Current Events > Man cries and begs his girlfriend not to do the abortion outside the clinic.

(+) Yeah! (+)

@Gobstoppers12
hockeybub89 posted...

Understanding ain't gonna pay the bills.

Its nice that you have this utopian dream for the world in your head but this point is where your whole argument falls apart, Gob.
---

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

PleaseClap posted...

This really seems like a "we should punish women for having sex" argument

It is.

You'll be hard-pressed to find a pro-lifer that *isn't* a misogynist looking for any excuse to turn women into expendable breeding stock (and that includes the ones posting in the topic).

It's also why a lot of pro-lifers also push back against rape exceptions.
---

PleaseClap posted...

This really seems like a "we should punish women for having sex" argument

It's not. It can only be perceived that way if you believe that natural human reproductive processes are "punishment."

Motherhood isn't for everybody, but creating a new life is a responsibility that shouldn't be minimized.
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Motherhood isn't for everybody

So then we should let those whom motherhood is not for abort their pregnancy.
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

Please, all a man has to do is have hot sex. A woman has to carry it for nine months all while her body gets ravaged inside and out from it the whole time.

I don't care what the man does. I didn't create the human reproductive system. It's not my fault that men can't carry babies on their own.

If men could carry babies abortion wouldn't even be an argument. It'd be a thriving high demand medical field.
---

Shablagoo posted...

Its nice that you have this utopian dream for the world in your head but this point is where your whole argument falls apart, Gob.

I'm also a fan of Trump because he does good things for our economy and unemployment numbers. It's a total package--when there are more jobs available that pay more money, more people can support those without. We can't support the lower income side of society without increasing the number of people on the higher end.

I know we can't force people to work if they have no desire whatsoever to do so, but we can do our best to create opportunities for everybody. Opportunity begins at conception--once your DNA is determined and you begin to grow, you should have the unalienable right to life.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Motherhood isn't for everybody

So then we should let those whom motherhood is not for abort their pregnancy.

...No, no we should not. That's why adoption exists.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Motherhood isn't for everybody

So then we should let those whom motherhood is not for abort their pregnancy.

Yup
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Motherhood isn't for everybody

So then we should let those whom motherhood is not for abort their pregnancy.

...No, no we should not. That's why adoption exists.

because abandoning kids into foster homes where they may never even get a real family experience is surely better than just not adding another expense to the taxpayers.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

because abandoning kids into foster homes where they may never even get a real family experience is surely better than just not adding another expense to the taxpayers.

It's definitely better than fucking killing them, I would say. Adoption isn't perfect, but you can't even make a moral comparison between "putting a kid in a foster home" and "literally killing the kid"
---

Abortion does not kill kids. You should really learn biology.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Motherhood isn't for everybody

So then we should let those whom motherhood is not for abort their pregnancy.

Seems like a very reasonable stance to take
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Motherhood isn't for everybody

So then we should let those whom motherhood is not for abort their pregnancy.

...No, no we should not. That's why adoption exists.

We have a non-zero number of orphans as is. Let's not add hundreds of thousands because we want to legislate a woman's reproductive organs.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

We have a non-zero number of orphans as is. Let's not add hundreds of thousands because we want to legislate a woman's reproductive organs.

We already legislate murder. My argument is that we should extend existing legislation to cover baby murder. We already try a criminal for two murders if he kills a pregnant woman, so...
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Abortion does not kill kids. You should really learn biology.

---

_Matchabuu_ posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Abortion does not kill kids. You should really learn biology.

So your argument is that a fetus/embryo/whatever is not alive?
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Motherhood isn't for everybody

So then we should let those whom motherhood is not for abort their pregnancy.

...No, no we should not. That's why adoption exists.

because abandoning kids into foster homes where they may never even get a real family experience is surely better than just not adding another expense to the taxpayers.

Not to mention our foster system is way over burdened already and way under funded
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

_Matchabuu_ posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Abortion does not kill kids. You should really learn biology.

So your argument is that a fetus/embryo/whatever is not alive?

You also seem to not be able to read either since the only thing I said was that a fetus/embryo was not a kid.
---

Having your mother/grandmother taking care of the baby while you work/go to school is a way better alternative than adoption. I really hate it when pro-lifers use adoption as the magic answer to abortion.

Both sides want to lower the amount of abortions we get, but the only real way to get that is to promote safe sex and safe sex education and not those useless "abstinence" only sex classes. We're humans we make mistakes but ultimately abortion is about bodily autonomy. No one should ever lose the right to their body, I mean you're literally going into Sharia territory if you do.
---

CADE FOSTER posted...

Not to mention our foster system is way over burdened already and way under funded

This just circles back to that age-old abortion pitfall: "I want the baby dead because it would be inconvenient."

That, to me, is a ridiculous line of thinking. The people who fall back on the idea that the kid would be miserable anyway are thinking selfishly. Even an unhappy or hungry child is better off than a dead child, don't you think? Starving kids still eat when given the chance. Homeless kids still seek shelter wherever they can find it.

They want to live. Who are you to remove that choice from them?
---

Tmaster148 posted...

You also seem to not be able to read either since the only thing I said was that a fetus/embryo was not a kid.

Kid, child, offspring, whichever word you want to use, you're killing it when you abort it.
---

So you want children to suffer, because it's better than never existing.
---

Hope he dumps that bitch.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

We have a non-zero number of orphans as is. Let's not add hundreds of thousands because we want to legislate a woman's reproductive organs.

We already legislate murder. My argument is that we should extend existing legislation to cover baby murder. We already try a criminal for two murders if he kills a pregnant woman, so...

That's because we assume the dead woman was choosing to not have an abortion. It really doesn't matter how alive or much of a person a developing fetus might be, only that no one ever has a right to your body against your will. If a fully grown intelligent adult was dependent on your body, you'd be under no obligation to keep up the relationship.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

So you want children to suffer, because it's better than never existing.

I don't want them to suffer. You're the one condemning them to a live of suffering and unhappiness because it justifies your position.

I want them to live. But, to your point, yes...a life filled with pain and minimal pleasure is still superior to never having lived at all.
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

So you want children to suffer, because it's better than never existing.

I don't want them to suffer. You're the one condemning them to a live of suffering and unhappiness because it justifies your position.

I want them to live. But, to your point, yes...a life filled with pain and minimal pleasure is still superior to never having lived at all.

If you never live, then you never feel anything. You never were anything that could suffer or thrive. Again, birth should be a privilege for those conceived by willing and loving parents, not forced on everyone that sexed wrong.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Again, birth should be a privilege for those conceived by willing and loving parents

Holy actual fuck, dude.
---

You literally just said you would prefer children to be unhappy and hungry than a responsible women aborting a child she can't care for.

Really shows how much pro-life care about life when they would much rather subject children to suffering than letting a women make their own decision.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Really shows how much pro-life care about life when they would much rather subject children to suffering than letting a women make their own decision.

I'd rather the child survives long enough to decide how he or she wants to live. Stop immediately assuming that growing up with a sub-par or unwealthy parent is "suffering" as if it's all the child will ever know.
---

I'm not making that assumption when you literally said you would rather have children go hungry than a women abort a pregnancy when they can't care for a child.

I would consider starving to be suffering.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

You literally just said you would prefer children to be unhappy and hungry than a responsible women aborting a child she can't care for.

Really shows how much pro-life care about life when they would much rather subject children to suffering than letting a women make their own decision.

Exactly. Unless Gobstoppers is also fervently for funding the unwanted child, putting massive amounts of funding into creating a better foster care system, etc . he is just virtue signaling
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

No?

What reasons for a break up would you consider bad enough to make someone a shitty person?

Dumping her at the alter because you just fucked her sister and father.

I don't know. Could be a myriad of reasons.

Tmaster148 posted...

Really shows how much pro-life care about life when they would much rather subject children to suffering than letting a women make their own decision.

This is one of the many reasons why I hate the terms pro-life and pro-choice.

Because the people who advocate for women not having control of their own bodies and mass suffering in the world are not pro life, and that's a sizable chunk of people who oppose abortion.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

you would rather have children go hungry than a women abort a pregnancy

Yes, I would rather see a hungry child than a dead child. A hungry child can be fed; a dead child is gone for eternity.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Unless Gobstoppers is also fervently for funding the unwanted child, putting massive amounts of funding into creating a better foster care system, etc . he is just virtue signaling

I disapprove of baby murder. All people should at least have the chance to live long enough to experience their own existence. That's not so much to ask.
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Unless Gobstoppers is also fervently for funding the unwanted child, putting massive amounts of funding into creating a better foster care system, etc . he is just virtue signaling

I disapprove of baby murder. All people should at least have the chance to live long enough to experience their own existence. That's not so much to ask.

It's actually quite a lot to ask

But since you're not the one who suffers or is hindered in anyway by it, you're not aware of that.
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

you would rather have children go hungry than a women abort a pregnancy

Yes, I would rather see a hungry child than a dead child. A hungry child can be fed; a dead child is gone for eternity.

What a heartless soul you must be to be so happy children are going hungry instead of allowing a women to abort.
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Unless Gobstoppers is also fervently for funding the unwanted child, putting massive amounts of funding into creating a better foster care system, etc . he is just virtue signaling

I disapprove of baby murder. All people should at least have the chance to live long enough to experience their own existence. That's not so much to ask.

Tell that to children you are forcing into a broken system or into a life of destitution.

But again, you do not actually care about people. You care about the perception of seemingly like you care about life.

I am pro-abortion, but I also tutor underprivileged students for free. Do I still not care about life?
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

you would rather have children go hungry than a women abort a pregnancy

Yes, I would rather see a hungry child than a dead child. A hungry child can be fed; a dead child is gone for eternity.

A fetus will never know hunger if it is aborted before it develops a stomach or human feelings.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

What a heartless soul you must be to be so happy children are going hungry instead of allowing a women to abort.

I'm not happy because the children are hungry. I'm happy because they're alive. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to twist my position into some evil desire to make people suffer. That's not even remotely close to the thinnest hair on the lowest part of the smallest corner of the truth.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Tell that to children you are forcing into a broken system or into a life of destitution.

Kids don't normally go around telling people "I wanna die I hate being alive I wish you had killed me", even if they're hungry.
---

So you are happy children are starving instead of being aborted and you would rather see starving children than responsible women.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

you would rather see starving children than responsible women.

No, I would rather see responsible women who don't kill their children. Those women are generally referred to as "mothers."
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

you would rather see starving children than responsible women.

No, I would rather see responsible women who don't kill their children. Those women are generally referred to as "mothers."

But motherhood isn't for everyone
---

Again abortion does not kill kids.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Again abortion does not kill kids.

It kills a human being.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Dumping her at the alter because you just fucked her sister and father.

I don't know. Could be a myriad of reasons.

So then I'll ask my original question again, do you think a man dumping a woman because she got an abortion makes him a shitty person?
---

PleaseClap posted...

But motherhood isn't for everyone

I'd rather see motherhood embraced by more people.
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

PleaseClap posted...

But motherhood isn't for everyone

I'd rather see motherhood embraced by more people.

Forced upon them, more like
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Again abortion does not kill kids.

It kills a human being.

They aren't a human being until they are born.
---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

you would rather see starving children than responsible women.

No, I would rather see responsible women who don't kill their children. Those women are generally referred to as "mothers."

You're responding to strawman arguments.