Abortion

[SkepticThinker]

Nonsense. There is a huge difference between not loving someone and neglecting and abusing someone.

Human beings need love to thrive. Especially infants.

Did you Google oxytocin and pair bonding yet?

There's nothing nonsensical about it. Read up on some psychology and childhood development.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting people shouldn't love their babies (which they naturally do) or that babies shouldn't be loved. I'm just saying the poster who basically claimed a woman could abort her pregnancy because if she didn't love the child the child wouldn't survive anyway.

There are two problems with that assertion.

1. The baby could very well survive and turn out just fine.
2. How on earth could she knows she wouldn't love her baby? She couldn't know. Unless she was a psychopath, in which case she wouldn't be aborting out of consideration for the baby anyway.

This is why I'm pro-choice. How on earth do I know better than somebody else, what is right for them, in their own lives?
I don't. That's their choice, not mine.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We call that following Satan.

I call it progress.

You can keep your misogyny. Thanks anyway.

 

[Argentbear]

I recognize that much. I'm saying a trans man is not a man.

Yeah they are. Your limited viewpoint doesn't change that.

That's your opinion.

No it's society's opinion

I don't know where you got that information from, but it is incorrect. An unborn child can inherit whether it's a male or a female. He or she has to be born alive, but there is no required period that he needs to live. Even if the child only takes one breath outside, it is sufficient for him to inherit.

Got it from the Sunnah. Look it up sometime

I have done both. That's how I know.


I have already addressed the issue of rape; it is permissable to have an abortion in that case.

your claim was: "No one is suggesting that women are told they have to have a child" which the case in Ohio shows that you are wrong.

They also weren't sure if women had souls at all.

Shall we abort the women from this world?

and has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Argentbear]

I couldn't possibly go through everything. I'll give one example: I raise children in this society and my children will be surrounded by women who don't know how to cover their bodies, how to keep their pants on or how to speak. My daughters would be at the grave danger of being influenced by such behaviour and my sons would be at the grave danger of, well, also being influenced by it.

Maybe you should keep your clothes on around your kids

 

[Argentbear]

Nonsense. There is a huge difference between not loving someone and neglecting and abusing someone.

Actually providing for the immediate physical needs of an infant but not loving that infant leads to incredibly warped individuals. Look up the Romanian orphans sometime.

 

[metis]

Yet I defy the assertion that it is not human life. If you are going to participate in a conversation on this thread here with me, justify the murder of the unborn human, but do not deny that it is an unborn human. I won't have it in this thread. Help me understand what makes it right to kill those yet born without dehumanizing the victims.

Is God pro-abortion iyo? After all, if He planned and created us all, why are there miscarriages and stillbirths?

What right do you or I have to tell a woman what she supposedly must do with that which is inside her? Are we to tell her what other medical procedures she must not have?

What about the 10-year-old child in Ohio who was raped and became pregnant, doesn't her situation matter even though medal personal concluded that if she went through with the pregnancy that the aftereffects would most likely prevent her from carrying another child to full birth?

 

[Ignatius A]

You should mourn, as it is a deep loss to miss a child that you will never meet. It is more painful than meeting a person that you love deeply, but cannot be with, or loving a person deeply that passes away.

If society agrees that a woman has the right to consider her wants and needs regarding her own body, then abortion should be legal. Society should also takes medical opinon into consideration, including differentiating an embryo from a fetus, and fetal viability, to draw a line.

Ultimately abortion is only "ok" because modern medicine has given us the ability to have control over pregnancy itself. It is the same modern medicine that has reduced the risk of death for people worldwide, so fortunately or unfortunately, this is the world we live in. The thorn that is the rose.

I also agree that, in the US, the states should decide what is legal or not. If Texans want to make abortion illegal, then society there has spoken.

Thank you for sharing.

A baby isnt a woman's body. pro choice propaganda

 

[Pawpatrol]

Man and woman now have two definitions each. The original one is biological, the second definition psychological.

You can define them as birds if you like.

You don't have to use the words that way, but that's how others are using them

No one that I know of.

There's no dispute about what is true about any of those kinds of people, just what to call them. I prefer to call them by the words they prefer. It seems that you don't respect that. If so, why not? Why won't you follow the Golden Rule there? It's a matter of kindness, respect, and dignity.

Because it is forbidden by God first and foremost. If we followed the suggestions and demands of crazy people, we might as well be considered such ourselves. The strong and the intelligent in the society, those who have a healthy mind, should decide the rules. They shouldn't ask those weak in their thinking and unstable how the entire society should live.

Why don't I follow the golden rule? I do, actually.

Theocratic Christians are insisting that pregnant women have to have their child.

They're suggesting a woman should give birth to the child she conceived due to the intercourse she (in most cases) chose to have.

You don't have a choice in that if you want to participate in that culture. Your children will see women in skimpy clothing on the streets, on the beach, and in the entertainment media.

We don't go to beaches where you go....and we don't watch the media you watch. But you see the issue — good.

 

[Pawpatrol]

What's wrong with the human body?

Nothing. It's perfect. (Consider that)

How much of their body do they need to cover, to meet your standards, exactly?

Everything except face and hands.

Why are you afraid your daughters might see parts of a female body?

Us women are forbidden to look at certain parts of other women' bodies (such as their thighs, for example). It's for dignity, purity and protection. And why would I like to see another woman's thighs, belly or breasts? I have no need for that and I'd rather not. And I know they dress the way they do to look good — but they don't. They look ugly. Why do they do that to themselves? You think it's because "they're free", but it's not. It's because society told them "be pretty, be sexy, be cute. You'll be well received."

This affects you personally .... how?

I've already answered that on the previous page.

Raise them right

Of course. That's the number one, no doubt.

Teach your sons about consent and you won't have anything to worry about. Teach your sons that just because someone is walking alone in a dark alley doesn't mean it's okay to attack them.

I wrote my sons might be influenced by the half naked women without any sense of dignity etc. and you read that as "they might rape someone"? That's not the issue with women's dress.

So how does someone else's ability to abort their pregnancy affect you very much? That's the topic under discussion

I don't think that's the topic... But as for me, I'd like to live in a moral society.

 

[Argentbear]

You can define them as birds if you like.

And you can pretend they are what ever your agenda of the day says.

Doesn't change what they are

No one that I know of.

You mean aside from all the people here.

Because it is forbidden by God first and foremost.

Having a tattoo?

If we followed the suggestions and demands of crazy people, we might as well be considered such ourselves. The strong and the intelligent in the society, those who have a healthy mind, should decide the rules. They shouldn't ask those weak in their thinking and unstable how the entire society should live.

So you are saying you should have no say in it?

Why don't I follow the golden rule? I do, actually.

Somehow i think if you were being treated the way you treat others you would be demanding justice and possibly blood

They're suggesting a woman should give birth to the child she conceived due to the intercourse she (in most cases) chose to have.

We don't go to beaches where you go....and we don't watch the media you watch. But you see the issue — good.

So you keep your kids locked in a windowless room. Yeah that isn't abusive.

 

[Argentbear]

Nothing. It's perfect. (Consider that)



Everything except face and hands.

Us women are forbidden to look at certain parts of other women' bodies (such as their thighs, for example). It's for dignity, purity and protection. And why would I like to see another woman's thighs, belly or breasts? I have no need for that and I'd rather not. And I know they dress the way they do to look good — but they don't. They look ugly. Why do they do that to themselves? You think it's because "they're free", but it's not. It's because society told them "be pretty, be sexy, be cute. You'll be well received."

I've already answered that on the previous page.

Of course. That's the number one, no doubt.

I wrote my sons might be influenced by the half naked women without any sense of dignity etc. and you read that as "they might rape someone"? That's not the issue with women's dress.

I don't think that's the topic... But as for me, I'd like to live in a moral society.

and if your daughter saucily pulls up her burqa sleeve and shows a bit of wrist...what do you do? Beat her?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I couldn't possibly go through everything. I'll give one example: I raise children in this society and my children will be surrounded by women who don't know how to cover their bodies, how to keep their pants on or how to speak. My daughters would be at the grave danger of being influenced by such behaviour and my sons would be at the grave danger of, well, also being influenced by it.

So you're "affected" by behaviour you disagree with in the same sense, that I'm affected by, say, the anti-choice picketers at my local hospital.

I have significant concerns about how they influence others with their immoral actions. Until now, I've supported their right to do as they please - even though I personally disagree with it strongly - out of a concern for general freedom of expression, but if you're saying we should impose our values on people who don't share them, I know where I'll be starting.

 

[We Never Know]

Okay, so here is the problem. In biological terms the potential starts with the sperm and the egg. So for people not to have sex when it could result in a potential unborn child, is already potential before sex, so they kill children by not having sex.

The cut off based on conception is arbitrary and could also be set at not having sex. So people should have no choice in having sex or not for the purpose of the potential unborn humans!

A sperm is alive.
An egg is alive.
There are no children until they come together and fertilization/conception happens.
So how can you kill children that don't exist?

There could be potential children with sex but even then that is not a guarantee.

 

[blü 2]

Touchy topic, I know.

I am making this thread because I would like pro-choicers to help me better understand the pro-choice position.

Progressive society says abortion is ok. I am against abortion. What I mean is I don't think it is a good thing. But I am open to understand why progressive society as well as many people in my life are okay with it. I struggle to fathom it.

@Quintessence said in another thread "forced birth is disgusting no matter how you slice it" and I guess that makes sense. The one thing I am SO GLAD I will never under any circumstances experience is birth. If I was female, I STILL wouldn't give birth. Screw that, I'm not getting torn apart. Birth is absolutely terrifying and the only reason it isn't relatively fatal is because modern technology.

Anyways, can you guys offer me your perspectives on what makes abortion acceptable?

My perspective is that I wouldn't strangle a baby, nor advocate for it. So why would I advocate for abortion?

But I realize now that there is much more nuance to it.

Yet I defy the assertion that it is not human life. If you are going to participate in a conversation on this thread here with me, justify the murder of the unborn human, but do not deny that it is an unborn human. I won't have it in this thread. Help me understand what makes it right to kill those yet born without dehumanizing the victims.

Spoiler: My abortion

I was married to a girl once. Pregnant we got. Schizophrenic I am. Unstable and unmedicated at the time I was. Wife didn't want "her kid coming out like me" (a valid fear of genetically passing on schizo) as well as she didn't want to be stuck with me in her life because of a kid. So she got rid of it despite all of my crying and pleading. Took me years to be even cordial with her again. But I support her decision now. She did what was best for her.

Most distraught I ever was. Years later I still mourn the death of my child. Yet people in my life don't understand. Coworkers congratulated me on the abortion. Therapist was baffled I was sad about it, as it was a "fetus". Friends told me I shouldn't feel bad for I never had a child.

How dare this society take away my right to mourn.

I have accepted that abortion is ok. Not because I think it is ok, but society has told me it is ok. And I am tired of hating society.

I just don't understand why. Why shouldn't I mourn the death of my child? And why is abortion ok?/SPOILER]

It ain't rocket science.

It's simply the principle that a woman is the captain of her own body up to the point where the fetus is entitled to rights of its own. See Roe v Wade >Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia<, with which I agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A sperm is alive.
An egg is alive.
There are no children until they come together and fertilization/conception happens.
So how can you kill children that don't exist?

Why do you say that a sperm cell and an unfertilized egg aren't children? What standard for "child" does a blastocyst meet that they don't?

 

[We Never Know]

Why do you say that a sperm cell and an unfertilized egg aren't children? What standard for "child" does a blastocyst meet that they don't?

There are no children until they come together and fertilization/conception happens.

A blastocyst forms in a pregnancy, about five to six days after a sperm fertilizes an egg.

Do you think a man that masturbates is killing children? How many have you killed?

 

[McBell]

Why do you say that a sperm cell and an unfertilized egg aren't children? What standard for "child" does a blastocyst meet that they don't?

In the biological sciences, a child is usually defined as a person between birth and puberty,[1][2] or between the developmental period of infancy and puberty.[3]​

​

Child - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

It is rather interesting that the vast majority of the "Abortion Debate" is nothing more than arguing over definitions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are no children until they come together and fertilization/conception happens.

I would say well after that.

A blastocyst forms in a pregnancy, about five to six days after a sperm fertilizes an egg.

Yes, I know.

Do you think a man that masturbates is killing children? How many have you killed?

For similar reasons, I don't think that a sperm cell or a blastocyst are children. You apparently think one of them is a child; I'm asking why you hold this position and how you address the apparent hypocrisy in it.

 

[We Never Know]

I would say well after that.



Yes, I know.


For similar reasons, I don't think that a sperm cell or a blastocyst are children. You apparently think one of them is a child; I'm asking why you hold this position and how you address the apparent hypocrisy in it.

Well you thought wrong.
My point was to the post of not having sex is killing children.
There are no children(no chance for children) until they come together and fertilization/conception happens.
So no children are being killed by not having sex.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A sperm is alive.
An egg is alive.
There are no children until they come together and fertilization/conception happens.
So how can you kill children that don't exist?

There could be potential children with sex but even then that is not a guarantee.

And even an unborn child is only a potential born child.
So in all cases a born child is not a guarantee.