Jump to content

- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

Poll: What is your stance on abortion? (19 member(s) have cast votes)

What is your stance on abortion?

  1. Pro-Choice (12 votes [63.16%])

    Percentage of vote: 63.16%

  2. Pro-Life (6 votes [31.58%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.58%

  3. I don't care >_> (1 votes [5.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.26%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Kingroy



  • Knight
  • 1,916 posts

Posted 25 July 2010 - 09:51 PM

Thinking about it, I rather bring a child in to life than let it die in the womb. Yeah no one no if it will end up lucky or not, but wouldn't that go for every child that has been born. Having a child is taking a chance on it's own. Raising a child is taking a chance. Hell life is a chance to be honest. Give the fetus a chance to become something is all Im saying. :/ A mother's opinion is good and all but what about the child? Yeah he could be the lowest thing on earth, but he could also be a great creator.

Edited by Kingroy, 25 July 2010 - 09:53 PM.

[Today 07:02 PM] Kingroy: <.<
[Today 07:02 PM] Crimson Jazz: I know right!?!
[Today 07:02 PM] Kingroy: >.>
[Today 07:02 PM] Tengo Cash: Beiber is the man

Screw You ↑ You ↖ You ↗ You ↙ You → You ↓ You ↩ You ↪ You ↬ You ↫ You ↪ You ↩ You ↲ You ↯ You ↱ You ↰ You ↷ You ↳ You ↶ You ↴ You ↵ & You ↺

#22 Valor



  • Monarch
  • 3,874 posts
  • This is My Design

User's Awards


Posted 25 July 2010 - 10:30 PM

I'm going to fan the flames here.

Abortion is good because it brings one less human mouth into this world which we need to pay our money to in order for it to consume our resources and add to a world which is slowly but surely being overpopulated. Think of abortion like population control.

Edited by Xanius, 26 July 2010 - 07:48 AM.


#23 Secret Igshar

Secret Igshar

    Pwner of Noobs

  • Monarch
  • 3,796 posts
  • your worst nightmare

User's Awards


Posted 25 July 2010 - 10:51 PM

First let me clearly state my position on this issue. I am completely Pro-Choice.

I find the entire notion of Abortion to be a silly debate. I understand and respect the stance of Religious fanatics who claim that the child is alive and a human since conception, but I find that to be an irrational claim. During the entire first month of pregnancy, the "baby" resembles naught more than a small clump of cells which would be indistinguishable from a tiny clump of blood on a table. How anyone can claim "That is a human" is beyond me. It cannot think or form rational thoughts. The defining characteristic of a human being is conscious thought and decision-making. Even newborn children show these traits, albeit much hindered from when they grow older.

The child is not capable of being born before well into the second trimester. It is not even distinguishably human until the second trimester.

My stance on it is very vague. If you run an ultrasound and you see a human shape there, growing in your belly, and you decide to abort it, you're an awful person. Do I think that should be outlawed? Yes. If you look in there and see naught more than an indistinguishable clump of crap, why should they not be allowed to have it removed? A baby is naught more than a parasitic organism until its born, when you break it down to its basic level (which most Pro-Lifers do when calling it murder), and uh. Last I checked, parasites tend to be bad (not all are, they tend to be).

Furthermore, if someone WANTS to abort her child, she is going to get it done. If it is not legalized, the women will have them pulled out with coat hangers! Hooray! Because we're too much of pansies to legalize Abortion, we kill many pregnant teens due to poorly performed abortions. Good job.

Really, what's so wrong about eliminating a small clump of cells indistinguishable from sludge when the mother wants it to happen?

I didn't even touch on situations such as rape or when the mother is in line to suffer physical harm or death from the birth... (I'd sooner save my wife than my unborn child. We can always have another child at a later date when it wouldn't cause my wife to die as a result~)


Kingroy: ( 4:40 PM - 02/10/14) u can't own black people

Kingroy: ( 4:40 PM - 02/10/14) #ThanksLincoln

#24 Sodomize-it Soro

Sodomize-it Soro


  • Squire
  • 714 posts
  • Keeper of Butts

User's Awards


Posted 25 July 2010 - 11:06 PM


I agree with all of this.

Pro-Choice as in the baby gets the choice, father gets the choice, priest gets the choice, minister gets the choice, siblings get the choice, those that would be affected by the baby get the choice, or the mother gets the choice?

As in the option to abort is available. >_> To amend my previous statement, the decision should ultimately be left to the mother, but she should still consult with people that are close to her.


So I sort of skimmed through the other posts, and I'd like to bring up a few points.

As Iggy mentioned, in the event that abortions were made illegal, do you think that would stop women from getting them? They'd either try to get rid of it themselves or go to an alley somewhere, which would be very dangerous.

Do you guys know how much a baby costs, even before birth? Some people don't have the means to bring the baby to birth. Even if they put it up for adoption, they'd still have to pay a good deal to make sure it's healthy and all that.

And since it was brought up, most of you believe abortion is acceptable in the case of rape. Would you also find it acceptable in the case of incest, or if it was harming the mother? (The latter may have been brought up. As I said, I only skimmed.) Or how about if the parents used protection, but the condom broke or something? Would it be acceptable in that case?

I'll probably go back through to look for more points of debate now, and then I'll post more.

Edited by Sodomize-it Soro, 25 July 2010 - 11:10 PM.

#25 Ted



  • Page
  • 64 posts

Posted 26 July 2010 - 12:51 AM

Okay, it seems this little area needs my attention once more.

I agree that a life is a life (even though I LOVE meat). Killing is wrong, that's a fact. But sometimes, people do it when they feel they have to. Like killing in self-defense. Would it be wrong to take someone's life before they take yours? Which is why I think that abortion is necessary sometimes.

I live in the south, and our state is mostly conservative (which = to pro-life). I've seen cats and dogs on the streets -- and I mean literally on the streets -- some dead for a long time. As if the driver didn't even care that they killed something. I know animals are not as important as human beings (from what I've seen), but if we can't respect the life of something God created, who are we to decide what happens to a human life?

Since someone already went biblical on one side, allow me to do the same on the other. God punishes those who do wrong. Simple as that. If someone (in your eyes) is killing something, they'll pay for it eventually. They can learn the hard way why abortion is not a good idea sometimes. God can punish them in this life or the next.

Without abortion, women will suffer if they're not ready to have their child. I agree to the point that people should just keep their legs closed. But there are some people out there that can't find any means of relief. Heck, some can't even masturbate because of their beliefs (which is understandable). It wouldn't break my heart one bit if a baby's conceived because the couple couldn't control themselves. And I'm sure anyone who has sexual relationships with someone else knows that babies are made that way, so they're full aware of the consequences.

Worst-case scenario: Abortion is illegal. A woman is alone with her crying 14-day-old. No money to pay her bills, the rent, groceries, and even to put the child on day care (if that's not free, I'm not really sure how it works). Her parents have disowned her because she got pregnant, so she can't reach them. She'll either kill the baby or herself, let it live and become homeless, or just abandon it at the nearest church. Where are the people who voted to make abortion illegal? In their homes minding their own business, since that new law doesn't affect them. Is this really what could happen if abortion is illegal? Perhaps not. But I do think that removing the option of abortion will make things worse before they get better, if ever.

Personally, if my mom ever considered aborting me when I was in the womb but couldn't because of the law, I think I would've had a bad childhood, maybe being poorer than I already am. I wouldn't want to hear someone who's pro-life say "Hey, we saved your life, so don't complain about your problems." In fact, I would ask them "If you really cared about my life, why didn't you feed me? Why didn't you help my mom? Why didn't you support us in any way?" Which brings me to my next point. If you really care about human life, then help the people you're screwing over. I believe that people who are pro-life just want to brag that they saved a life. Not all of them, of course.

When dealing with life-changing laws, put others above yourself. What will happen to them? If you make the wrong choice, they'll have no one to blame but you.

One more thing: I find it funny that there's one girl (pro-choice) in this topic, while all people here who are pro-life are all guys.

Edited by Ted, 26 July 2010 - 12:56 AM.

Posted ImagePosted Image

One of my favorite characters in the Gash Bell manga: Ted.

Dissidia Final Fantasy: Emperor Lv 100 | Golbez Lv 100 | Zidane Lv 100 | Kuja Lv 100

Played and passed: FFI, FFII, FFIX, FFX
Not interested in: FFVII, FFXIII

#26 Secret Igshar

Secret Igshar

    Pwner of Noobs

  • Monarch
  • 3,796 posts
  • your worst nightmare

User's Awards


Posted 17 February 2011 - 03:59 PM

This topic is becoming huge in politics again, and I feel it needs to be addressed more directly. South Dakota, recently, has passed (or is in the process of passing) a bill which would essentially legalize the murder of abortion providers.


I think pro-lifers especially should agree that this is a completely outrageous law. Making it justifiable homicide to kill someone who aborts fetuses? That's utter insanity. Chaos. Stupidity.

Outside of this, I have a rather convincing argument about why the "Pro-Life" approach is simply ridiculous in its notions of "No Abortions ever under any circumstances."


Whether or not this particular story is true is irrelevant to the fact that ectopic pregnancies DO exist and they ARE fatal to the mother. To say that this abortion is illegal is simply ridiculous. You either abort the fetus or lose both fetus and mother. How can you possibly argue that the fetus should NOT be aborted in this case? Would you really argue that the mother should have died? If you go into some sort of religious "everything happens for a reason" argument, then I will combat you by saying that whatever religion you are quoting from is not the only worldview which exists. Imposing your beliefs on others (while this is what Christianity preaches that you should do) is still incorrect in a country where we claim to have freedom of religion.

My own personal views on abortion are mixed. I do not personally believe that an accidental pregnancy which occurred between two consenting adults should be allowed to be aborted. You took that risk when you decided to have sex. Sorry, it's true.

Pregnancies due to rape, incest, or other acts which are not consensual should be allowed to be aborted, at the mother's request. The pregnancy occurred by no fault or wish of her own, and I don't feel we should then force it upon her to give birth to the child. Who the hell are we to say what a woman should or should not do with her body? I am not a woman, so I don't understand these choices. Why should I be allowed to say THAT WOMAN GOT RAPED!? TOO BAD HAVE THE BABY.

I also believe that, regardless of circumstances, if a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, that pregnancy should be allowed to be aborted, should the mother wish it. How can anyone say "You must have this baby, even though it will most likely kill you" and get away with it? How is that any better than aborting the unborn child and saving the mother to allow her to safely conceive at a later time and NOT die from it? I believe it is our duty as human beings to first consider the well-being of the living before considering the well-being of the unborn. Does that make me a bad person?

As an aside to this, if a woman wants an abortion, she will find a way to get it. Without reputable doctors being allowed to perform these operations, the woman will be forced into a potentially non-sterile environment and potentially be killed by the operation performed. Yes, this is an extreme case, but it's one that would never be worried about if abortions were legal and possible to obtain from reputable, board-certified doctors.


Kingroy: ( 4:40 PM - 02/10/14) u can't own black people

Kingroy: ( 4:40 PM - 02/10/14) #ThanksLincoln

#27 Xanius


    The Omega

  • Emperor
  • 3,525 posts
  • Awakening

User's Awards


Posted 17 February 2011 - 09:36 PM

My views go along with yours for the most part Iggy. But if what South Dakota is doing is honestly true... It won't be long till more and more states do this and we erupt into another Civil War. It's inevitable. It's going to happen some day. We have too many different opinions going on and too many nut jobs wanting to just shoot shit. I just hope the right side wins in the end.

Back to the the actual topic... I know a few women that have gotten abortions. For a slew of reasons. I can't agree with all of them, like the one that just didn't want a kid but didn't take any precautions to not have one. None. No condom, no pill, no pulling out, nothing. But the one that still got pregnant even while she took the pill? I see that as a fair reason to abort. It might just be me, but she took the precaution and something still happened. It's not really her fault for it. She took them right, she didn't do anything wrong, the medication just either didn't work right or her body just rejected it. She had no signs that it wasn't going to work so she really can't be but to blame for negligence at all.

Ugh. This whole topic is just ridiculous. All this shit of being a Christian Nation is freaking stupid too. If we actually followed everything the bible says or believes in we'd all be sinners. Almost every single damned person.



#28 Dexel Hydagara

Dexel Hydagara


  • Knight
  • 1,310 posts
  • Arcade Adept

Posted 09 October 2011 - 10:38 PM

Ugh. This whole topic is just ridiculous. All this shit of being a Christian Nation is freaking stupid too. If we actually followed everything the bible says or believes in we'd all be sinners. Almost every single damned person.

I take a moment from the meat of my post to agree with this.

Abortion. Ah, another one of dem icky topics. Doubt I can say much folks haven't already, but oh well.

I believe a woman's got the right to decide if she wants to abort or not. In the end, plain and simple, her word is the last word. Who are we to say otherwise, really? All we can do is approve or disapprove. If it's not a public practice, say hello to Mr. Coat Hanger. :I

Although I also go along with the idea of asking the woman if she wants to donate said aborted fetus for research purposes if/when she gets an abortion...but that's a topic I'll broach only if someone's got something to say.


#29 Secret Igshar

Secret Igshar

    Pwner of Noobs

  • Monarch
  • 3,796 posts
  • your worst nightmare

User's Awards


Posted 09 October 2011 - 10:47 PM

Here's a happy little thing for anyone who attempts to take moral high ground, claiming that abortion is murder. It outlines quite clearly both viewpoints attempting to justify their positions. One of them acts like a dick and gives false information while the other one handles it in a civil manner and lays out pretty much exactly how it goes down: http://tumblr.com/Zh8nxxAPG1Ab

For those who don't want to click the link:

I study Biology at the University of Melbourne.
There is no way to morally or legally rationalise the point at which something becomes an organism. It’s pretty black-and-white.
The instant a the two haploid gametes of a diploid organism fuse together, you have a new diploid organism.
Ergo, you are killing a member of Homo sapiens.
You just have to justify killing (or murdering, depending on your point of view) a human that isn’t yet fully formed, cognitional or sentient.
Also, since you’re not even one of my followers, you should really just stop being argumentative and piss off.

Hey, Nathan
I really love completing patterns, so as long as we’re sharing credentials that don’t really matter in the discussion of reproductive rights, I’d like to share that I am a Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Biology triple major with a concentration in Genetics at Ball State University. (It’s cool, you can laugh at my school name. I won’t get mad).
I’m four credits away from my chemistry degrees (second semester physical chemistry), and six credits away from my biology degree (botany and methods of ecology), so I’m pretty qualified to speak about issues of genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, and eukaryotic development. But I’m actually not going to get too deep into the subjects I know extremely well because it’s just not necessary at this point.
First off, you said “The instant a the two haploid gametes of a diploid organism fuse together, you have a new diploid organism.” This technically is not true. There are a myriad of steps that take place during fertilization, and most of them occur after the sperm has attached to the oocyte. First and foremost, the oocyte must undergo meiosis II. At the “moment of conception,” as anti-choicers love to wax poetic about, the oocyte has 46 chromosomes and is entirely incapable of developing into the progeny.
While the oocyte busies itself with its second meiotic division, the sperm’s cellular body must degenerate. The tail, mitochondria, and most of its cellular components are digested, leaving only the sperm’s genomic DNA in a pronucleus. The pronuclei of both the ovum and sperm then undergo very rapid DNA replication (while still separate!) in order to prepare for mitosis as a zygote.
Eventually, the pronucleic membranes dissolve, allowing a mitotic spindle to develop. The spindle simultaneously combines maternal and paternal chromosomes while completing the first mitotic division of the new progeny. This is the first point at which the genomic DNA of both the male and female parent meet, and therefore this is the first point at which a progeny exists with an original complement of 46 chromosomes.
Anyway, that’s the only science I wanted to get into. My real point follows ahead.
Yes, the above zygote with 46 combined chromosomes is a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. To suggest otherwise would be silly- it’s certainly not Oxytricha or Stylonychia (primarily because both of those are far more complex than a human zygote). However, the argument at hand is whether or not that two-celled human is or is not a person with all of the rights and responsibilities of a developed and born human.
It is logically impossible to argue that two people with equal rights can occupy the same body. With two people (the zygote and the pregnant person, by your argument) sharing one body, the rights of both cannot be equally preserved. Either the pregnant person retains the right they ordinarily hold to make choices about their body or the zygote overrides that right.
So let’s talk about rights. A really touchy subject in medical ethics today is organ and tissue donation. Many laypeople think that donation compatibility, whether live or cadaver, is purely a function of ABO blood group. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are multiple factors to compatibility, most of them genetically determined, and these factors are often so limiting that a person in need of a transplant is only compatible with one family member (if that).
Fortunately, some of our most commonly needed organs can be given by a live donor. More than half of all organ donations are given by live donors and include kidney, lung, skin, and liver tissues. These donations are almost always life-saving for the recipient.
So say your sister needs a kidney. She has been on dialysis for quite some time and her systems are failing. Without a new kidney, she will not survive the month. National databases have been scoured, your entire family and social circle has been tested, and you are the only compatible match. Are you morally obligated to give her your kidney? She will certainly die without it, but organ donation kind of sucks. I mean, it normally goes okay with minimal complications, but it’s painful and inconvenient and expensive and you will need to take time off work. Should there be a law dictating that you must give that kidney in order to save her life?
Most individuals I have spoken to say “no.” One went so far to say “giving her the kidney would be morally laudable but not morally imperative.” So let’s bring it back to abortion. 99.8% of abortions (and 100% of “elective” abortions) take place before 21 weeks gestation. The medical community has established that premature infants have virtually little chance of survival outside the uterus until approximately 24 weeks gestation, so all elective abortions are performed before fetal viability.
Embryos and fetuses prior to 24 weeks gestation cannot survive without using a pregnant person’s body as a host. An abortion serves to stop the donation of the host body to the progeny. Think about your answer to your sister’s kidney dilemma and answer: should a pregnant person be obligated to donate their body to a parasitic organism that will die without it?
At this point many anti-choicers respond with “well, she chose to have sex. You didn’t make your sister exist,” and this is completely true. So let’s change the scenario: your mother is the only match for your sister’s kidney, and it is absolutely her fault that your sister exists and is alive today. It may even be her fault (genetically or environmentally) that your sister needs a new kidney! Should she be legally obligated to give her body to save your sister?
So, to get back to your original statement, “abortion is murder,” I must ask: if you or your mother said no to your sister and she dies, are you a murderer?
If not, neither are people who get abortions.
Best wishes,
(We are still doing the passive-aggressive letter bit, right?)[/spoiler]


Kingroy: ( 4:40 PM - 02/10/14) u can't own black people

Kingroy: ( 4:40 PM - 02/10/14) #ThanksLincoln

#30 Crimson Jazz

Crimson Jazz


  • Knight
  • 851 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:03 PM

I am pro-choice, as in I believe a woman has the right to do whatever the hell she wants with her own damn body. I agree with Iggy that the whole debate over abortion is a very, very SILLY and, quite frankly, a really STUPID debate. Who are we to dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her body? It is HER body.

As for my stance on abortion as a whole? I do not believe that it should be seen as an "easy way out." I would also not encourage it, especially if a woman is beyond 3-5 months pregnant, as I believe it is just despicable to do that if you can see the body clearly growing in an ultrasound. I do believe, however, that a woman that has been raped and does not want to raise a child that is a product of said heinous act (or even experience the pregnancy), and is in her first or second month, should have the choice of having an abortion. Can you all picture yourselves trying to explain to your child what happened to you if he/she asked, "Mom, who is my dad/why don't I have a dad?"???

As Iggy so adequately put it, the "baby" is just a clump of cells. It cannot think, feel, or speak for itself. It is not a human life. Therefore, you are not "taking a life." You cannot "take" a life if it ("it" being the clump of cells) has not even begun to live.

Also, raising just one child costs about two arms and a leg. Food, clothes, education, etc. If a woman is not financially stable to even feed herself, how in the hell is she going to raise a child? Hell, how is she going to even afford the care to make sure the baby is healthy or the hospital bills? People say put the baby up for adoption, but life isn't like the movie Juno. Not every woman can find a stable-looking family or person that she thinks will be good for her unborn child.

And to one final note; have we not learned from scumbags like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock that maybe we should let a woman do what she thinks is best for herself?

Edited by Crimson Jazz, 04 November 2012 - 10:07 PM.



Holy crap! I just looked out my window and saw a huge ball of fire in the sky!!!

Oh wait.....


[Today 09:55 PM] *Ralor cries*
[Today 09:55 PM] Ralor: ;-; I am an abomination to evolution
[Today 03:03 PM] Dion: i was addicted to the point where i couldnt function without some coke in my system
[Today 03:03 PM] Dion: i used to be addicted coke

It's okay, Dion...it's okay.

#31 Blade



  • Monarch
  • 163 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:05 PM


Posted Image

#32 Guest_Griever_*

  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:09 PM

I don't agree with abortion. There's no amount of science that can argue against my views on it. I just do not agree with it. The only time I'm ok with it if the individual must decide between giving birth, and life. That is a hard choice on someone, and to decide against their own life is something you really shouldn't force on any woman. A woman has the right to decide for herself what she wants to do with her body, but I personally don't agree with abortion as a whole. I'm also not a woman, nor plan on giving birth any time soon, so my opinion is as invalid as every other guy for or against it. Regardless, I don't agree with it. To me it's taking a life. There is no argument possible that will convince me otherwise. Scientists don't run my viewpoints :|

#33 Blade



  • Monarch
  • 163 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:13 PM

On a serious note you do abortion... you're taking away a possible Einstein, a child who could possible someday find the cure to cancer. I don't agree with it I was raised in a way to if you ever made a mistake, you deal and live with it. Now rape and other stuff is a whole different story, but that is mostly not the case since most teenagers/adults don't think when having sex.

#34 Guest_Griever_*

  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:48 PM

As I agree with Blade I won't say much on that. However I will say one thing that I think people should come to understand where the radical behavior comes from I know this first hand as I have friends who are massively against this (also a friend who has had 2 herself and is my best friend) While I AGREE that it's a woman's choice I don't like it either way unless like blade said rape or medical reasons. Again, I don't care what your views are, the fact of it is, this is how some people feel. Seeing them always as assholes for feeling this way to me seems just as wtf. I'll shed some light on this cus quite honestly I am not sure many people (forgive me) go to church and listen to sermons (talks, other viewpoints on it religiously as well as their reasoning) And I feel that isn't quite fair without SOME clarification, at least from what I know and have seen/heard/witnessed.

What is life, regardless what Ig says, a scientist says, what I say, what someone across the street says what a woman tells me. No one can define what life and murder is for me. I will go into off topic examples but they are a REALITY so just accept it as such. If I go to war, and take a life, *or a few who knows* you wouldn't see me as a murderer *I would and I see everyone that goes to war as a murderer but that's just me.... I know right? I was in the marines *facepalms** But the definition of murder is muddled for each person, to me it's murder, to the patriotic it's just war and nothing else.

Lets go back to topic here, that's how I feel about it. Period. When it comes to LIFE that IS also nothing a scientist can define for a human being. If someone feels a sperm is life the SECOND it reaches that egg, it's life to them. There's nothing you can say to persuade their opinion on the matter, life for that human is defined as the sperm reaching the Egg. When it comes to a religious sense, that is what it is. So this is where the murder and baby killer thing comes into play. As their definition of life is a bit different, their definition of murder could ALSO be effectively changed. All the abortion thing is, is a morality argument. It's morality regardless cannot be won for EITHER side. As such... Someone who is PASSIONATE about murderers and bla bla bla would see abortion as somewhat/the same act that as someone who decides to kill a child. This is when things get dicey. Sex for the SAME people are ALSO defined differently, sex for CJ is different than Sex for me, Sex for iggy is different than sex for Lex. Sex might have a definition, but that does not mean people agree on that definition. It was decided in a room with a bunch of scientist, not the general public (at least I don't think it was) just like life is ALWAYS decided by scientist (in a religious sense men who are not God or faith branch, something yeah). This ALSO leads to more stuff with birth control and bla bla bla Idec to get into that, but just understand for a small small portion I would imagine birth control could be considered murder.... Just not on the same scale as abortion...

That is why you will see people picketing and harassing these women, in their mind, it's loss of life, and not a single person is allowed to tell them what life is or not. <____<; This can be argued until you are blue in the face. But it would go DEEPLY into a religious argument against scientist which honestly, this seems like more of a forefront battle between religion and science. Think of it like this, if Val told me to stop believing in God, I would tell him to stop believing in science. If you told me to ACCEPT what is against my bible regardless cus everyone else is doing it, I would tell you to go fuck yourself. IT WOULD BE THE SAME as telling Val to fuck his science and believe in a higher power.

That is essentially what abortion is. It's deciding what is not only legal, but what is ethically correct. When a scientist thinks it's ok he is allowed to define life for a christian and society, you CANNOT expect Christians to be ok with that. You also cannot expect Christians to be ok with their children learning theory of creation in schools, which is now part of the curriculum, while God is removed entirely. It's the same front of marriage and gay/lesb/bi/trans/etc community vs. Christianity. Marriage as THEY see was a union under God, they feel THAT is being removed from them as well. This is how they feel. They feel as if everything they believe they should hold dear and junk is being paraded upon everyday. In the end, everyone should be able to make their own decisions, but also don't expect everything to be sunshine and roses when things start getting stepped on regarding their beliefs.

I take sides with no one. I don't like abortion, at all. No one can change my opinion on it. I'm not going to condone people for not being ok with it, cus I am not ok with it. I will not condone a woman for getting it, tho I won't say my opinion of her as a person is altered, something you also can't change. I am Pro-life, but it's not my choice to make. If it was deemed america is a christian country, then I would argue that it shouldn't be in this country. This is not the case, it's freedom of choice and freedom of religion and freedom of speech. People can argue it as much as they want protest etc and bla bla bla. People also should feel that religion shouldn't be stepped on, religion (things that came from religion?) shouldn't be spat at and modified. This SAME token, no one should feel anyone pushing their views on how they should run their life, and no one should be allowed to tell someone they have to think or do it this way. (lol government you are just a concept that does not work with civil rights, you do all the picking and choosing, worst combo ever). I will just say, if you don't expect some scrutiny for choices from specific groups of people, your being silly since that's just the way it is and probably will be for a very long time.

Edited by Griever, 04 November 2012 - 11:53 PM.

#35 Secret Felix

Secret Felix


  • Knight
  • 823 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:34 AM

As Iggy so adequately put it, the "baby" is just a clump of cells. It cannot think, feel, or speak for itself. It is not a human life. Therefore, you are not "taking a life." You cannot "take" a life if it ("it" being the clump of cells) has not even begun to live.

This argument is asinine at best. A "human" is just clump of cells. That's all. The fact that a developing human can or cannot yet speak, feel, or think has nothing to do with this. It has already begun to live. There is little you can do to argue this point. Humanity is not suddenly endowed upon us after a certain amount of time has past, so attempting to define a point at which it is acceptable to terminate the life of a human, developing or otherwise, is stolid.
Posted Image

#36 Secret Igshar

Secret Igshar

    Pwner of Noobs

  • Monarch
  • 3,796 posts
  • your worst nightmare

User's Awards


Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:21 PM

I think we all (myself included) are not even arguing or discussing the heart of the issue here.

There's no real debate policy-wise of whether or not you "agree" or "disagree" with Abortion. That's your choice. That's what you believe. Not me nor anyone else should tell you what to believe on that.

But the second you start to make "anti-abortion" legislation by trying to make it illegal, you're opening up a can of worms you ought to keep closed. I'll even provide links for you to keep up with my arguments.

Plain and simple, if you consider yourself to be "Pro-Life" (as in, you want abortion to be made illegal in whole or in part), then you need to check yourself and stop being, in the immortal words of Michael Scott, an ignorant slut.

For the purposes of this counterargument, I will assume:
1. Personhood begins at conception.
2. Abortion is murder. No exceptions.

Counterpoint Number One.

Making abortion illegal does not decrease the rate of abortions. Illegalizing abortion merely makes the process more dangerous for women to take. All it does is punish women for being promiscuous, I guess. It's absolutely nothing other than a feeble attempt at controlling the decision made between a woman and her doctor.

The World Health Organization conducted a global study of this fact and came to this conclusion. They compared abortion rates between countries with strict and lenient abortion legislation.No causal link was found between illegalizing abortion and decreasing the rate at which abortions are being sought.

If this comes as a shock to you, think of it this way:

Does an unwanted pregnancy suddenly become wanted because the procedure to end the pregnancy is illegal?

(Spoilers: the answer is no.)

Making abortion illegal will not drive down the abortion rate. It will not save any unborn babies. All it will do is force women into impossible situations where they must pay for a single mistake with unsafe procedures that could cost them their fertility or even their lives. This is a situation no one should want to have happen.

[a little sauce for you]

Counterpoint Number Two.

Easier access to contraception will drive down the number of abortions significantly. Pro-Life people dislike contraception. Why?

When a woman gets pregnant, what happens is an egg is released, fertilized in the fallopian tubes, and it then embeds itself in the uterus lining.

Contraception works by preventing ovulation and/or by preventing or at least restricting sperm from entering the fallopian tubes. The problem is that in some (very rare) cases, there is a case called "Breakthrough Ovulation" (which is a myth, but I'll assume it to be true for the purposes of arguing against it) wherein the woman ovulates, the egg is fertilized, but it is then expelled from the uterus because it could not properly embed itself in the uterus. Thus, this baby was murdered because of the birth control.

Now, if the premise of Pro-Life revolves around preventing the deaths of unborn babies, as I do believe it does and should, you might find this to be completely reasonable. Yes, we should fight against something that could (sometimes, potentially) murder babies! That's not good!

But a rather substantial amount of fertilized eggs are rejected by the mother naturally, anyway. I won't repeat what's stated [here], but suffice it to say that birth control will do naught but decrease the amount of murders. I don't see how or why this should be fought against. And this argument uses the numbers provided by Pro-Life sources, directly.

If that's not enough, I have plenty more to throw at anyone who still identifies as Pro-Life to tell you why you should not support anti-abortion legislation, because it does literally nothing to further the goal of less murdered babies.

The discussion of personhood is irrelevant to the discussion of abortion politics. Stop using it as a fallback. It's embarrassing.

I stole most of my points from [here], and it's a long article which tears down every argument you might be thinking of, so give it a read if I haven't convinced you.

I tried to pull out a couple of key points since the post is long and daunting and I know a lot of people will see how long it is, say tl;dr, and then essentially force me to go and pull her arguments out and paste them here. Because laziness.

Oh, and keep this in mind, too. From that article. Obamacare stands to cut the abortion rate by as much as 75%. Pro-Lifers argue against this because it gives women birth control. Since, you know. Birth control being available to women only makes them want to act in a sinful manner since my beliefs are more important than anyone else's individual values and beliefs.


So go fuck yourself if you want to ban abortion for any reason. Just own up to the fact that you have some sort of deep-seated hatred of female sexuality. That's okay. You can feel that women who have sex are gross and bad, but I'll be damned if I stand by and let you continue to pollute the minds of other people with your erroneous nonsense while parading around and claiming to be Pro-LIFE.


Kingroy: ( 4:40 PM - 02/10/14) u can't own black people

Kingroy: ( 4:40 PM - 02/10/14) #ThanksLincoln

#37 Guest_Griever_*

  • Guests

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:40 PM

My post was more for the conversation that was had last night, and less about this topic tbh >.> Again what a woman does with her body idc I'm prolife, but I have no right to stand between a woman and what she decides to do. I might as well be in the room with her sexual partner and removing the condoms and bla bla bla to make sure she gets pregnant if I was that against it, cus essentially that's what being prolife is, it's being in the bedroom and telling a person how/the way they should have sex. The sperm must always travel inside the vagina, and you are not allowed to spill it no more falacio's no oral, and don't you dare bust one over her body, or in her booty hole. No.

If someone makes their decisions, it's their decisions. As much as the bible is against a LOT of things, it also says we cannot control decisions made. And the first thing we have to recognize is the law, if it's law that abortion is legal, we have to accept it. We accept it, we don't have to be happy about it, but we don't have to carry a scythe and be dressed in a reaper hood either.

#38 Lexaeus



  • Knight
  • 1,713 posts
  • Naturally Hated by All

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:14 PM

One of my roles is to be a man. That role means I need to protect to innocent. If no one else is going to protect those that can't protect themselves, well that's sad. I will try within my limits to protect them. At one point I was a being, a being that was just one giant cell, which formed as was instructed in the inherited DNA given to me by my parents and was blessed with the soul God gave me. When some babies/fetuses/humans are in the womb and are getting aborted, they try to escape the thing that is trying to take their life. They don't want to die. Do they think it or is it just instincts? I don't know. If my brain had developed enough in the womb I wonder if I ever thought something before I was born. Even if I couldn't think it days after my conception, it doesn't mean I would be never be able to think months later, or like I do now. The proof of that is in the DNA. Now not all that receive life get to be born, i.e. stillborns, etc, but there was no doubt that I was indeed going to be born after I entered the world. Why do I get to receive the gift of life and not them? I guess that means I have the responsibility to help them.

People have free will. I respect free will. However, it can be misused. People can steal, cheat, kill, etc. I guess that means I have the responsibility to stop them for hurting others or themselves.

Now luckily the legal system of our society takes care of the criminals so I don't have to and that lets me focus on other things. However, when the president of the United States of America won't defend the innocence, future citizens of the nation, I just don't understand. He's the commander in chief, it's his job to protect us. It feels like a contradiction to me.

[This was spoken with a hint of passion and may contain errors but I felt like saying it.]


“Sorrow can be alleviated by good sleep, a bath and a glass of wine.” - Saint Thomas Aquinas

#39 Midnight



  • Page
  • 177 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:43 PM

My thoughts; <3
Would I get an abortion? No.

But I don't think it's right to take away a woman's right to choose.

I find it kind of hilarious how Conservatives are pro-life and they're all liek; "RAWR! SMALL GOVERNMENT! RAWR! DOWN WITH OBAMACARE! GOVERNMENT TRYIN' TO CONTROL US"

But when it comes to abortion; "Yeah, it should be illegal."
Gay marriage; "Illegal everywhere, bruh."

...Tiny bit off-topic, but whatevs.

#40 Xanius


    The Omega

  • Emperor
  • 3,525 posts
  • Awakening

User's Awards


Posted 11 December 2012 - 04:53 AM

In the news lately there has been a lot of talk about Abortion. Now, I know before I said I was pro-choice but I have to say that I can understand where some pro-life people are coming from. After doing a lot of reading and listening to both sides of the topic, I've come to the conclusion that pro-choice is the best of the two but not just because it's a womans right to choose what to do with her body. It's right because if she gives birth and is a terrible mother, we have another child out there that gets treated terribly. That doesn't get the proper care, the right food to eat, the love it deserves. For that reason alone abortion should be legal. If someone isn't going to be a fit mother then they shouldn't have a kid. Some say you shouldn't have sex and take risks if you dont want a kid. I find that to be bullshit. Sure, if she was doing it without protection she's stupid. She deserves to have something happen to her. But having a child? That shouldn't be a 'punishment' for not havving protected sex. Think of the child that gets born into the world from that. It won't be loved like a planned child would. At least in most cases it wont.

I'm just gonna say that woman should have the choice to abort or not. Not only because it's their body but because they might not be fit to be a mother or have the proper means to care for a child at all.