Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Partially Blind People]

I used to be pro-life until I realised how silly it was to deny women control over their own bodies. I still don't like it in some cases because I think it is people destroying foetuses because they weren't responsible with contraception but it isn't my right, especially as a guy, to tell women what to do with their bodies.

What about the baby's rights? Are you so willing to treat a baby the same as some old leather bag?

Thing ain't a baby. It's a foetus, a bundle of cells, it has as many rights as some old leather bag.

[Nova Anglicana]

I consider the killing of a living being to be abhorrent and morally oppose abortion.

However, being a man, it is not my place to tell a woman what to do about these sorts of things.

Additionally, the current societal situation renders available abortion an all but necessity. Therefore, I cannot oppose abortion on practical grounds and instead hope that we can work towards a society where proper social services (including care of unwanted children) render abortion completely unnecessary except in cases of rape, incest, danger to the life of the mother, etc.

[Securitan]

Hey don't misunderstand me now. Women, if they don't want parasites, should take every fucking step necessary to ensure it doesn't happen. Abortion should be your absolute last resort.

[MERIZoC]

I used to be pro-life until I realised how silly it was to deny women control over their own bodies. I still don't like it in some cases because I think it is people destroying foetuses because they weren't responsible with contraception but it isn't my right, especially as a guy, to tell women what to do with their bodies.

What about the baby's rights? Are you so willing to treat a baby the same as some old leather bag?

What baby?

[Benuty]

I do not support abortion.

I support the choice to have one (before 22 weeks). Yet I won't stop you should you have an abortion past 22 weeks, I will just be saddened.

Ergo I am not pro-life nor am I pro-human. I reject the limitations of humanity, and I support the rights of all known sapients to have the choice of an abortion.

Thus I think Pro-Sapience will do just fine as my stance.

[Sebastianbourg]

I think three months are enough to determine whether you want to keep the child or not.

[Benuty]

What about the baby's rights? Are you so willing to treat a baby the same as some old leather bag?

What baby?

I sense an episode of the Maury show coming up.

[MERIZoC]

I do not support abortion.

I support the choice to have one (before 22 weeks). Yet I won't stop you should you have an abortion past 22 weeks, I will just be saddened.

Ergo I am not pro-life nor am I pro-human. I reject the limitations of humanity, and I support the rights of all known sapients to have the choice of an abortion.

Thus I think Pro-Sapience will do just fine as my stance.

Non sapients shouldn't have the right to abortions?

[Dragomerian Islands]

What about the baby's rights? Are you so willing to treat a baby the same as some old leather bag?

Thing ain't a baby. It's a foetus, a bundle of cells, it has as many rights as some old leather bag.

It is a bundle of LIVING cells which are genetically human. This means that the baby is entitled to human rights. Also, the mother has no right to determine whether a human should live or die, even when that human is connected to her.

[Aquesta]

And you try to shout murder as many times as you can.

I'm struggling to understand how pro-lifers can manage to think of a bundle of cells as a person

How is it not a person?

[Geilinor]

Thing ain't a baby. It's a foetus, a bundle of cells, it has as many rights as some old leather bag.

It is a bundle of LIVING cells which are genetically human. This means that the baby is entitled to human rights. Also, the mother has no right to determine whether a human should live or die, even when that human is connected to her.

Hair cells are genetically human.

[Securitan]

Thing ain't a baby. It's a foetus, a bundle of cells, it has as many rights as some old leather bag.

It is a bundle of LIVING cells which are genetically human. This means that the baby is entitled to human rights. Also, the mother has no right to determine whether a human should live or die, even when that human is connected to her.

Ants are bundles of LIVING cells too! Algae are bundles of LIVING cells also! Oh, the humanity!

[Neutraligon]

Thing ain't a baby. It's a foetus, a bundle of cells, it has as many rights as some old leather bag.

It is a bundle of LIVING cells which are genetically human. This means that the baby is entitled to human rights. Also, the mother has no right to determine whether a human should live or die, even when that human is connected to her.

You are giving rights to fetuses that no born person has. And yes the mother does have the right to make medical decisions for herself and the fetus that is within her.

[MERIZoC]

I think three months are enough to determine whether you want to keep the child or not.

This of course, with the assumption that one is able to get an abortion in that time.

[Zottistan]

The adoption system in the US is already far too overcrowded.

So because it's too overcrowded we can just kill fetuses for no reason at all?

No, abortion is not something that should be happening, but we certainly shouldn't be making people choose between risking their lives having underground abortions by "doctors" of questionable training and ruining their lives having a baby they don't want and potentially can't look after. And we certainly shouldn't pretend "put it up for adoption" solves this dilemma.

[Securitan]

It is a bundle of LIVING cells which are genetically human. This means that the baby is entitled to human rights. Also, the mother has no right to determine whether a human should live or die, even when that human is connected to her.

Hair cells are genetically human.

Hair cells are dead though.

[Dragomerian Islands]

It is a bundle of LIVING cells which are genetically human. This means that the baby is entitled to human rights. Also, the mother has no right to determine whether a human should live or die, even when that human is connected to her.

Hair cells are genetically human.

But those cells are dead.

[Nuwe Suid Afrika]

Put them up for adoption.

Also, the whole thing about the 'human incubator'-- that's part of nature.

As if the adoption system isn't overcrowded enough.

We already talked about this on the other page.

Just because it's overcrowded doesn't mean the child has to be killed. That's a really, really, really poor argument.

So because it's too overcrowded we can just kill fetuses for no reason at all?

No, we can do it because women have rights. Go figure.

The fetuses don't?

[MERIZoC]

Thing ain't a baby. It's a foetus, a bundle of cells, it has as many rights as some old leather bag.

It is a bundle of LIVING cells which are genetically human. This means that the baby is entitled to human rights. Also, the mother has no right to determine whether a human should live or die, even when that human is connected to her.

My hair follicles are cells with human genes. I destroy them on a whim. I don't see you objecting.

[Geilinor]

The adoption system in the US is already far too overcrowded.

So because it's too overcrowded we can just kill fetuses for no reason at all?

People don't get abortions for no reason at all.

[Killdash]

As a note, calling unborn children "parasites" tends to make you sound like a bit of a jerk.

It's also true.

And also kind of irrelevant empty rhetoric.

I find it funny that when people want a child, the moment they hear of conception, they start talking about him/her, reading trimester charts and even some people giving temporary womb names. Whereas, when an abortion is due to take place, it's the "foetus" or "bundle of cells", which shows the extent people want to go with dehumanising these children.

[MERIZoC]

No, we can do it because women have rights. Go figure.

The fetuses don't?

Nope.

[Neutraligon]

Hair cells are genetically human.

Hair cells are dead though.

Depends where.

[Partially Blind People]

I'm struggling to understand how pro-lifers can manage to think of a bundle of cells as a person

How is it not a person?

It's not a person in the same way that the stem cells in my bone marrow aren't a person.

Thing ain't a baby. It's a foetus, a bundle of cells, it has as many rights as some old leather bag.

It is a bundle of LIVING cells which are genetically human. This means that the baby is entitled to human rights. Also, the mother has no right to determine whether a human should live or die, even when that human is connected to her.

The foetus isn't entitled to human rights until it is born, and the mother has the right to not put herself through 9 months of toil to give birth to a child that she does not want. The foetus being aborted is as significant as the sperm being prevented from joining the egg by the condom.

[Zottistan]

As if the adoption system isn't overcrowded enough.

We already talked about this on the other page.

Just because it's overcrowded doesn't mean the child has to be killed. That's a really, really, really poor argument.

So because it's too overcrowded we can just kill fetuses for no reason at all?

No, abortion is not something that should be happening, but we certainly shouldn't be making people choose between risking their lives having underground abortions by "doctors" of questionable training and ruining their lives having a baby they don't want and potentially can't look after. And we certainly shouldn't pretend "put it up for adoption" solves this dilemma.