Vote
102 Total Votes
1

Pro- choice

37 votes
7 comments
2

Pro-life, and I also oppose abortion for victims of rape and incest

33 votes
8 comments
3

Pro-life, but allow in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother or child

21 votes
4 comments
4

Pro-choice, but we should try and reduce number of abortions without completley banning it

5 votes
1 comment
5

Ro-choice, I don’t agree but the government has no right to ban it

4 votes
0 comments
6

Pro choice, but ban after 3 months

2 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
djjohnnybhoy says2017-01-28T00:30:30.6076216Z
I believe abortion is wrong but people should make that decision for themselves.
Scruggs says2017-01-28T00:49:09.7048216Z
Then you do not believe it is wrong.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2017-01-28T00:51:37.7176216Z
Scruggs, yes he does. He just favors individual decisions of morality rather than imposed ones.
Scruggs says2017-01-28T01:30:18.4473632Z
Then why have any laws or define any crimes? I favor individual decisions of morality, which is why I believe rape should be an individual choice.
reece says2017-01-28T01:33:32.5156216Z
@Scruggs Are you equating the two.
Scruggs says2017-01-28T01:41:46.2712216Z
Yes. Both are not a matter of personal gain or loss. Both are a matter of one individual abusing another.
stschiffman says2017-01-28T01:56:15.7017632Z
@reece. Scruggs had a point. By your logic, you could justify literally anything.
reece says2017-01-28T04:57:44.5641632Z
@Scruggs So you'd force a women to have a child? Isn't that abuse? Wouldn't that be contradictory your own belief? By your logic, abuse doesn't have spectrum.
reece says2017-01-28T04:58:21.9103435Z
A spectrum*
Swagnarok says2017-01-28T07:02:00.1005632Z
There should be the following 7th option: "Pro-Life, but easily available birth control would reduce the number of women who seek abortions".
Swagnarok says2017-01-28T07:02:22.4085632Z
There should be the following 7th option: "Pro-Life, but easily available birth control would reduce the number of women who seek abortions".
Rjupudi18 says2017-01-28T07:08:35.8567435Z
Every woman makes a choice when she chooses to have intercourse and conceive. Once she has made a decision, a new life is created and she no longer has the right to murder that life. Nobody is forcing women to conceive. It's their choice. As for rape and incest, a baby is still a baby. Just because a baby was conceived through rape or incest doesn't make it less human than one conceived "normally".
Arget says2017-01-28T10:42:12.4579435Z
@rjupudi18: "Every woman makes a choice"+"As for rape"=contradiction. Also babies from incest are likely to have genetic disorders that could not only lead to a lifetime of difficulties (and potentially suffering) but also spread these genetic defects throughout the population if they reproduce (not saying that I support a eugenics program but pointing out that the offspring is not necessarily 'normal' in this case). @ Scruggs: I believe that racist and sexist comments are wrong, that doesn't mean I want to outlaw free speech. I believe that prejudice is wrong but I don't want to outlaw humankind (prejudice is part of human nature). Sometimes you have to put up with an evil to prevent a worse one.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2017-01-29T16:32:24.0607244Z
@arget. Actually it's not a contradiction. Only < .05% actually go because of rape. As for incest that makes up .03%. The overwhelming majority of woman do have a choice. Also, woman who are raped have a choice as well. They have the choice to put it up for adoption. They have the choice to get aid to help in caring for the child. They have the choice to keep it. They have the choice to leave it on the front steps of a fire department or police station. They have the choice to give it to a friend. They have quit a few choices. Unfortunately the only one that society seems to care about is the choice to murder a child.
ChadIrvin says2017-01-29T16:36:32.3566479Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez It has also been proven that women who were raped, became pregnant, and then kept the child instead of aborting it, gave them natural therapy and often allowed them to cope with the rape much better. Something great can come out of something bad.
Rjupudi18 says2017-01-29T18:11:43.3387244Z
@Arget you claim kids born out of incest have generic problems. Let me ask you a question. If you found out your 15 year-old son or daughter has a genetic problem, would you kill him/her? If it's not okay to kill your child after they're born, what makes it okay to kill them in the womb?
Imogen.B says2017-01-29T23:35:45.5719244Z
@Spiffy-Gonzalez, yes they can put the child up for adoption. However only after 40 weeks of pregnancy and the pain of giving birth. The child is then most likely to go through the foster care system which leads to an increased likelihood of committing crime. This issue was most commonly seen in males. The child would then also have to deal with the fact that his father was a rapist and his mother did not want him.
Imogen.B says2017-01-29T23:57:23.6791244Z
@Rjupudi18, Cardiac activity in a developing fetus usually starts at the end of the 5th week. What are we going to class as killing? Can you kill something (not including plants) if it did not have a beating heart in the first place?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2017-01-30T03:17:25.4547232Z
@ ChadIrvin. I agree completely. @Imogen.B: not to be rude, but soldiers in every army go through more pain than that to save a life, not to mention that a kidney stone is more painful to a man than a child to a woman. As for 40 weeks, takes 12 years to go to school to potentially fail anyway. Doesn't mean you shouldn't. As for your adoption argument: you should really stay away from things you know nothing about. I WAS in the foster system. I AM a male. And I know WAY more than my fair share of people who are born from rapists (and btw males are not the only rapists) and guess what? THEY DONT CARE. They don't give a damn about their dad OR their mom. They don't care who they were because he/she is not them and is not a part of their lives. And SURE the crime thing is 100% true in bigger cities (which I was in for most of them), but that's just the upbringing of n it having a father. Actually people living in ghettos with no dad are more likely than people living in children's homes without one to end up a gang member. After living in 9 homes I can personally tell you that yes, they are shit, but I would go through that all over again and be alive than dead.
brian.bors7 says2017-01-30T14:11:09.9498451Z
There is nothing wrong with murdering a child in the womb. (I explicitly worded it like that to get the semantics out of the way). Life is not sacred. Nothing is. Unwanted pregnancy causes suffering. The abortion solves some of that suffering. The pregnant woman is not responsable for the emotional wellbeing of those around her that know of the pregnancy. If they want the child to be born because of their own emotions the woman is not obligated to provide this service to the people around her. That is her choice.
Scruggs says2017-01-30T19:01:41.2262080Z
There is nothing wrong with murdering a child outside of the womb. (I explicitly worded it like that to get the semantics out of the way). Life is not sacred. Nothing is. Unwanted children cause suffering. The murder solves some of that suffering. The mother is not responsible for the emotional wellbeing of those around her that know of the child. If they want the child to live because of their own emotions the woman is not obligated to provide this service to the people around her. That is her choice.
Philocat says2017-01-31T22:29:30.6693830Z
Brian.Bors, should murder be legal then, if life is not sacred?
brian.bors7 says2017-02-03T23:21:40.5601091Z
Philocat. Nah, murder is impractical most of the time. I causes suffering. I would not make that legal.
Philocat says2017-02-04T20:52:11.8783684Z
How about legalising murder for unconscious people? No suffering there.
brian.bors7 says2017-02-06T08:12:00.8532107Z
@Philocat. Nah. That causes suffering in the people that will miss that unconscious person.
brian.bors7 says2017-02-06T08:14:55.8072107Z
@Scruggs. Yeah, I agree with that statement to, if infanticide is performed quickly enough and painlessly I would have no problem with killing the baby.
brian.bors7 says2017-02-06T08:16:11.4672107Z
Darn it. I meant: "too" not "to"
Scruggs says2017-02-06T21:54:00.7436759Z
I always thought Christian apologists exaggerated when they said atheists have no moral compass. Yet here I see a living and breathing example.
brian.bors7 says2017-02-06T22:33:40.2740759Z
Well. One example doesn't represent all atheists. So I would not agree with the Christian apologists. But yes, I have little to no moral principles. But really, if no suffering is caused, what is the harm in killing a baby?
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2017-02-07T05:19:30.2048759Z
Brian.Bors7: because the baby is dying. I also don't believe you have no moral compass. Religious or not humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong.
brian.bors7 says2017-02-07T10:45:11.1578688Z
Spiffy-Gonzalez. When a baby is killed I realize that a baby is dying. But I see no harm in dying babies per se. If there is no suffering and there is gain, why not do it? It will bring happiness.
Spiffy-Gonzalez says2017-02-08T07:32:09.7577646Z
Brian.Bors 7, that would explain why aborted babies often attempt to emit a scream than isn't it?
brian.bors7 says2017-02-08T12:37:25.0335029Z
Spiffy-Gonzalez. I don't think aborted fetuses attempt to scream. I haven't seen any credible source claiming that. But you believe this somehow is a sign of suffering? If so; would you be fine with infanticide under the influence of anesthetics?
Philocat says2017-02-11T11:15:08.6759893Z
Brian bors, do you think it is just suffering that is bad? Or is the prohibition of happiness also bad? In other words, is preventing someone's happiness morally reprehensible even if no suffering is caused?
brian.bors7 says2017-02-25T21:48:34.0127104Z
Philocat. Awesome question, and sorry for the late reply. I am a moral nihilist so I don't think anything is objectively morally reprehensible. But I still have an pragmatic opinion about what I would prefer to be legal and not. I think prohibition of happiness causes suffering in most cases. In cases where the prohibition of happiness doesn't cause suffering I don't think it's a bad thing. So preventing someone's happiness if no suffering is caused is fine with me. For example: If a person has lost all ties with his or her family and has no loved ones waiting for them, and would decay in a desert before anybody finding the body (causing possible suffering trough trauma) I would have no problem with somebody killing that person with a single shot in the head with a high powered sniper rifle if I knew for certain the victim would not suffer before he or she died. Of course; such a scenario is highly unlikely and theoretical.
brian.bors7 says2017-02-25T21:50:57.5639104Z
Philocat. Awesome question, and sorry for the late reply. I am a moral nihilist so I don't think anything is objectively morally reprehensible. But I still have an pragmatic opinion about what I would prefer to be legal and not. I think prohibition of happiness causes suffering in most cases. In cases where the prohibition of happiness doesn't cause suffering I don't think it's a bad thing. So preventing someone's happiness if no suffering is caused is fine with me. For example: If a person has lost all ties with his or her family and has no loved ones waiting for them, and would decay in a desert before anybody finding the body (causing possible suffering trough trauma) I would have no problem with somebody killing that person with a single shot in the head with a high powered sniper rifle if I knew for certain the victim would not suffer before he or she died. Of course; such a scenario is highly unlikely and theoretical.
xbeccamarie says2017-02-28T15:34:21.6701816Z
A fetus is undeniably 3 things: 1. It is a human 2. It is alive. 3. It is unique/individual From the moment the fetus is conceived, it is an individual, human life that is unique and separate from its mother with its own, new DNA. I agree that you should be able to choose what you do with your body, but a fetus is NOT your body! Abortion kills a human life. That is an inarguable fact. As a woman, I think it is despicable to kill another human just because it's inconvenient to you. No one is forcing you to keep the child- adoption is an option! I believe we should ban abortion (with exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother) and instead put all that federal (and private) funding into the following: 1. Reforming and improving adoption 2. Reforming and improving foster care 3. Making contraceptives widely available for men and women to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place
brian.bors7 says2017-03-01T10:22:38.4724850Z
Xbeccamarie, I agree with your initial 3 undeniably things. I also agree that a fetus is not your body (for certain definitions of "body") and that abortion kills a human life. But I don't see why just because you think killing a human life because of convenience is despicable you should force others to act you like think is decent. I think unconditional love is a despicable concept but I don't think we should ban it just because I find it despicable. You will have to come up with a better argument than that for a ban on something.
Thescarecrow066 says2017-03-21T23:58:26.3155415Z
Abortion is evil. Giving up the child for adoption so they can be cared for by a family that would actually like to take care of it is the more humane way to go. In my eyes, it is the killing of a human being, what is the difference between a baby and a fetus? The development but never the less it is still a human child.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.