Current Events > Why are you pro-abortion?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Calwings posted...

I agree that abortion should never be the first option. Contraceptives and better sex education would be helpful, and putting the kid up for adoption should take priority if it's economically feasible. But in situations where a pregnancy has already begun and having an abortion is the best option for the mother's physical/mental health and the family's livelihood and economic stability, it should be an option available for women to take.

Exactly. Children are supposed to be a gift, not a lesson. "But at least they're alive" means nothing when they would have never been in the first place.
---

Typhon posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Typhon posted...

I also think if you abort a healthy fetus that was the result of consensual unprotected sex, you're a shit tier person.

Why do you think someone would do this?

Seems like a lot of bullshit to put yourself through.

Why would someone abort a healthy fetus that was the result of consensual unprotected sex?

I'm not a mind reader, but the only reasons I could come up with all lead back to them being a shit tier person, in my opinion.

That seems pretty callous.

Pregnancy takes an average of 40 weeks.

A lot can change in 40 weeks.

Let's say you have a woman that was deliberately trying to get pregnant. Then 20 weeks later....

The father dies or leaves her
She loses her job
Loses her house to natural disaster or parents throw her out
Is diagnosed with cancer
Been unemployed for past 3 years and suddenly got a dream job offer
Family illness and needs a lot of financial assistance
Has to suddenly leave due to abusive cousin trying to kill her
Landlord refuses to renew contract because he's trying to sell the building.

How do you feel about any of that?
---

ImmatureContent posted...

Life has no inherent value. A fetus is no more aware of its existence than a tree or bacteria. It doesn't care if you abort it. The reason murder is wrong is because you are taking life away from someone that is aware of their existence. They actually care about living and you don't have the right to take that away. An unborn fetus has no concept of being alive or anything else. Misguided people project their own emotions onto the fetus. That is why they care. Or they believe in mythical concepts like souls.

We can close the topic now theres nothing left to debate

I would hope no one ever needed to get an abortion. But im pro-choice bc its not my body so why should i or anyone else have a say in what is done to it.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Machete posted...

Lmao at Dilkington using "u SaY LoGiCaL pHaLLuSiEs" as an argument here. How ridiculous...

Pointing out a logical fallacy is the opposite of ridiculous. Sorry, but I'm here for a real discussion, not to be called names or to have strawmen shoved into my face. You used multiple in your post alone, so I really wouldn't talk about what's "ridiculous".

No. Literally zero credible people will agree with any of this nonsense.

There was no fallacy to point out.

You are not here for a real discussion.

I didn't call you names. You know exactly what the reference is because you know that both of us are fans of Karl Pilkington.

Your face has nothing to do with anything and no no strawmen have even been figuratively "shoved in it."

All that being said, I didn't use any of whatever. Once again, you are being ridiculous. In before someone says "don't try to seriously engage in discussion with karlpilkington4" which would be both a logical and illogical thing for someone to say to me because I am seriously engaging but you aren't and therefore I have no inherent pretense to do so even if I choose to.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Let's say you have a woman that was deliberately trying to get pregnant. Then 20 weeks later....

The father dies or leaves her
She loses her job
Loses her house to natural disaster or parents throw her out
Is diagnosed with cancer
Been unemployed for past 3 years and suddenly got a dream job offer
Family illness and needs a lot of financial assistance
Has to suddenly leave due to abusive cousin trying to kill her
Landlord refuses to renew contract because he's trying to sell the building.

The full answers to these are longer than I feel like typing so I'll do my best to keep it short. Most of these are situations you should consider before having consensual unprotected sex.

---

People die and relationships end every day. If a person is unwilling to raise a child as a single parent, they should use protection, or be willing to use the adoption system.

Government assistance or adoption.

Government assistance or adoption.

Government assistance or adoption.

Don't have consensual unprotected sex unless willing to give up dream job, or be willing to pay for childcare, or be willing to use the adoption system.

Government assistance or adoption.

Government assistance or adoption. Also, don't have consensual unprotected sex while living with an abusive person.

Government assistance or adoption.

---

Or, in any of these situations, have an abortion. I will support their right to do so. I just think it makes them shit tier people for not considering these situations and having a plan for them before willingly taking on the incredible risk and responsibility of creating a new life.

This post could have been much longer and more detailed but I'm tired. Hopefully it's enough for you to understand my opinions, even if you think they make me a shit tier person.

Typhon posted...

Or, in any of these situations, have an abortion. I will support their right to do so. I just think it makes them shit tier people for not considering these situations and having a plan for them before willingly taking on the incredible risk and responsibility of creating a new life.

This post could have been much longer and more detailed but I'm tired. Hopefully it's enough for you to understand my opinions, even if you think they make me a shit tier person.

What I don't understand is how you're rambling on about responsibility but your answer to every scenario I proposed is "make it someone else's responsibility"

What the fuck do you think government assistance or adoption is? Magical fairy dust?

Also how is "government assistance or adoption" supposed to help with cancer?
---

Typhon posted...

Or, in any of these situations, have an abortion. I will support their right to do so. I just think it makes them shit tier people for not considering these situations and having a plan for them before willingly taking on the incredible risk and responsibility of creating a new life.

This post could have been much longer and more detailed but I'm tired. Hopefully it's enough for you to understand my opinions, even if you think they make me a shit tier person.

I don't think that about you. I understand where you're coming from. Though I think using the term "shit-tier" to describe such people seems a little bit harsh, it's a perfectly reasonable opinion to dislike the idea of people having abortions in these situations but still support the right/option to have them.
---

So, pro-abortion people. What are your opinions on a mother who does willingly continue her pregnancy and wants to give birth to the child, but during her pregnancy she drinks, smokes, and does heroin and other drugs etc? When the child comes out with all sorts of diseases and deformities, is that perfectly acceptable because its just the body autonomy of the mother?
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

rambling on about responsibility

I used the word once. Starting to think I'm being trolled.

I think that if you have consensual unprotected sex and it results in the creation of a healthy fetus, the fetus (and resulting child) is now your responsibility.

I believe that responsibility ends when 1) someone else willingly accepts it (adoption), or 2) you raise it to adulthood - with or without government assistance.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Also how is "government assistance or adoption" supposed to help with cancer?

I assumed you meant that because of the cancer they would be too tired, weak, poor, etc to raise a child, in which case government assistance or adoption will help the child.

Did you mean the fetus has cancer? That's not a healthy fetus.

Rika_Furude posted...

So, pro-abortion people. What are your opinions on a mother who does willingly continue her pregnancy and wants to give birth to the child, but during her pregnancy she drinks, smokes, and does heroin and other drugs etc? When the child comes out with all sorts of diseases and deformities, is that perfectly acceptable because its just the body autonomy of the mother?

Yeah sure. Choice means choice. It does not mean choice as long as you make the same decisions I would make.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

So, pro-abortion people. What are your opinions on a mother who does willingly continue her pregnancy and wants to give birth to the child, but during her pregnancy she drinks, smokes, and does heroin and other drugs etc? When the child comes out with all sorts of diseases and deformities, is that perfectly acceptable because its just the body autonomy of the mother?

Yeah sure. Choice means choice. It does not mean choice as long as you make the same decisions I would make.

Pretty much. I wouldn't agree at all with the choice of bringing the baby into the world under such dangerous conditions, but I'd support the right for the mother to do so if that is what she chooses.
---

Typhon posted...

I assumed you meant that because of the cancer they would be too tired, weak, poor, etc to raise a child, in which case government assistance or adoption will help the child.

Did you mean the fetus has cancer? That's not a healthy fetus.

No. The mother has cancer and is going to fucking die if left untreated.

Typhon posted...

1) someone else willingly accepts it (adoption)

You understand that no one willingly accepts this sort of thing just because you're giving it up. It's paperwork that you sign and the baby is carted off to a nursery where it goes on display like puppies in a pound. If the child is lucky they will find parents who accept him or her

Otherwise they become rent a kids aka Foster Child Care.

You've got a really sheltered view of adoption. It doesn't work like it does in Pixar movies.
---

So its ok to willingly give a child lifelong mental and physical defects?

Is it then ok for an anti-vax parent to refuse vaccinations for their child?
---

Calwings posted...

Though I think using the term "shit-tier" to describe such people seems a little bit harsh

It probably is pretty harsh. I'm just giving my honest opinions here, though. I'm sorry if they have offended anyone, but they won't change because of that.

Cause idgaf about a unborn baby. And if she dgaf about it she should just abort it over having a child she doesnt want. Honestly I dont care about abortion more than any other form of birth control. It's way more expensive and taxing though so I wouldnt reccomend doing it regularly
---

Rika_Furude posted...

So its ok to willingly give a child lifelong mental and physical defects?

Is it then ok for an anti-vax parent to refuse vaccinations for their child?

What do you want us too do. Band woman from smoking and drinking wje. They're pregnant. I'm not got controlling people's lives even if they're making dumb decisions
---

Rika_Furude posted...

So its ok to willingly give a child lifelong mental and physical defects?

You're not giving anything to a child. You're creating a situation that increases risk for the fetus.

Is it then ok for an anti-vax parent to refuse vaccinations for their child?

Nope but you don't vaccinate fetuses so I don't understand what that has to do with abortion.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

So its ok to willingly give a child lifelong mental and physical defects?

You're not giving anything to a child. You're creating a situation that increases risk for the fetus.

Is it then ok for an anti-vax parent to refuse vaccinations for their child?

Nope but you don't vaccinate fetuses so I don't understand what that has to do with abortion.

Thats not how any of this works. Nothing is happening that causes a percentage increase of something else happening. Smoking damages the child from ciggarette #1. At what point does the child gain rights to its own body?
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

No. The mother has cancer and is going to fucking die if left untreated.

As in, remaining pregnant would prevent the mother getting treatment?

That is a situation I forgot to include. If the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother, abortion is the right choice, in my opinion.

Tyranthraxus posted...

You understand that no one willingly accepts this sort of thing just because you're giving it up. It's paperwork that you sign and the baby is carted off to a nursery where it goes on display like puppies in a pound. If the child is lucky they will find parents who accept him or her

The adoption system accepts the responsibility. Also, my mother adopted a child, who went directly from his parent's house to our house, so you're wrong there.

Strawman.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Thats not how any of this works. Nothing is happening that causes a percentage increase of something else happening. Smoking damages the child from ciggarette #1.

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/substance-abuse/substance-abuse-during-pregnancy.htm#tobacco

Like, smoking during pregnancy is an obvious no no, but its because of increased risk of fetal complications.
---

Ive always been pro abortion. It can be a quick and easy solution to a difficult problem. Having personally dealt with the situation, i can say it is a powerful tool to prevent fragile living situations from going nuclear.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

So its ok to willingly give a child lifelong mental and physical defects?

Is it then ok for an anti-vax parent to refuse vaccinations for their child?

One of those choices only has direct negative consequences for the child and the mother, while the other can potentially have direct negative consequences for other families who weren't involved in the choice by spreading preventable diseases around. As a parent, you have the right to choose what happens to your body and your child. but you do not have the right to choose what happens to another person and their child.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

Thats not how any of this works. Nothing is happening that causes a percentage increase of something else happening. Smoking damages the child from ciggarette #1

Nah. There's lots of mothers who smoked or did even worse drugs and the baby came out fine. Alcohol is actually far more dangerous to a developing fetus than smoking is.

Rika_Furude posted...

At what point does the child gain rights to its own body?

After birth.

But they don't get the right to refuse vaccinations except for medical exemptions.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

So its ok to willingly give a child lifelong mental and physical defects?

Is it then ok for an anti-vax parent to refuse vaccinations for their child?

You do know that vaccines are really more for everyone else, right? Spreading disease kind of violates everyone's bodily autonomy.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

So its ok to willingly give a child lifelong mental and physical defects?

Is it then ok for an anti-vax parent to refuse vaccinations for their child?

You do know that vaccines are really more for everyone else, right? Spreading disease kind of violates everyone's bodily autonomy.

But the childs bodily autonomy doesnt matter even slightly in the eyes of the pro-abortion crowd. When a mother drinks during pregnancy, thats having a negative effect on the childs body. A pregnant mother drinking does not affect only the mother.
---

Rika_Furude posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

So its ok to willingly give a child lifelong mental and physical defects?

Is it then ok for an anti-vax parent to refuse vaccinations for their child?

You do know that vaccines are really more for everyone else, right? Spreading disease kind of violates everyone's bodily autonomy.

But the childs bodily autonomy doesnt matter even slightly in the eyes of the pro-abortion crowd. When a mother drinks during pregnancy, thats having a negative effect on the childs body. A pregnant mother drinking does not affect only the mother.

The child doesn't have autonomy.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

So its ok to willingly give a child lifelong mental and physical defects?

Is it then ok for an anti-vax parent to refuse vaccinations for their child?

You do know that vaccines are really more for everyone else, right? Spreading disease kind of violates everyone's bodily autonomy.

But the childs bodily autonomy doesnt matter even slightly in the eyes of the pro-abortion crowd. When a mother drinks during pregnancy, thats having a negative effect on the childs body. A pregnant mother drinking does not affect only the mother.

The child doesn't have autonomy.

Yeah idk why people say that dumb shit.

I've said it in other topics, but viability is key to the whole issue. Not some arbitrary point where someone has defined "where life begins". If the fetus is viable, you can't get an abortion unless the mother's health is at risk. If it's not, then the choice to go through with the pregnancy is the mother's.
---

CyricZ posted...

I've said it in other topics, but viability is key to the whole issue. Not some arbitrary point where someone has defined "where life begins". If the fetus is viable, you can't get an abortion unless the mother's health is at risk. If it's not, then the choice to go through with the pregnancy is the mother's.

Saying something over and over doesn't suddenly make it true.

The fetus will turn into a full fledged human if left alone. It's literally killing a living being, and making up excuses as to why its ok.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Saying something over and over doesn't suddenly make it true.

It is literally how Roe v. Wade was constructed. It is true both from a legal and a scientific standpoint. Start there rather than claiming some knowledge about "where life begins".

karlpilkington4 posted...

The fetus will turn into a full fledged human if left alone

Another lie.

It's not being left alone. The mother's body is actively working to nourish and develop it. You cannot take a fetus out of the body and put it in a box and expect it to develop into an infant unless it is already viable.
---

CyricZ posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Saying something over and over doesn't suddenly make it true.

It is literally how Roe v. Wade was constructed. It is true both from a legal and a scientific standpoint. Start there rather than claiming some knowledge about "where life begins".

karlpilkington4 posted...

The fetus will turn into a full fledged human if left alone

Another lie.

It's not being left alone. The mother's body is actively working to nourish and develop it. You cannot take a fetus out of the body and put it in a box and expect it to develop into an infant unless it is already viable.

You're knowingly killing a life by taking it out of the womb. The 99% women created that life through their voluntary actions. They need to deal with that in a way that doesnt kill a literal living thing.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

You're knowingly killing a life by taking it out of the womb

I never said otherwise. I'm not in the "clump of cells" or "parasite" camp. Abortion is ending, at the very least, a potential life, and I don't dispute this.

Of course, menstruation is also ending a potential life.
---

Whats wrong with killing living things? Sometimes that is called hunting.
---

CyricZ posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

You're knowingly killing a life by taking it out of the womb

I'm not in the "clump of cells" or "parasite" camp. Abortion is ending, at the very least, a potential life, and I don't dispute this.

Of course, menstruation is also ending a potential life.

A period is not a fetus. Idk why you think that is a good argument.
---

davyheinz posted...

Whats wrong with killing living things? Sometimes that is called hunting.

Im talking about human life. Wanna kill spiders? Go ahead. Im team people.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

CyricZ posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

You're knowingly killing a life by taking it out of the womb

I'm not in the "clump of cells" or "parasite" camp. Abortion is ending, at the very least, a potential life, and I don't dispute this.

Of course, menstruation is also ending a potential life.

A period is not a fetus. Idk why you think that is a good argument.

If you suggest a fetus is a living baby, then who are you to tell me an egg is not also alive?
---

Imagine hating spiders more than hating people
---

CyricZ posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

CyricZ posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

You're knowingly killing a life by taking it out of the womb

I'm not in the "clump of cells" or "parasite" camp. Abortion is ending, at the very least, a potential life, and I don't dispute this.

Of course, menstruation is also ending a potential life.

A period is not a fetus. Idk why you think that is a good argument.

If you suggest a fetus is a living baby, then who are you to tell me an egg is not also alive?

Youre being deliberately obtuse. An egg by itself has no way of becoming a human, and a period is a natural human process of biology. A fetus will literally turn into a full functioning baby, but is being killed simply because some people are irresponsible.
---

davyheinz posted...

Whats wrong with killing living things? Sometimes that is called hunting.

Hunting, in its truest form, gives the animal a chance to survive and get away from the hunter. Hunting, in that watered down pay $500 to shoot a fenced in animal bullshit sense, equates to that weak ass analogy you just made. Hint:No one likes or condones the latter.
---

Seems like somebody doesnt know what hunting is. Yikes.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Youre being deliberately obtuse. An egg by itself has no way of becoming a human, and a period is a natural human process of biology. A fetus will literally turn into a full functioning baby, but is being killed simply because some people are irresponsible.

A fetus by itself will not turn into a full functioning baby. It requires the mother to nourish.

Now who's being deliberately obtuse.

Your whole argument hinges on you defining where life begins. Tell me where you believe life begins and why.
---

davyheinz posted...

Seems like somebody doesnt know what hunting is. Yikes.

One up a dumb post with another dumb post...youre winning today, son.
---

Women alone can't create life yet they are the ones being forced to give up 9 months of their lives to do so.

It's only fair they can chose to end the process.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Women alone can't create life yet they are the ones being forced to give up 9 months of their lives to do so.

It's only fair they can chose to end the process.

They have no right to end the life of another that they voluntarily created
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Women alone can't create life yet they are the ones being forced to give up 9 months of their lives to do so.

It's only fair they can chose to end the process.

They have no right to end the life of another that they voluntarily created

This is your opinion. This is neither fact nor law in this context.

Also you haven't defined when life starts yet.
---

karlpilkington4 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Women alone can't create life yet they are the ones being forced to give up 9 months of their lives to do so.

It's only fair they can chose to end the process.

They have no right to end the life of another that they voluntarily created

Not necessarily. Women only hold the eggs. A man has to shoot his fluid inside the women. There's very little a women has to do to get pregnant and is all up to chance based on whether or not their body is current ready to fertilize the egg.

If women could shut off their innate bodily functions at will there would be no need for abortion. But they can't so there is a need.
---

CyricZ posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Women alone can't create life yet they are the ones being forced to give up 9 months of their lives to do so.

It's only fair they can chose to end the process.

They have no right to end the life of another that they voluntarily created

This is your opinion. This is neither fact nor law in this context.

Also you haven't defined when life starts yet.

Obviously it's an opinion, and certain states are slowly starting to agree with that opinion.

I'm not defining life, because its irrelevant to my actual point, which has been quite clear. A fetus will turn into a baby. The mother should not be able to kill it. An egg will not turn into a baby. Sperm will not turn into a baby. A fetus will.

Its really simple to understand.
---