Abortion is Wrong?

[Gauntleted Fist]

Abortion. Something every woman should have. That's obviously what I believe, since I'm a pro-choice baby-eater.

sarcasm, people, sarcasm

But eating children could help cure world hunger. Fatten them up for a year or so and roast them in a slow cooker with the spices of your choice and you've got a pretty good meal ready to eat. (Not to mention that the birthrate around the world would ensure that the population wouldn't decline all that much, especially if they repeal the One Child policy in China.)

Everyone knows that's why we liberals have so much premarital sex. It's to knock each other up so that we can feast on the aborted fetuses.

Which is just another reason to condemn liberals and go back to the good old days of burning people at the stake for disagreeing with the established rules of society.

Obviously. We've got to be stopped somehow.

We must maintain the status quo. Extreme measures that compromise our morals are perfectly okay because the ends justify the means. *nod*

[El-Yonder]

Quite honestly, do you REALLY have to bash the other opinions? This is a forum, and the topic, with so many different opinions, is open to debate. But you're not the only one out there who believes abortion isn't wrong.

Yes, I do need to "bash" people like you, because you claim to care about this topic and you claim to find women selfish and lazy for not wanting to carry pregnancies to term, but you can't be bothered to read a thread before you post repetitive, ignorant nonsense that has already been addressed and discarded.

Posters like you are like puppies peeing on the carpet of this forum. The way we paper-train you is by telling you NO, BAD DOG! and giving you a little thwack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Quite frankly, I'm not one of those people, but I know several others who are. And really, you're speaking from a woman's POV. I'm pretty sure what most guys would have to say about the topic, but, my not being one, can't say for certain.

And again, if you weren't being so lazy, arrogant, and sloppy you'd have read the many pro-choice guys who've already posted in this topic.

You have strong ideas, and are willing to back them up (props to you ), but you're taking it from a liberalism/relativism stand-point. I having a conservatism/moralist stand-point, view it differently, even if the case scenario were something like permanent infertility or rape.

Anywho, that's all I have to say.

Sorry, champ, but all opinions are not equal.

A lazy, arrogant, uninformed opinion posted by somebody who can't be bothered to even read the thread is worthless, through simple laws of supply and demand. The internet is not lacking in uneducated and self-important editorials, so your failure to do your homework on this topic doesn't make you a special and unique snowflake for us all to treasure. You're just another name to add to the list of people who would rather boss women around than learn the first thing about reality. Yawn.

You really think because I'm not a feminist of some sort I'd "rather boss women around than learn the first thing about reality"? Seriously, all you're doing is coughing up old muck that splatters on anyone who has a say-so about something that's different than yours.

Yes, I have read what other pro-choice men have had to say. I'm speaking of the people in the manner that I know them, what they'd say about the topic and why.

I don't claim to fins any women who doesn't carry out her terms as "selfish" or "lazy," simply bothered. It's a decision that they made, so I can't have any affect on them other than my opinion of the ACTION that they've taken, as opposed to the opinion of them being horrid awful people. I believe it just as bad to compare and contrast women to one another as I feel about the decisions one of them might make (both being negative things).

And in the end,
Learn to chew before you swallow.

[Darkarbia]

You really think because I'm not a feminist of some sort I'd "rather boss women around than learn the first thing about reality"?

The only thing you are is an ignorant retard. This has nothing to do with feminism, this is a debatte on basic HUMAN rights for living children, men and women.

Seriously, all you're doing is coughing up old muck that splatters on anyone who has a say-so about something that's different than yours.

If that were true, are you any different? Nope.

I don't claim to fins any women who doesn't carry out her terms as "selfish" or "lazy," simply bothered. It's a decision that they made, so I can't have any affect on them other than my opinion of the ACTION that they've taken, as opposed to the opinion of them being horrid awful people. I believe it just as bad to compare and contrast women to one another as I feel about the decisions one of them might make (both being negative things).

As I said many times already, I accept the opinion of others, everyoe has a right of free speech and freedom, but people like you try to take it away like they own it.

And in the end,
Learn to chew before you swallow.

That was totally unnecesarry. Also, be an example and do it first, or shut up about a topic you know nothing about.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's pretty depressing that 2/3rd of this forum has apparently no ethical qualms with abortion.

Consider that a similar or greater proportion of the general public also support a woman's right to choose (up to 75% of Americans, for instance), and brace yourself for a real downer.

It's one thing to acknowledge that abortions will always and to want them to happen safely, especially in cases where the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest, and another thing entirely to have no ethical qualms with abortion, flat out.

The question is a little too binary to deduce that from the responses, don't you think?

The choices are 'yes' or 'no' - which doesn't necessarily mean a 'yes' is 'no ethical qualms...flat out'.

Yeah, I don't know about anybody else, but I have "qualms" about a lot of things that I will eventually conclude are ethical. I've also never met a woman who DIDN'T have qualms about abortion on some level, including all the pro-choice women I know.

Right. If there were a similar question asking about, say, euthanasia, I'd tick the 'ethical' box, but with a huge list of reservations - and I don't find the abortion debate that much more straightforward (although at least you don't have to worry so much that an abortion is being performed so someone can collect on the will, or to free up a hospital bed).

I realise people often try to paint issues as black and white, but to pretend that there's no depth of concern on the one side of the debate... it's a little dishonest.

[El-Yonder]

You really think because I'm not a feminist of some sort I'd "rather boss women around than learn the first thing about reality"?

The only thing you are is an ignorant retard. This has nothing to do with feminism, this is a debatte on basic HUMAN rights for living children, men and women.

Seriously, all you're doing is coughing up old muck that splatters on anyone who has a say-so about something that's different than yours.

If that were true, are you any different? Nope.

I don't claim to find any women who doesn't carry out her terms as "selfish" or "lazy," simply bothered. It's a decision that they made, so I can't have any affect on them other than my opinion of the ACTION that they've taken, as opposed to the opinion of them being horrid awful people. I believe it just as bad to compare and contrast women to one another as I feel about the decisions one of them might make (both being negative things).

As I said many times already, I accept the opinion of others, everyoe has a right of free speech and freedom, but people like you try to take it away like they own it.

And in the end,
Learn to chew before you swallow.

That was totally unnecesarry. Also, be an example and do it first, or shut up about a topic you know nothing about.

To start off, I wasn't the one who started to whole "feminist" thing. It was my choice of wording that seemed to appear as the beginning.
And this is a debate about abortion rights, not rights for "men, women, and children."

Yes, it is different, because I'm not going to pop every person like a pimple who doesn't agree with me. You just so happened to get wrapped around this.

I don't attempt to take away any rights of free speech from anyone. I'm just using the right the way I see fit. I respect the opinions of others who say otherwise, but I don't necessarily accept them. Which, in fit case, is why I respond.

Yes, the closing statement was necessary, because you mean what you say, and say what you mean. I that's EXACTLY what I meant and said. And, your not being my character, have no clue what exactly I know about said topic.

So why don't you hold your own feet to the fire first?

[El-Yonder]

You really think because I'm not a feminist of some sort I'd "rather boss women around than learn the first thing about reality"?

The only thing you are is an ignorant retard. This has nothing to do with feminism, this is a debatte on basic HUMAN rights for living children, men and women.

Seriously, all you're doing is coughing up old muck that splatters on anyone who has a say-so about something that's different than yours.

If that were true, are you any different? Nope.

I don't claim to find any women who doesn't carry out her terms as "selfish" or "lazy," simply bothered. It's a decision that they made, so I can't have any affect on them other than my opinion of the ACTION that they've taken, as opposed to the opinion of them being horrid awful people. I believe it just as bad to compare and contrast women to one another as I feel about the decisions one of them might make (both being negative things).

As I said many times already, I accept the opinion of others, everyoe has a right of free speech and freedom, but people like you try to take it away like they own it.

And in the end,
Learn to chew before you swallow.

That was totally unnecesarry. Also, be an example and do it first, or shut up about a topic you know nothing about.

To start off, I wasn't the one who started to whole "feminist" thing. It was my choice of wording that seemed to appear as the beginning.
And this is a debate about abortion rights, not rights for "men, women, and children."

Yes, it is different, because I'm not going to pop every person like a pimple who doesn't agree with me. You just so happened to get wrapped around this.

I don't attempt to take away any rights of free speech from anyone. I'm just using the right the way I see fit. I respect the opinions of others who say otherwise, but I don't necessarily accept them. Which, in fit case, is why I respond.

Yes, the closing statement was necessary, because you mean what you say, and say what you mean. I that's EXACTLY what I meant and said. And, your not being my character, have no clue what exactly I know about said topic.

So why don't you hold your own feet to the fire first?

[Lelouche]

ALL those who support abortion were not aborted themselves

Yes, and some of us wish we had been. Your point being?

People who wish they had been aborted, sadden me to no end

such an irrelevant argument anyways.

[Callisdrun]

ALL those who support abortion were not aborted themselves

So? People abort unwanted pregnancies. I was a planned one.

[Dempublicents1]

To start off, I wasn't the one who started to whole "feminist" thing. It was my choice of wording that seemed to appear as the beginning.
And this is a debate about abortion rights, not rights for "men, women, and children."

Discussion of abortion doesn't exist in a vacuum. When we talk about basic human rights, we're really discussing everyone. The fact that only women need access to this specific procedure doesn't change that fact.

[Bottle]

The only thing you are is an ignorant retard.

Please don't get yourself warned or banned over somebody like him. His condescending and ignorant posts are helpful to promote pro-choice values, and his knee-jerk anti-feminism helps expose his true motives. If anything, we should be thanking him for losing his temper the way he is doing.

[Kryozerkia]

You really think because I'm not a feminist of some sort I'd "rather boss women around than learn the first thing about reality"?

The only thing you are is an ignorant retard. This has nothing to do with feminism, this is a debatte on basic HUMAN rights for living children, men and women.

Seriously, all you're doing is coughing up old muck that splatters on anyone who has a say-so about something that's different than yours.

If that were true, are you any different? Nope.

I don't claim to fins any women who doesn't carry out her terms as "selfish" or "lazy," simply bothered. It's a decision that they made, so I can't have any affect on them other than my opinion of the ACTION that they've taken, as opposed to the opinion of them being horrid awful people. I believe it just as bad to compare and contrast women to one another as I feel about the decisions one of them might make (both being negative things).

As I said many times already, I accept the opinion of others, everyoe has a right of free speech and freedom, but people like you try to take it away like they own it.

And in the end,
Learn to chew before you swallow.

That was totally unnecesarry. Also, be an example and do it first, or shut up about a topic you know nothing about.

No, what is totally unnecessary is your blatant attack on the poster. *** Warned for flaming. ***

[Nobel Hobos]

You really think because I'm not a feminist of some sort I'd "rather boss women around than learn the first thing about reality"?

The only thing you are is an ignorant retard. This has nothing to do with feminism, this is a debatte on basic HUMAN rights for living children, men and women.

Seriously, all you're doing is coughing up old muck that splatters on anyone who has a say-so about something that's different than yours.

If that were true, are you any different? Nope.

I don't claim to fins any women who doesn't carry out her terms as "selfish" or "lazy," simply bothered. It's a decision that they made, so I can't have any affect on them other than my opinion of the ACTION that they've taken, as opposed to the opinion of them being horrid awful people. I believe it just as bad to compare and contrast women to one another as I feel about the decisions one of them might make (both being negative things).

As I said many times already, I accept the opinion of others, everyoe has a right of free speech and freedom, but people like you try to take it away like they own it.

And in the end,
Learn to chew before you swallow.

That was totally unnecesarry. Also, be an example and do it first, or shut up about a topic you know nothing about.

No, what is totally unnecessary is your blatant attack on the poster. Warned for flaming.

I saw it, but I thought 'well, Darkabia edited that post twice already, so I'll just wait a while and see if it occurs to them to reconcile the first line (the flame) with the wounded tone of the last line. Goodness, "Learn to chew before you swallow" them's fighting words.

I was going to report it, honestly. I just got distracted by these swarming tabs. Tabs, tabs, tabs, too many to fight. Like piranhas!

---

And in the end,
Learn to chew before you swallow.

You aren't making much sense. Perhaps you should swallow before you speak.

[Bottle]

And in the end,
Learn to chew before you swallow.

You aren't making much sense. Perhaps you should swallow before you speak.

I honestly don't even know what that last bit is supposed to mean. This is the first time I've had a guy encourage me to chew before swallowing in the context of anything remotely sexually-related.

[Xsyne]

You have to be a pretty messed up person to want to kill your un-born child, and where is the to be fathers stance on this choice argument, or in the warped pro-choice mind doesn't recognize the to be fathers choice.

When he can be pregnant, he can choose.
Until that time, he cannot force a woman to bear his kid.

Well to continue your and muravyets's lawsuits arguments then he should sue the woman for opportunity costs as she refuses to bear his kids
and of course find a saner one.

Only he has no grounds to sue her for anything because he does not own either her body or the embryo inside her. He has no right of claim over what she does with her body. You fail again.

do you understand what opportunity costs mean? and yes it is bullshit , but no less than the lawsuit you proposed

An opportunity cost is the cost of the next best alternative to the one that was chosen. It has no legal status and even disregarding that your use of the phrase is nonsensical, so I'm going to have to ask you if you understand what opportunity costs are.

Because I don't think you do.

[Nullarni]

If you can be charge someone with a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, then yes abortion is wrong and should be legally considered murder.

[Dempublicents1]

If you can be charge someone with a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, then yes abortion is wrong and should be legally considered murder.

Should we charge someone with homicide if they refuse to donate tissue or organs to another?

[The Alma Mater]

If you can be charge someone with a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, then yes abortion is wrong and should be legally considered murder.

So when is God due in court ? How many pregnancies end in a natural abortion ? 50% ? 60% ? By His design ?

[Nullarni]

Both of you missed my point. If you can charge someone with murder for unintentionally killing a fetus you have to charge some with murder for intentionally doing it. I'm sorry if you don't agree but do you not see the logic?

[Kori to Mizu to Joki]

If you can be charge someone with a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, then yes abortion is wrong and should be legally considered murder.

So when is God due in court ? How many pregnancies end in a natural abortion ? 50% ? 60% ? By His design ?

That only works if the courts recognise God as person.

[The Alma Mater]

Both of you missed my point. If you can charge someone with murder for unintentionally killing a fetus you have to charge some with murder for intentionally doing it. I'm sorry if you don't agree but do you not see the logic?

Nope. I follow the Biblical logic that tells me that if daddy dislikes his fetus being killed, he can demand punishment - but if he has no problems with it, neither do the courts. Praise Him

Or alternatively I consider the logic that the desire of the mother to actually let the fetus reach baby status adds enough potential to its status of potential human to actually coniser it human not entirely nonsensical.

However in all honesty it would be best to not treat it as double homicide.

[The Alma Mater]

If you can be charge someone with a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, then yes abortion is wrong and should be legally considered murder.

So when is God due in court ? How many pregnancies end in a natural abortion ? 50% ? 60% ? By His design ?

That only works if the courts recognise God as person.

The majority of people in places where the most vocal anti-choice groups are active probably have no objection.

[Xsyne]

Both of you missed my point. If you can charge someone with murder for unintentionally killing a fetus you have to charge some with murder for intentionally doing it. I'm sorry if you don't agree but do you not see the logic?

Those laws were explicitly made so that people could use that argument. In other words, the conclusion is the same as the premise. There is no actual logic to see.

[Dempublicents1]

Both of you missed my point. If you can charge someone with murder for unintentionally killing a fetus you have to charge some with murder for intentionally doing it. I'm sorry if you don't agree but do you not see the logic?

I see how you're arriving at that conclusion, but it ignores several pertinent facts. For one, such policies are really only invoked in the later stages of pregnancy, when a woman generally can't get an elective abortion anyway. So even if abortion was only about killing a fetus, there would be no discrepancy. It is also important to note that, at such late stages of pregnancy, the idea that someone who kills the woman is unintentionally killing the fetus is pretty ridiculous.

Of course, the most important fact you're missing is that the woman's body is her own, and she therefore gets to decide how it gets used. Even if the embryo/fetus is considered a human person, she can still decide that she doesn't want to nurture it with her body. That choice wouldn' t be murder any more than anyone else deciding not to use their body to help another survive/develop.

[Central Slavia]

One more problem with this.
You see, if the woman according to your plans, decides to abort, the man can do nothing.

If she decides to keep the kid, he can do nothing again and has to pay alimony for 20 years or move to cayman isles.

Unfair or what?

[Nobel Hobos]

If you can be charge someone with a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, then yes abortion is wrong and should be legally considered murder.

"If" is the key word. That law is wrong, and it doesn't apply everywhere.

It should be considered one murder, and one forced abortion (which is in no way comparable to an abortion with the woman's consent).

Forcing an abortion on a woman, and murdering a person are not the same thing. The closest the "double homicide" charge comes to making any sense is in the presumption (when she isn't there any more to say so) that the woman valued the foetus very much. And perhaps someone else, a man or a woman or a grandparent, also valued that foetus very much.

The very last thing I would do is to say the foetus does not matter, if it matters to the woman it's in. If she's dead, though ... it is tricky.