So, the question says it all. Why you support one of the two and why? And what is solution according to you
Pro-life or Pro-choice?
- Thread starter AmeyT18
- Start date
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,240
- 246,776
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
Pro coat hanger, anti protection.
Final solution: kill all the dumb babies before they grow up to be dumber adults
Final solution: kill all the dumb babies before they grow up to be dumber adults
Pro choice because women should maintain their right to privacy and body autonomy.
Pro choice.
Every woman has the right to choose their own decisions, and what they do with their bodies.
If a woman or young teen girl was raped, they should be given the option to abort since it was a situation that was beyond their control. This applies to women who are also in a near-death situation during labor or the baby has a disease/disorder that will make life excruciating for it.
Edit: Also, let’s not forget about how broken the adoption system is and how many children do end up being orphans for the rest of their lives and/or end up with adoptive parents that are abusive.
Every woman has the right to choose their own decisions, and what they do with their bodies.
If a woman or young teen girl was raped, they should be given the option to abort since it was a situation that was beyond their control. This applies to women who are also in a near-death situation during labor or the baby has a disease/disorder that will make life excruciating for it.
Edit: Also, let’s not forget about how broken the adoption system is and how many children do end up being orphans for the rest of their lives and/or end up with adoptive parents that are abusive.
Last edited:
But pro-life people accept abortions in medical condition like these.. .
Pro-choice - everyone should have to the right to their bodies and what they do with it including crack cocaine.
Pro-Choice in that a women should be able to abort the clump of cells. Also pro-life and not killing innocent children with an active brain.
Pro-Choice in that a women should be able to abort the clump of cells. Also pro-life and not killing innocent children with an active brain.
Pro-choice.
We're supposed to have separation of church and state.
What we have is desperation of church control over state affairs.
We're supposed to have separation of church and state.
What we have is desperation of church control over state affairs.
Last edited:
Yes, but it only applies if the mother’s life was in danger and if the fetus is unlikely to survive after it’s born (stillbirth/lethal anomaly)—but it doesn’t apply to babies who later develop severe hereditary diseases/disorders (Huntington’s Disease for instance), or was born with another severe disease that makes life very unpleasant but is not fatal.
Seen cases where babies that were born with a very severe neurodevelopmental disorder and are clearly suffering, but parents decide to keep them alive due to pro-life choices.
So yes, pro-life does support the following two medical conditions but it is quite limited.
Last edited:
I think the term pro-life is a dirty tactic. The whole debate on pro-life vs pro-choice is only valid in the context of the way society is. I think it's disfunctional.
Ideally (in my opinion) the situation should be that the government shouldn't be involved with neither the choice of a woman, nor the support of her based on that decision.
Ideally (in my opinion) the situation should be that the government shouldn't be involved with neither the choice of a woman, nor the support of her based on that decision.
D
Deleted member 16771
Is anyone pro-choice for fathers? That's a more interesting question for me. Do those fuckers get a say in anything?
Sure, they get a say providing:
- The woman must be amicable to the idea of going full-term and promises not to harm the child even prior to birth (no smoking, drugs, etc)
- The man is to raise the child without the mother's interaction, physically, emotionally or financially.
- The woman gives up all rights to the child once born.
I do think that the woman having the only say sucks for the consequence of the guy's situation, but you can't rule out that a woman has a consequence to her body. Yes, I know that argument can be abused, but it's still a real factor.
I think society needs to change. I think men and women need to be taught in SCHOOL about this. Life shit. Real shit.
The only thing you can do as a guy in with the reality we're in, is avoid it altogether. But unfortunately guys (myself included) in this day in age weren't taught anything about life and the real world to handle it properly.
I am okay with the lifestyle of long-lasting traditional marriages as well as a more casual lifestyle of multiple relationships. However, in reality we have to pick one or the other to minimize the problems. We're in a transitional phase where there is a greater divide between genders, and when society is supportive of separated families, it doesn't help the controversy of abortion. When we're not in this together, we're just going to have more problems.
Ideally (in my opinion) separated couples should not have kids. And if you can choose to have them, you should put up with being together. And if that sounds like a shit option, then how about both men and women both have more responsibility and think long and hard before you have sex.
We either have government intervention or we don't. We can't have both for the situations it suits you, and not the other.
Pick one.
Pick one reality.
Ideally (in my opinion) separated couples should not have kids. And if you can choose to have them, you should put up with being together. And if that sounds like a shit option, then how about both men and women both have more responsibility and think long and hard before you have sex.
We either have government intervention or we don't. We can't have both for the situations it suits you, and not the other.
Pick one.
Pick one reality.
The only way to solve this:
Make adopting children easier for those who are deserving. Evaluate those who wish to adopt; it isn't hard to look into someone's life and see if they would be high risk as parents or not.
I know many people who cannot carry their own child. These are amazing, responsible, loving, people. They work hard but aren't rich. It breaks my heart to see these couples hurt so badly. If someone wants to give love to a child (or children), and they're truly capable of raising children in a functional home, then why must it be so hard?
Not only that, how shitty is it that these people can't have children, while the shittiest parents spit them out year after year, while most of their offspring end up in the system one way or another? Additionally, governing forces are so quick to place a child in foster care, leaving the child(ren) subject to luck (fate, have you?). It's a coin toss as to whether these children will be under proper care. There are good people out there who are deserving of raising a child.
Stupid....
It is expensive to adopt. There are service fees, legal fees, fees for classes, etc. Why? This is an innocent's life! It's morally wrong (in my opinion), to charge this kind of money so that a couple (or single parent) can assume guardianship over a kid who DESERVES to be loved and cared for.
Why can't people who want to have abortions give their child up for adoption without all the unnecessary fees? Ugh. Beaurocracies make everything more difficult than what things should be.
So, I wish that people who get abortions could reconsider. There are easy ways to find good-natured people who want a child. Plus, with a rise in same-sex couples, there will be a greater need.
But, if you choose to abort, I mean, hey... that's your choice. I won't think any less of you. It's your body, it's your life, it's your choice. Just maybe next time, get the morning after pill or something? Learn from it and avoid repeating the same mistake. I say mistake, because if you're getting an abortion, you're saying it's a mistake too.
I don't judge those who have abortions. I really remain neutral on the topic. I am not heavy against it or heavy for it. There is a middle ground for everything, as each person and situation is unique from the next. I just really wish that the system would make adoption easier.
One of my pet peeves, however, is when people force their religious beliefs on another. So, when people say that abortion is wrong due to their religion's code, I disagree with this, very much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal experience:
My sister and my best friend have had multiple abortions.
My perspective is: It's their life and their choice. I can't hold that against them. We are all traveling down our own roads. But, each of them went on to have more children. My sister has three, and BF has two. And on a personal level, it really hurt me when they did it because I have always wanted a child of my own, even by means of adoption. They knew that, and they could have let me raise the child. But, they couldn't handle the emotional aspects of it, so they refused. ...I don't think that mentality is fair to people like myself, but, I can't force my emotions and desires on another person. So, all-in-all, I can't hold that against them, still. (Even though it will always hurt me).
Make adopting children easier for those who are deserving. Evaluate those who wish to adopt; it isn't hard to look into someone's life and see if they would be high risk as parents or not.
I know many people who cannot carry their own child. These are amazing, responsible, loving, people. They work hard but aren't rich. It breaks my heart to see these couples hurt so badly. If someone wants to give love to a child (or children), and they're truly capable of raising children in a functional home, then why must it be so hard?
Not only that, how shitty is it that these people can't have children, while the shittiest parents spit them out year after year, while most of their offspring end up in the system one way or another? Additionally, governing forces are so quick to place a child in foster care, leaving the child(ren) subject to luck (fate, have you?). It's a coin toss as to whether these children will be under proper care. There are good people out there who are deserving of raising a child.
Stupid....
It is expensive to adopt. There are service fees, legal fees, fees for classes, etc. Why? This is an innocent's life! It's morally wrong (in my opinion), to charge this kind of money so that a couple (or single parent) can assume guardianship over a kid who DESERVES to be loved and cared for.
Why can't people who want to have abortions give their child up for adoption without all the unnecessary fees? Ugh. Beaurocracies make everything more difficult than what things should be.
So, I wish that people who get abortions could reconsider. There are easy ways to find good-natured people who want a child. Plus, with a rise in same-sex couples, there will be a greater need.
But, if you choose to abort, I mean, hey... that's your choice. I won't think any less of you. It's your body, it's your life, it's your choice. Just maybe next time, get the morning after pill or something? Learn from it and avoid repeating the same mistake. I say mistake, because if you're getting an abortion, you're saying it's a mistake too.
I don't judge those who have abortions. I really remain neutral on the topic. I am not heavy against it or heavy for it. There is a middle ground for everything, as each person and situation is unique from the next. I just really wish that the system would make adoption easier.
One of my pet peeves, however, is when people force their religious beliefs on another. So, when people say that abortion is wrong due to their religion's code, I disagree with this, very much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal experience:
My sister and my best friend have had multiple abortions.
My perspective is: It's their life and their choice. I can't hold that against them. We are all traveling down our own roads. But, each of them went on to have more children. My sister has three, and BF has two. And on a personal level, it really hurt me when they did it because I have always wanted a child of my own, even by means of adoption. They knew that, and they could have let me raise the child. But, they couldn't handle the emotional aspects of it, so they refused. ...I don't think that mentality is fair to people like myself, but, I can't force my emotions and desires on another person. So, all-in-all, I can't hold that against them, still. (Even though it will always hurt me).
What do you think should happen for fathers who want to keep the baby but the mother does not want to carry a pregnancy to term?
D
Deleted member 16771
Coin toss
No idea, but instinctively it feels wrong to force someone to do something they don't want to do for 9 months.
But equally that happens to men all the time, except that it's for 18 years/life.
Pin
"Magnificent Bastard" / Ren's Counterpart
- Jun 26, 2017
- 12,750
- 50,524
- 3,276
- MBTI
- ENTJ
- Enneagram
- 3w4, 3-8-7
D
Deleted member 16771
I think probably both parents should get a veto, but it ought to take two positive choices to bring a pregnancy to term.
As for pro-life vs pro-choice, that seems only really to be an issue in the States as far as I can tell. Pretty much everybody here is pro-choice, but that doesn't mean that they don't view life as sacred. The dichotomy seems to be a false one.
As for pro-life vs pro-choice, that seems only really to be an issue in the States as far as I can tell. Pretty much everybody here is pro-choice, but that doesn't mean that they don't view life as sacred. The dichotomy seems to be a false one.
Pin
"Magnificent Bastard" / Ren's Counterpart
- Jun 26, 2017
- 12,750
- 50,524
- 3,276
- MBTI
- ENTJ
- Enneagram
- 3w4, 3-8-7
I think it's possible for every person to be an asset to their society.