Abortion is Wrong

[perfectionist]

Just in case you missed it



Emphasis mine

 

[Me_mE]

Whether religious or not, I would still have the same opinion on the subject. I have stated several times about my position when it comes to choices that both a man and woman have to take precautions for a woman to not get pregnant, perhaps you missed that and just couldn't wait to bring your pompous comments into the discussion and then drop my religion into it when I have said before that I do not wish to discuss religion. Whether it is a basis for MY life or not matters not. I've never been any part of an abortion, so what makes me a hypocrite?

Ultimately it comes down to I don't care what you think on the issue, nor do you care what I think. This is why a debate really does nothing. If it did then everyone on this planet would eventually have the same view on everything wouldn't they?

It's wrong, and i've stated why I feel so. If my explanation isn't good enough for you, then I guess you will have to just deal with it.

 

[Duhhht]]

I'm pro-choice but I am also pro-responsibility. I would hope that you choose your sexual encounters knowing that pregnancy is a real possibility even when contraception is used properly.

I'm not going to stop you having an abortion, but I'm not going to have any sympathy for you having the procedure either and I would expect you to pick up all the expense for it as well.

 

[mooningbetta]

well considering Im almost 35 and I've only had 3 sexual partners - 2 men and my hand, I'd say I'm pretty responsible. Wouldnt you?

 

[handsomeguyLAlCA]

The number of sexual partners someone has had is far from an indicator of ones level of responsibility.

 

[VeryChucky]

well yeah. Thats a reason I dont shame people who had many sex partners. It doesnt necessarily make one irresponsible. and it isnt right to shame a girl for having many while a boy is ok for having many. That aint cool either.

But I was. Even when my ex wanted to "oops" me (wait til we came back from a night at the bar and hope I'd forget the condom because I was drunk), I didnt let it happen. I also used a form of NFP, because i was frightened of him, when he got so angry that I wouldnt do t unless he had his rubber on. He pressured me to do it unprotected so I picked a tim I waas pretty sure I hadnt ovulated. It worked for the few months until I could dump him.

 

[jonnyeb112233]

Blade...talking to you about kids and pregnancy is like talking about what constitutes a healthy diet with an anorexic.
Your position is so niche and extreme it doesn't really form part of the mainstream discussion.
I find it more extreme than someone that thinks a potential life is worth considering from the moment of fertlization.
I've got more in common with that sort of pro-lifer than I have with the extreme "babies are parasites" pro-choicers even though I'm pro-choice myself.

 

[ILuvMarkWahlberg]

That guy sounds like a real loser. Idiots like this end up knocking up someone and then we all have to pay for it.

I may be a little paranoid but I always wrap it up with a condom that I bought myself. There are just to many crazy people out there that can make your life a nightmare.

This thread has been very educating. I've been able to look at the different arguments and reached some new conclusions. One being that I should have eaten my lunch before reading this thread.

 

[NekoJoaaa]

I'm not emotional about it. I'm completely calm.

To completely shift the conversation to a new direction - would your commitment to protecting life extend to human clones? Or to humans whose dna was designed in a lab?

 

[Peacetoyou]

That's lovely, how nice of you not to stop her.

Do you feel the same way about overweight people who get bowel cancer? What about military personnel who lose limbs in war? I mean, they knew it was a real risk in advance, right? So they deserve no sympathy and they should pay for all their own medical procedures, correct?

 

[orlyyearly]

@saved_in_blood:

I hope you can realise that your religious beliefs are fundamental to this debate, as much as you don't want them included.

If a person believes that every human has an immortal soul that must be saved and accept Jesus as their saviour, and that human life begins essentially at the stage of male ejaculation, it is going to fundamentally (no pun intended) colour your views.

Please don't take this as an attack, it's not. Personally, I feel this debate is more interesting with you in it.

 

[Chey]

I want to quickly say thanks for the laugh I got out of that post. Was a nice tension breaker after reading the last couple pages


I've never thought about the soldier one before. Interesting point. Just to play devil's advocate, I think the difference there is a soldier acts on behalf of the state. Yes they know there are risks when you sign up, but since you offer yourself as a tool for the government and the country (not down talking military here, I want to do it myself, but that is essentially what the military is for) then expecting the state to pick up the bill for you in return is reasonable. Its different to a purely personal action. Unless you slept with people as a spy to steal secrets or something I suppose.

I think the overweight people one is a fair shout, but I don't think you can use service personnel in a like for like comparison for that reason.

 

[Bjacksss]

I accept your point about paying for it, but what about the sympathy point? If a woman who aborts her foetus doesn't deserve sympathy because "she knew the risks", then by that reasoning injured vets don't deserve any sympathy either.

 

[meg6070]

I think generally she is so overcome with emotion and passion that any chance of rational thought has long since gone. Her one remaining drive is so overpowering that any chance of sensible decision is way gone.
That's just my experience though?
(....and yes I have children. They're all wonderful x)

 

[kRaCKbaByHeHetP]

I would argue that the sympathy is irrelevant

The abortion debate is such a personal one and its based on such deep seated morals and beliefs that I don't think either side will have much success convincing the other on the emotional aspects. For me the only important part is debating it from the legallity perspective in which case whether someone has sympathy, pity or anger towards the lady doesn't matter, so long as they can have one. Granted I'm only one dude though and I appreciate my view is far from the only one, but that's my personal response.

But I think the same argument applies to sympathy. If you hear a woman ended up pregnant and she didn't want it you just think that she had sex with some dude and that's what happened. Or if you're a douche you assume she's a bike but whatever. Soldiers are a really emotive thing though. Especially in the US there's such a hero culture around them that smypathy is nearly inevitable and then it presumably comes from this idea that they got wounded, but they did it doing a really tough job for the sake of freedom and protecting you and all that jazz.

You're far more appreciative of soldiers and there's a general feeling that what they do is quite selfless. They sacrifrice themselves and put themselves in harms way so we might live how we do, or they do it to look after their friends. That's a very different way to end up with an ailment (I couldn't think of a word for both pregnancy and a wound, sorry) than the very self centered act of just having sex.

Plus there's a feeling that with all the birth control and stuff available thee days that its actually very hard to fall pregnant and can only happen through incompetence in some way. Comparitively a soldier is a much larger victim of chance, especially when you're looking at things like Afghanistan where a lot of the injuries come from IED's or mines. In which case if there's any blame apportioned its normally at the government or the army, not the individual.

I have no idea if I'm actually answering your point or not. I'm completely shattered so sorry if I'm not.

 

[msam092]

No. There is no way to confirm that the bowel cancer is the definitive result of lifestyle choices and would not have occurred if the people in question were in a more healthy weight range.



No. The risks of service as well as agreements regarding who would be financially responsible for injuries were sorted out before the service started.

Also, presuming they are injured in combat any injury is ultimately the result of someone else's actions, and not their own. You cannot control or predict the actions of others. Combat is highly unpredictable.

Military personnel are also doing their job on behalf of the state. So they are doing a job for the benefit of others as well as their own.

Sexual intercourse with the aim of avoiding babies is done for the sole pleasure and benefit of the pair (or larger group, hey let's not be exclusive) and them alone. It's isolated and cause and effect is much easier to predict and identify.

 

[TheGirlYouWishYouKnew]

I only mentioned sympathy in retort to righty's post.

Sympathy is relevant to legislation though - look at how differently Enron convicts were treated compared to uncharged Guantanamo inmates. At the end of the day, laws are written by humans who are just as emotional and tribal as the rest of us.

 

[Reneett]

Ok then, what about people who drive cars? If they're too lazy to add an hour or two to their working day to catch a bus (which is statistically dramatically safer), then if they're in a car accident they deserve no sympathy or financial aid.

A side note on the financial element: it makes far better economic sense to subsidize abortions than to subsidize children.

 

[tazz]

I don't think you mean you were born with this opinion so I must differ with this.

Your opinions are based on the sum of experiences throughout your life. If you were not exposed to religion at all and grown up in a place where there was no abortion debate because it had been legal and normal for a long time then I am willing to bet that your opinion on abortion would be rather different than it is now.

 

[kimberlyk]

Again driving is far less of a simple cause and effect. Yes there is an increased risk when driving, however motoring incidents are the result of people breaking the road rules and/or driving irresponsibly and not to conditions. In other words, they are the result of someone doing something wrong as is written down in law. Yes there are some grey areas regarding some 'accidents' but so are there in abortions - and I am not talking about these.

So regarding the sympathy vote when driving...
-Someone is drunk and speeding and subsequently crashes their car into a tree in a single vehicle accident. They are the only occupant in the car and only person hurt/killed. No sympathy for them directly - but perhaps some for their family.

-Someone's family is driving home from the school pickup and driving responsibly are hit by someone who was texting on the mobile phone and had their eyes off the road. Sympathy for the family. No sympathy for the phone user.

You could keep coming up with general situations that result in a general increase in risk. You could very well say you should never leave your home due to increase in risk. I am talking about judging each individual incident separately.

About the financial comment. Presuming the child grows up to be a valuable member of society (get's a job) the value they ad to the economy is generally deemed worth the investment.