for this world an incredibly naive view. However it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't her fault. It's the same for sex-workers. They work for sexual encounters, not to be sexually assaulted. Is it more dangerous? Probably. Is it their fault? Absolutely not.
 

Tyrant Tar

Well-Known Member
A mother owns her home and has full rights to do what she sees fit with it, but has no right to kill her child living in it for any reason whatsoever.

A mother owns her body and has full rights to do what she sees fit with it, but does that mean she has every right to kill her soon-to-be-child living in it for any reason whatsoever?


Granted that's waaaaay over-simplifying it, but I do feel it's a better analogy than the violinists abducting the poor woman.
 

Malanu

Est sularus oth mith
Try this one for simple logic. a woman in Imagineville wants to have an abortion, how does it effect you or me over in Faraway?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top