Abortion

[Rick Rollin]

Not entirely, as abortion would still make sense in the case of severe likelihood of major genetic defects.
Alternatively, invent an artificial womb.

How about we graft female reproductive systems onto everyone who wants to outlaw abortion? From there, we still wouldn't be right to ban it, or to chop a woman open to take out a blastocyst, but it'd be a start.

Dude, there are women who do not approve of abortion. Whether they've actually experience a situation in which an abortion would be considered a serious option is another matter.

[IshCong]

She did not know she was pregnant. Thus she was ignorant, as she did not know something.
The fact that she did not know is not her fault, however, as it was merely a case of mistaken information.
It is not a negative implication, in that sense of the word.

The implication of ignorance, in the way the poster implied, had negative connotations. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm just saying that there are non-negative uses of ignorant as well, and I just used one. Teehee.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The implication of ignorance, in the way the poster implied, had negative connotations. It's as simple as that.

I'm not saying otherwise. I'm just saying that there are non-negative uses of ignorant as well, and I just used one. Teehee.

Don't worry, I knew what you meant. All I was saying is that, in this case and in the context it was used by the poster I quoted, it was negative.

[Desperate Measures]

*sigh*
If there is any show of ignorance here, it isn't the women you're referring to.

But nice flame there.

In any case, let me spell this better, because you are obviously not following.

If a woman has irregular menses, menses that do not come for months (which happens), and she is NOT exhibiting any symptoms of pregnancy (which happens too), WHY should she think she's pregnant? It is normal for her to miss periods. Conditions like having cervical cancer before ever becoming pregnant can cause this, for several years even.

Get it, or must I rephrase it again?

She did not know she was pregnant. Thus she was ignorant, as she did not know something.
The fact that she did not know is not her fault, however, as it was merely a case of mistaken information.
It is not a negative implication, in that sense of the word.

Saying that and saying this:

Citation needed. Also, if a woman doesn't notice that she has missed 3 periods she is an idiot.

Are two very different things.

[David Williams]

I know this topic has probably been done thousands of times, but I will make one anyway. So the question is, are you pro-life, pro-choice, or undecided?

Here's how I look at it. The fetus's rights are going to be violated, or the mother's rights are going to be violated. I personally want to protect the rights of the grown human being, not a fetus that hasn't been born yet. If you are going to say that fetuses are human because they are multi-cellular organisms, I would ask why you probably don't think that plants are human, because plants are also multi-cellular organisms. Therefore, I am pro-choice.

EDIT: This is your personal opinion, not the opinion of your nation. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Wahahaaaa Wtf?
the "Foetuses rights" or "Mothers rights"?
1. If the mother gets forced against her "rights" to go on with the pregnancy, she'll have those hormonal unbalance things for 9 months, and a load of pain at the end.
2. if the "foetus" gets aborted against his rights, He dies.
Which would you rather have, number 1 or number 2.
i would go number 1, because in those sort of situations i chose to be pregnant, and theres not reqally any threat to my life. my fault for unsafe sex. i wouldnt choose number 2 because im against suicide, homocide, genocide, whatevercide. youve just weighed things up completely wrong.

[qu[region]ote="Salvarity";p="8758540"]Pro-life unless it is a case of rape or mothers life is in danger.

So you support abortion in all cases, then, since pregnancy inherently puts a woman at more risk than not having a pregnancy does?[/quote]
[/region]
Exactly, you need to think about what you say before you say it. maybe it should be reworded as "If beyond a reasonable doubt the mother is going to die carrying on with the pregnancy then abortion should be legal. you also have to put caesarians into the factor.

Anyway, back to the original question

are you pro-life, pro-choice or undecided?

I am against abortion, and believe that it should only be allowed when beyond reasonable doubt (99.99 percent chance) the mother will die going through with the pregnancy, unless a caesarian is possible. as for cases of rape, It's the woman's choice, but if she aborts then she doesn't get compensation from the rapist for serious assault (As giving birth is said to be more painful than having a melon up your ass) on top of the rape compensation money. The woman should be paid 100 dolllars a week in child support, instead of the usual rate. as for women who rape men, there is no way in hell i would let her be paid child support. infact i wouldnt trust a rapist with a child so id give it to the victim.

[IshCong]

She did not know she was pregnant. Thus she was ignorant, as she did not know something.
The fact that she did not know is not her fault, however, as it was merely a case of mistaken information.
It is not a negative implication, in that sense of the word.

Saying that and saying this:

Citation needed. Also, if a woman doesn't notice that she has missed 3 periods she is an idiot.

Are two very different things.

Oh, so very different. Agreed.

[Idealismania]

Yeah, this topic's been done a thousand times. Usually I like to give all the pro-life arguments since this is the topic I am most passionate about, but I've got other things to do tonight than camp out on NS for 2 hours and get all upset

I did find a quote one time I like a lot and I think it applies here well. The quote was "don't piss in my face then try to tell me it's raining." This is the first thing that pops into my head when someone tries to tell me a fetus isn't an unborn person.

[New England and The Maritimes]

How about we graft female reproductive systems onto everyone who wants to outlaw abortion? From there, we still wouldn't be right to ban it, or to chop a woman open to take out a blastocyst, but it'd be a start.

Dude, there are women who do not approve of abortion. Whether they've actually experience a situation in which an abortion would be considered a serious option is another matter.

Black people supported the confederacy. Was it no longer racist? Was slavery no longer bad? You're proposing the enslavement of women and your justifications is "well I have women friends so I'm not sexist"? Seriously? Don't think this fallacy will work on anyone with a brain.

[Saint Jade IV]

Who are you to determine what risks someone may or may not take with their medical treatment? Its very easy for someone who will never be at risk of death from complications arising from pregnancy to trivialise the risk.

12.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, according to this PDF file I've got out in front of me.
Wouldn't call it 'trivial', but wouldn't call the risk 'severe' either. Then again, 'severity' is subjective.

It's especially so if it's not you that will ever have to undertake the risk.

[IshCong]

12.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, according to this PDF file I've got out in front of me.
Wouldn't call it 'trivial', but wouldn't call the risk 'severe' either. Then again, 'severity' is subjective.

It's especially so if it's not you that will ever have to undertake the risk.

"Then again, severity is subjective."

[Thatchland]

I am against abortion, and believe that it should only be allowed when beyond reasonable doubt (99.99 percent chance) the mother will die going through with the pregnancy, unless a caesarian is possible.

I just want to be sure .... if it's 75% chance the pregnant woman will die due to continuing the pregnancy, your opinion is to not allow the abortion. If it's 50%? 25% chance? 10% chance? 1% chance? At any of those points, you are removing a woman the right to save her life. Her Right, Her Life.

How about a non-pregnant woman? At what point should she be allowed to have the choice to have a slightly invasive procedure done in order to save her life? Should she be allowed at 5% chance of death without the procedure? 25%? 50%? 75%? 99.99%? Or should she not be allowed the procedure, whatsoever?

The reason why I am asking is - we have a woman, living and breathing ... alive - in both cases. In both cases we have a chance to save her from dying by a single slightly invasive procedure. One also involves a potential life, while the other does not.

Is your opinion then, to gamble on the one known life (as well as the potential life - because normally when the one known life dies, the potential one does as well) because of your moral beliefs?

[Saint Jade IV]

It's especially so if it's not you that will ever have to undertake the risk.

"Then again, severity is subjective."

That's what I meant by It's especially so...

that it's easy to say something's not severe when you're not undertaking the risk. Similarly, it's easy to say it is when one is undertaking a risk I suppose.

[Norstal]

Yeah, this topic's been done a thousand times. Usually I like to give all the pro-life arguments since this is the topic I am most passionate about, but I've got other things to do tonight than camp out on NS for 2 hours and get all upset

I did find a quote one time I like a lot and I think it applies here well. The quote was "don't piss in my face then try to tell me it's raining." This is the first thing that pops into my head when someone tries to tell me a fetus isn't an unborn person.

If I was a girl, I'd say fuck off my body. Then again, it wouldn't really matter if I was a guy or girl, so:

Fuck off my body.

Enough said.

[Wiztopia]

Yeah, this topic's been done a thousand times. Usually I like to give all the pro-life arguments since this is the topic I am most passionate about, but I've got other things to do tonight than camp out on NS for 2 hours and get all upset

I did find a quote one time I like a lot and I think it applies here well. The quote was "don't piss in my face then try to tell me it's raining." This is the first thing that pops into my head when someone tries to tell me a fetus isn't an unborn person.

1) It isn't a person.

2) Reverse it and you have a person such as yourself trying to tell women what to do with their own bodies.

[IshCong]

"Then again, severity is subjective."

That's what I meant by It's especially so...

that it's easy to say something's not severe when you're not undertaking the risk. Similarly, it's easy to say it is when one is undertaking a risk I suppose.

Oh, right, agreeing. Sorry, I'm not used to such things happening on NSG.

[Condunum]

No it isn't, because that's removing a person from the world, instead of just a fetus.
They have rights. What they don't have is the right to stay attached to a woman who does not want them. Given that they are not a person until birth according to the SCOTUS, abortion is justifiable, because the woman has a right to protect her body.

A fetus is a person.

Not according the the SCOTUS. Supreme Court of the United States.

[Rick Rollin]

Dude, there are women who do not approve of abortion. Whether they've actually experience a situation in which an abortion would be considered a serious option is another matter.

Black people supported the confederacy. Was it no longer racist? Was slavery no longer bad? You're proposing the enslavement of women and your justifications is "well I have women friends so I'm not sexist"? Seriously? Don't think this fallacy will work on anyone with a brain.

Dude, I was only responding to the ridiculous "proposal" to give pro-lifers sex changes.
Also, HOW DARE YOU ASSUME WHAT I BELIEVE! YOU THINK THAT YOU CAN READ MY MIND!?!

[Saint Jade IV]

I know this topic has probably been done thousands of times, but I will make one anyway. So the question is, are you pro-life, pro-choice, or undecided?

Here's how I look at it. The fetus's rights are going to be violated, or the mother's rights are going to be violated. I personally want to protect the rights of the grown human being, not a fetus that hasn't been born yet. If you are going to say that fetuses are human because they are multi-cellular organisms, I would ask why you probably don't think that plants are human, because plants are also multi-cellular organisms. Therefore, I am pro-choice.

EDIT: This is your personal opinion, not the opinion of your nation. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Wahahaaaa Wtf?
the "Foetuses rights" or "Mothers rights"?
1. If the mother gets forced against her "rights" to go on with the pregnancy, she'll have those hormonal unbalance things for 9 months, and a load of pain at the end.
2. if the "foetus" gets aborted against his rights, He dies.
Which would you rather have, number 1 or number 2.
i would go number 1, because in those sort of situations i chose to be pregnant, and theres not reqally any threat to my life. my fault for unsafe sex. i wouldnt choose number 2 because im against suicide, homocide, genocide, whatevercide. youve just weighed things up completely wrong.

Oh dear. I strongly suggest you go find out about the side effects of pregnancy. It's a lot more than mild hormonal imbalance. Furthermore, every single pregnancy threatens a woman's life. Some women decide that the benefit of potentially becoming a mother outweigh the risk of death. Some do not. Until you are pregnant, you don't have a right to force anyone to put their life at risk for another's convenience.

Furthermore, many, many women who seek abortion have safe sex. Consent to having sex is not consent to becoming pregnant.

Anyway, back to the original question

are you pro-life, pro-choice or undecided?

I am against abortion, and believe that it should only be allowed when beyond reasonable doubt (99.99 percent chance) the mother will die going through with the pregnancy, unless a caesarian is possible. as for cases of rape, It's the woman's choice, but if she aborts then she doesn't get compensation from the rapist for serious assault (As giving birth is said to be more painful than having a melon up your ass) on top of the rape compensation money. The woman should be paid 100 dolllars a week in child support, instead of the usual rate. as for women who rape men, there is no way in hell i would let her be paid child support. infact i wouldnt trust a rapist with a child so id give it to the victim.

So a baby deserves to die for the sins of its father, but not the health of it's mother?

[Thatchland]

Wahahaaaa Wtf?
the "Foetuses rights" or "Mothers rights"?
1. If the mother gets forced against her "rights" to go on with the pregnancy, she'll have those hormonal unbalance things for 9 months, and a load of pain at the end.
2. if the "foetus" gets aborted against his rights, He dies.
Which would you rather have, number 1 or number 2.
i would go number 1, because in those sort of situations i chose to be pregnant, and theres not reqally any threat to my life. my fault for unsafe sex. i wouldnt choose number 2 because im against suicide, homocide, genocide, whatevercide. youve just weighed things up completely wrong.

Oh dear. I strongly suggest you go find out about the side effects of pregnancy. It's a lot more than mild hormonal imbalance. Furthermore, every single pregnancy threatens a woman's life. Some women decide that the benefit of potentially becoming a mother outweigh the risk of death. Some do not. Until you are pregnant, you don't have a right to force anyone to put their life at risk for another's convenience.

Furthermore, many, many women who seek abortion have safe sex. Consent to having sex is not consent to becoming pregnant.

Anyway, back to the original question

I am against abortion, and believe that it should only be allowed when beyond reasonable doubt (99.99 percent chance) the mother will die going through with the pregnancy, unless a caesarian is possible. as for cases of rape, It's the woman's choice, but if she aborts then she doesn't get compensation from the rapist for serious assault (As giving birth is said to be more painful than having a melon up your ass) on top of the rape compensation money. The woman should be paid 100 dolllars a week in child support, instead of the usual rate. as for women who rape men, there is no way in hell i would let her be paid child support. infact i wouldnt trust a rapist with a child so id give it to the victim.

So a baby deserves to die for the sins of its father, but not the health of it's mother?

^^^^ This

[VonHyden]

I say Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights, but I guess we would need to define what life is

[Zephie]

Pro life. If you don't want to kill babies, don't have them. Simple.

(BUT WHAT IF THE FEMALE IS RAPED!?!?!)

Hm, still not sure. But I wouldn't say the child deserves to die because he's unwanted.

If you don't like abortion, then invent the technology that would allow the safe transfer of a fetus from a woman unwilling to carry it to term to a willing one. No one, born or unborn, has the right to use the body and organs of a person without their consent, and until that technology comes around, abortion is the only method of getting rid of an unwanted fetus.

If a woman doesn't want a baby, then she shouldn't be having unprotected sex. The child shouldn't be punished because its parents weren't responsible enough. Who wouldn't want the power to kill an unwanted person? It's more convenient to just kill the kid than have it, or even worse, take care of it.

Intercourse has a purpose, procreation. We don't have genitals for the lulz.

[Saint Jade IV]

If you don't like abortion, then invent the technology that would allow the safe transfer of a fetus from a woman unwilling to carry it to term to a willing one. No one, born or unborn, has the right to use the body and organs of a person without their consent, and until that technology comes around, abortion is the only method of getting rid of an unwanted fetus.

If a woman doesn't want a baby, then she shouldn't be having unprotected sex. The child shouldn't be punished because its parents weren't responsible enough. Who wouldn't want the power to kill an unwanted person? It's more convenient to just kill the kid than have it, or even worse, take care of it.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Furthermore, no child is being punished. A woman is refusing to allow a human being to use her organs without her consent.

Do you think that an 8 year old has a right to legally obtain bone marrow or blood transfusions from their unwilling mother, if not receiving said tissue means death for that child?

[Saint Jade IV]

Intercourse has a purpose, procreation. We don't have genitals for the lulz.

So I'm assuming that the ONLY time you have sex is with an ovulating woman? Who you have verbal and written confirmation intends to take the pregnancy to term, no matter what the risks?

[Zephie]

Intercourse has a purpose, procreation. We don't have genitals for the lulz.

So I'm assuming that the ONLY time you have sex is with an ovulating woman? Who you have verbal and written confirmation intends to take the pregnancy to term, no matter what the risks?

I don't create life to kill it.

Also, if you're having sex with someone you don't want kids with, you're probably doing it wrong.

[Forsher]

Why should there be pro-life and pro-choice only? It makes much more sense to have both, that is to say time limits on abortion. This is not reflected in the poll at all.

Women should be able to choose whether or not they have an abortion but once you get to the point that the foetus could survive, when born, quite easily things are different. I say 24 weeks, this is over half-way and is more than enough time to make a choice.