Since neither of those solve the issue of an unwanted pregnancy they are not options.
Advertisement
by Neutraligon » Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:23 am
by Greater vakolicci haven » Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:43 am
by Bezkoshtovnya » Wed Apr 10, 2019 11:52 am
Vassenor wrote:Christian Confederation wrote:Yes there are two options for a unwanted pregnancy, peranting or adoption. Only if rape, incest, or certain death is involved Abortion can happen.
Or we can stop treating women as baby factories and accept they have the unassailable right to control their own body.
Dante Alighieri wrote:There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.
by SD_Film Artists » Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:23 pm
by Evil Dictators Happyland » Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:27 pm
by Bezkoshtovnya » Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:33 pm
Dante Alighieri wrote:There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.
by Katganistan » Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:44 pm
Griemvarant wrote:I've leaned pro-choice for a long time, but BS like women openly sobbing when it's ruled that their child having a heartbeat means they can't kill it? That pushes me in the other direction. Plus, there are far too many double standards. Men have no opportunity to renounce fatherhood, even legally, and despite a guy being on the hook for child support if the mother decides to keep the baby he has no say if she decides to abort it even if he'd adopt it and take sole custody. Little boys raped by their teachers will find themselves saddled with years of back child support upon turning 18, and if a man slips his partner the morning-after pill he can be tried for murder despite no such consequence when the woman does it of her own volition.
Plus, infanticide itself should be done away with and turned back into trial for murder: infanticide was only invented because juries were uncomfortable sentencing a mother for murder when she killed her child, so a lesser charge was created - one that almost exclusively applies to women while men are given the (rightful) sentence for murder when killing a baby.
Mithea III wrote:The New California Republic wrote:How many times does this need to be reiterated in this thread: contraception can and does fail. Consent to have sex =/= consent to pregnancy.
I am not equating consent to sex as consent to pregnancy, I am equating responsibility. No one simply consents to pregnancy, as I stated in one part of my post. I am equating responsibility to consent to sex. The woman is still responsible for that fetus whether her intent is to get pregnant or not.
by Christian Confederation » Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:48 pm
by Northern Davincia » Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:51 pm
SD_Film Artists wrote:I'm generally pro-choice as long as the decision to have an abortion isn't done on discriminatory grounds such as gender or neurotype.
Katganistan wrote:Mithea III wrote:I am not equating consent to sex as consent to pregnancy, I am equating responsibility. No one simply consents to pregnancy, as I stated in one part of my post. I am equating responsibility to consent to sex. The woman is still responsible for that fetus whether her intent is to get pregnant or not.
And if she did not intend to get pregnant, the RESPONSIBLE thing is to abort if she is not financially, emotionally or socially able to remain pregnant.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by The New California Republic » Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:51 pm
by Katganistan » Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:52 pm
by Northern Davincia » Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:55 pm
Katganistan wrote:The Dalek Republic of New Earth wrote:Midlle school science. The fetus is not a part of the mother's body. It is a completely seperate organism.
If so, then she DEFINITELY has every right to have it removed. Alas, it is not "completely separate" when it draws nutrients from her bloodstream and uses her kidneys to removed waste from itself.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Katganistan » Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:58 pm
Mithea III wrote:I absolutely disagree with the principle. I disagree that the use of the woman's uterus by the fetus is something the woman is allowed to consent to or not. Consent to sex may not equal consent to pregnancy, but it is consent to the possibility of pregnancy as a consequence. There are many things in life that I partake in which has many outcomes. I don't have to literally consent to each and every possibility in order to have to take responsibility for those outcomes. If I invest, I do so with the understanding that I could gain value or lose value. If I lose value, can I resort back to my original value simply by not consenting to losing it in the first place? I am bewildered by the effort to separate responsibility from sex. I would say the vast, VAST majority of people who participate in sexual relations do so with the understanding of what its biological purpose is. If the view of a pro-abortion individual is that a zygote isn't entitled to our natural rights, then one can consistently hold the opinion that a woman can take responsibility of her actions by having an abortion, but then that should be what the focus of the debate is on. I can find no common ground with the idea that a living organism with natural human rights can be restricted its development by the omission of it being in the uterus of a person who is responsible for its creation, and I do not care about the intention to get pregnant or not.Ors Might wrote:I don’t entirely disagree with the general principle but you might find the comparison between pregnancy and rape to be one that turns far more people away from your ideas than the opposite. The important difference between a fetus and a rapist is that the fetus is unaware. Innocent. A potential newborn. Of course people aren’t going to find the comparison convincing because nobody assigns the fetus the same moral responsibility as the rapist even if the circumstances have some similarity.
The Free Joy State wrote:Northern Guaniet Sover wrote:Here are the facts It is wrong to have an abotion it is not your body aand not your choice so this has nothing to do with some of you I would not even be talking to you if you were aborted think about and don't just say I would not care Because I would not have felt nothing
"Your mother didn't abort you"... Does one day go by when some pro-life person does not pull this cheap emotionalistic ploy out.
And, incidentally, I would not know. I would have felt nothing.
That is a fact.
by Northern Davincia » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:04 pm
Katganistan wrote:Mithea III wrote: I absolutely disagree with the principle. I disagree that the use of the woman's uterus by the fetus is something the woman is allowed to consent to or not. Consent to sex may not equal consent to pregnancy, but it is consent to the possibility of pregnancy as a consequence. There are many things in life that I partake in which has many outcomes. I don't have to literally consent to each and every possibility in order to have to take responsibility for those outcomes. If I invest, I do so with the understanding that I could gain value or lose value. If I lose value, can I resort back to my original value simply by not consenting to losing it in the first place? I am bewildered by the effort to separate responsibility from sex. I would say the vast, VAST majority of people who participate in sexual relations do so with the understanding of what its biological purpose is. If the view of a pro-abortion individual is that a zygote isn't entitled to our natural rights, then one can consistently hold the opinion that a woman can take responsibility of her actions by having an abortion, but then that should be what the focus of the debate is on. I can find no common ground with the idea that a living organism with natural human rights can be restricted its development by the omission of it being in the uterus of a person who is responsible for its creation, and I do not care about the intention to get pregnant or not.
So when you get into a car, you consent to the possibility of being in an accident, and we should leave you bleeding in the vehicle because that's a possible consequence.
Or when you go to a baseball game, if a line drive hits you square in the face, you do not deserve medical attention because that's a possible consequence you agreed to when you bought your ticket.
That's good to know.
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Katganistan » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:04 pm
Christian Confederation wrote:Can't we all agree that unless the mother or child is in certain danger of death, Abortion is morally wrong.
by Northern Davincia » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:08 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Katganistan » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:08 pm
by Northern Davincia » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:11 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by New haven america » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:13 pm
by New haven america » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:14 pm
Northern Davincia wrote:Katganistan wrote:So when you get into a car, you consent to the possibility of being in an accident, and we should leave you bleeding in the vehicle because that's a possible consequence.
Or when you go to a baseball game, if a line drive hits you square in the face, you do not deserve medical attention because that's a possible consequence you agreed to when you bought your ticket.
That's good to know.
The moral crowd in the pro-life movement is fully aware that expecting mothers need all the help they can get.
by Northern Davincia » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:14 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
by Northern Davincia » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:16 pm
Conserative Morality wrote:"Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Hoppe."
Users browsing this forum: Cerula, Kannap, Simonia, The Jamesian Republic, Tiami, Zancostan