messybuu messybuu

Pro-Choice or Pro-Abortion?

▼

Pro-Choice or Pro-Abortion?

Do you really support the right of women to choose what to do with their own bodies?

from JoeUser Forums

When one speaks of abortion, the common argument from pro-choicers is that since the fetus is inside a woman's body, only she should decide whether or not she wants to keep it. After all, it would be wrong for us to tell a woman what to do with her own body. However, are pro-choicers really pro-choice or just pro-abortion? Find out if you're really pro-choice or willing to take away a woman's choice with this fancy quiz I designed!

Pro-Choice or Pro-Abortion?
Simply decide whether or not you agree with the following statements.

1. Women should have the right to have abortions if they so desire.
2. Women should have the right to have their brother's or father's child.
3. Women should have the right to genetically engineer the fetus inside them to their liking.
4. Women should have the right to take as many drugs as they desire while they are pregnant.
5. Women should have the right to stab the area in which the womb resides while they are pregnant. IGNORE THIS STATEMENT
6. Women should have the right to have an abortion performed by a shady unlicensed abortionist.
7. Women should have the right to drive an ice pick through the head of a fetus from her body.

Wasn't that easy? If you agreed with every statement, then congratulations! You do honestly believe that women should have sole control over their bodies, and for that, you earn my respect. However, if you disagreed with any statement, then you are a hypocrite that would happily steal a woman's right over her own body to promote your own agenda.
politics
27,583 views 87 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
Fact: According to Planned Parenthood, LESS than one percent of ALL abortions are for cases involving rape, regarding the life of the mother, or because of health of the child.

Fact: A child (or fetus) is not an appendage nor is it a part of the woman's body from birth.

Fact: A friend of mine owns a few acres in Missouri, but though he owns those acres, he is prohibited by law to pollute them, just as people are not allowed by law to inflict certain harms against themselves, which would certainly include the child inside of them.

Fact: It takes both a woman's egg and a man's sperm to conceive a child. A child is not uniquely property of the mother in most cases.

Have children become such an inconvienience and/or afterthought to us in our momentary pleasures?
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
I will agree there are times when abortion is a correct option, such as a definite stillbirth or rape. However, I think that lax standards on abortion will only continue to perpetuate the degradation of this country as a whole because we won't be holding people responsible for a serious action. The fact remains that people shouldn't be having sex unless they're prepared for the consequences. That's the problem with the liberals, is that they don't want to hold people accountable for their actions. All teenagers with kids (barring rape victims), are the results of their own stupidity, and they suffered the consequences.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, picture this, a woman who engages in sexual activity, rape, planned, etc. is stuck with the "consequence", having a baby, not always, it's true, but often enough. A man who engages in sexual activity, suffers no consequences, at all. So, if abortion is not an option you punish the woman, in every case, while the man is not punished at all.

Cheers
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
A man who engages in sexual activity, suffers no consequences, at all. So, if abortion is not an option you punish the woman, in every case, while the man is not punished at all.


As much as I want to stay out of this, this one I can't pass up.

Child support. Jail. Those aren't consequences? So called "deadbeat dads" should be put in jail, and in some places are. And I don't support them running off anymore than I support abortion. How can you HONESTLY say the man has no consequences at all? I know quite a few guys who are living examples of consequences for irresponsible sex.

VES
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
In a society where every deadbeat dad can be tracked down, I agree, men have consequences, unfortunately many, if not most, deadbeat dads can get away, if they really want to. A woman who becomes pregnant faces the consequences 100% of the time, a deadbeat dad faces the consequences only when he is caught.

Cheers
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
If anything, that just means that society should work harder at tracking down deadbeat dads.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Society will never be 100% however, so women should have a way out as well.

Cheers
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
What about the child being subjected to years of psychological trauma due to the environment they are born in. Although these situations are not as common (thankfully) Not giving women to right to chose opens up those loopholes.

Oh, so then the child should die?

am suggesting that you, as a person never having dealt with the choice, should not condemn people for making a decision that they lawfully can make at the present moment. It's fine that you put your two cents in, in fact it is welcome, but I am merely giving you some insight on how we are no one to say that it is pathetic for one individual to choose what is legally their right, especially when we do not know all the things that go with making that decision. As for God judging people that was a direct reply to you calling them pathetic just because their legal right does not reflect your ideals

It is legal to do many hideous things in various countries (including this one, USA) does that mean I should not call them pathetic? Just because something is legal does not make it right. If I think abortion is murder, and I do, then I can plainly say that I think it is pathetic that a women would choose to kill a child because it is too inconvienent.

And should the mother, who is a victim in these cases, be "punished" for being raped by having to care for the child? The mother didn't choose to get pregnant from her attacker, but now she has to support this reminder of the crime perpetrated against her. That doesn't sound very democratic either.

So, you support killing the child? I do not.

Birth is not a fool proof option. It's possible for a mother to die even in a healthy baby. It's also possible for the child to die. Perhaps if a man were capable of going through labor he would, in general, be less likely to say no choice.

And woman have died during a abortion as well. What is your point?

Ok I will make it simpler vern since WE DONT ALL SHARE THE SAME RELIGIOUS BELIEFS than why should one belief try and impose its ideals on another?

Because it is NOT a religious issue. That is what the pro-choice like to hide behind. Yes, there are many that bring religion into this. But it simply gets down to murder.

Well, picture this, a woman who engages in sexual activity, rape, planned, etc. is stuck with the "consequence", having a baby, not always, it's true, but often enough. A man who engages in sexual activity, suffers no consequences, at all. So, if abortion is not an option you punish the woman, in every case, while the man is not punished at all.

So what? Are you saying that because you see no answer to this question that it validates the murder of a child?

Society will never be 100% however, so women should have a way out as well.

Via the murder of a child? Pathetic.
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
You believe that a fetus is a child, I do not, therefore it is not murder to me. That pretty much negates any of your points. You believe it is murder, that means you would never have an abortion, I respect that, but the law says a fetus is not a person, and therefore abortion is not murder. Oh and SGsmitty, as long as the law is on my side, I think it's "pathetic" of you to keep calling people that.

Cheers
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not every unplanned or unwanted pregnancy that come to term is a "consequence". I'm certain some women come to love and be glad that had the child. So your 100% consequence figure is wrong.

VES
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
Obviously you have never known someone who was pregnant, I don't know about you, but having been married to a woman who was pregnant twice, I can tell you it's no rosy nine months from coneption to birth, and that's when the two of us were planning to have babies.

Cheers
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
You believe that a fetus is a child, I do not, therefore it is not murder to me. That pretty much negates any of your points. You believe it is murder, that means you would never have an abortion, I respect that, but the law says a fetus is not a person, and therefore abortion is not murder. Oh and SGsmitty, as long as the law is on my side, I think it's "pathetic" of you to keep calling people that.
Ah but the winds of change are a blowing. The *law* is now starting to realize that a fetus is a child. Using your way of thinking I guess I can drive a ice pick into the head of a fetus whose head is crowning before birth? Will you still hold your support for child murder when the law finally changes?
As I stated before just because it is *law* does not make it right eh? Murder is pathetic.

Obviously you have never known someone who was pregnant, I don't know about you, but having been married to a woman who was pregnant twice, I can tell you it's no rosy nine months from coneption to birth, and that's when the two of us were planning to have babies.
I have news for you. Raising the kids after birth is not always rosy either. Would that justify getting rid of em?
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once a child is independent of it's mother, it is a person, would you argue that a handful of cells were a person? So, if a pregnancy miscarries is the mother guilty of murder, or the child guilty of suicide? Since suicide is a crime in every state, we ought to prosecute someone right? If a mother is bolemic or anorexic, which causes the child to abort, is she guilty of murder? If a mother drinks wine, and the baby has birth defects or is still born, is she guilty of assault or even murder? Even if she only drank the wine before she knew she was pregnant? What about taking birth control pills, if you take them after conception it can abort the child or even cause birth defects, EVEN if you're taking them before you know you're pregnant.

My sister died in child birth, and so now my wife and I take care of her child, in hindsite, I wished my sister had had an abortion, because as much as I love her kid, I wish she was here even more.

So shove it prick, I've taken care of kids, I've never, nor has my wife ever had an abortion, but if my sister had, she would still be alive. A woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, when sex is nonconsentual you are already taking away her right to choose, the only way to balance the equation is to allow the woman to regain her right, before she has to go through nine months of hell.

This statement however is the worst:
Raising the kids after birth is not always rosy either. Would that justify getting rid of em?


Obviously once a child is born and you've decided to keep it, you've made two choices to retain the child, one, you didn't abort it, and two you didn't put it up for adoption. I think two points of choice are enough, but if you believe we should have more than fine.

Cheers
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah but the winds of change are a blowing. The *law* is now starting to realize that a fetus is a child. Using your way of thinking I guess I can drive a ice pick into the head of a fetus whose head is crowning before birth? Will you still hold your support for child murder when the law finally changes?


I think I'm going to add this to the quiz. If pro-choicers really believe that fetuses are not children and that women should have complete control over their own bodies, then they should support the right for women to drive an ice pick into the head of a fetus.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ah, yes, since I have a 15 year old son, I've known someone who is pregnant. Ridiculous assumption on your part.

VES
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
hardly a rediculous assumption, your wife was obviously one of those women who had a perfect pregnancy, never got morning sickness, nor mood swings, nor any of the other joys of pregnancy, hmmmm?

Cheers
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
I repeat, a ridiculous assumption. Nothing need be perfect to not be a consequence. Consequence needn't be viewed in the most narrow light of the nine months of carrying the child. The impact a child has on one's life (the consequence or the blessing) goes much longer and greater than that.

There is nothing about my son or his being brought into this world that is or was a consequence. And yes, my wife agrees with me. Rather, if I had religious beliefs as she does, I would say he was a blessing instead.

We obviously differ on the semantics of consequence as well.

I still believe you have failed to show 100% consequence with pregnancy.

VES
Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your son's birth was planned, right? Or barring that, the two of you were in a loving relationship. Now, a woman who is raped, or even one who engages in premarital sex is not planning on having a child, they are simply doing it for the pleasure. A man, in our imperfect society, is quite capable of running away, never to be heard from again while the woman is left with the child, something she was not ready for. The emotional, financial, etc. burden, and I don't use burden in the negative sense, of having a child is emmense. If a woman is unprepared it can be devastating, meanwhile, the worst the man has to deal with is the possibility, and it's a very small possibility, of an arrest warrant, sure that's a big deal, but with over worked police forces, the warrant rarely gets issued, and even more rarely gets followed up on. So, the woman has to have the child, nine months of pregnancy can be extremely bad if it's on your own, and then they have to support the child, a financial responsibility that most women who get abortions can not make.

Was it a bad decision to have sex? Maybe, if there were a 100% effective form of birth control, besides abstinence, which to be honest is not an entirely reasonable suggestion, then I would agree, abortion should be outlawed, but until that day, women need someway out.

Cheers
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top
Aside from you proposition that two wrongs make a right ( the man can run away, so that makes abortions okay), you assuming uplanned means unprepared or unable which is not necessarily so. The vast majority are merely UNWANTED. If the women is unprepared or unable to handle the "consequence" of having a child, she should not bring about the conditions under which children are made. My objection is, always has been, and likely always will be that abortions for convenience are wrong and should be criminal. There are many, many ways for sexual pleasure that don't bring about the risk of pregnancy for women unprepared. That don't have to abstain from have all sex, just coitus. By analogy, in terms of the unprepared woman having sex, relate it to Russian Roulette. Unless you are prepared to die, you shouldn't play the game. If the consequences are SO DEVASTATING as you suggest, one should not put themselves in that situation.

And on the other hand, when a woman wants an abortion and you have a responsible male involved that would take the child, he has NO say in the matter. I will grant that that is probably rare, but quite definitely possible.

I know you FEEL like you have to explain the impact of a child to me, but you don't. You are making another erroneous assumption that I have to have that explained to me just because I don't agree with your position. I will repeat, I have a 15 year old son, I've known many children, families and pregnant women, I know what having a child entails. I was a child, I know the impact that me and my brother and sister had on my mother and father. Save your breath man, or not, makes no difference to me, but it's pointless for you to try to preach to my choir as it were.

You can bring up rape and / or incest as much as you like, but it makes no difference in our dispute. I have already agreed with you on those two conditions and the possible need for abortion. Pregnancies resulting from either represent the woman as an unwilling victim, not a willing participant, and pregnancies resulting from those events are extremely rare as I have pointed out before with statistics.

Women have a way out, they choose to ignore it. Alternative sexual means besides coitus (not abstinance) and adoption are two chief examples. But you would rather let them off of making one bad decision by allowing them to make another bad decision.

VES
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top
Geez, forums are like the Matrix. I can never seem to take the red pill. Or was it the blue one? I think it should also be noted, semantically speaking, that there is nothing inherent in the definition of "consequence" which is negative. There is an implied negativity, but consequence in it's defined form basically means 'logical result'.

VES
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay, one simple scenario as I again attempt to take the blue pill.

This is for you Jeb. You pose all the problematic issues on why women should have "the choice". Most of them sound like the dire straits. So I will pose some circumstances to you to get your take on whether this woman should have "the choice". If you answer it as I suspect, then I can with reasonable certainty suggest we will find no further common ground on the issue.

You have a loving couple, living in a good neighborhood, both well adjusted emotionally and both with good paying jobs. If the woman got pregnant, the husband could still easily support them without hardship while she was out of work. So she gets pregnant despite precautions, and the husband decides he wants the child, but she doesn't. She just doesn't think "it's the right time." Should she have "the choice" exclusive of what the husband wants?

VES
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your son's birth was planned, right? Or barring that, the two of you were in a loving relationship. Now, a woman who is raped, or even one who engages in premarital sex is not planning on having a child, they are simply doing it for the pleasure. A man, in our imperfect society, is quite capable of running away, never to be heard from again while the woman is left with the child, something she was not ready for.


Not thinking of the consequences doesn't mean they're not to blame for their own actions. Otherwise, drunk and reckless drivers shouldn't be sent to prison for running over children.

Was it a bad decision to have sex? Maybe, if there were a 100% effective form of birth control, besides abstinence, which to be honest is not an entirely reasonable suggestion, then I would agree, abortion should be outlawed, but until that day, women need someway out.


Nothing is 100%, and birth control is rather effective when done properly, but again, this requires people to be responsible.
Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
Obviously once a child is born and you've decided to keep it, you've made two choices to retain the child, one, you didn't abort it, and two you didn't put it up for adoption. I think two points of choice are enough, but if you believe we should have more than fine.
There are choices other than murder for a unwanted pregnancy as well.

The emotional, financial, etc. burden, and I don't use burden in the negative sense, of having a child is emmense. If a woman is unprepared it can be devastating, meanwhile, the worst the man has to deal with is the possibility, and it's a very small possibility, of an arrest warrant, sure that's a big deal, but with over worked police forces, the warrant rarely gets issued, and even more rarely gets followed up on.
So you think this justifies the destruction of a child (fetus if it makes you feel better)?