Poll of the Day > Do you mostly consider yourself to be pro choice or pro life?

(+) Yeah! (+)

My local politician supports brutal late term abortions when the babies can feel pain and makes the tax payers cover it - Catholics

Pro-choice. People are not legally oblicagated to sustain the life of others at their own bodily expense. We don't treat any other similar situation this way; blood and organ donations are not mandatory. Corpses would literally have more autonomy than pregnant people under a State that forces people to carry pregnancies to term.

Most late-term abortions are for non-viable pregnancies, or are, ironically enough, caused by stupid restrictions on abortion services that delay the procedure.

what?

I'm Pro-Death. I support abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and voluntary human extinction.

pro life
abortion is murder

I call it pro-logic, but it's pretty close to this.

You should straight up only have a child if your ready to support it, and even then only 1 per adult (2 per couple, but still just 1 per adult total, so once either adult has 2 children that adult can't have another).

Straight up no need for abortion because everyone should be on birth control and only get pregnant by choice, and once you hit that magic number (2) no more babies.

Pro abortion and for any reason, so long as it's before the baby can survive outside the womb with a high chance at surviving.

That's not pro abortion. That's pro life.

I see a child as the ultimate expression of love. Two bodies joined into one to make a new life full of possibilities and potential. I know this isn't true all the time by a long shot.

That's not pro abortion. That's pro life.

I also try to point out to pro-lifers that 50% of fertilized eggs (which they deem as 'life') don't implant in the uterine wall. Therefore, I hardly see the difference in doing that exact thing (removing a fertilized fetus).

Not really. What he's essentially saying is that you shouldn't be aborting in the third trimester.

Which... is something even most pro-abortion advocates would agree with.

I believe hes saying abortion is fine until closer to the end

For a lot of them, the difference is "God's will". Or even just "Nature's course".

Like it or not, there is still a significant difference between a biological function failing, and actively disrupting an already successful biological function as an outside agent. The real question is whether or not you care.

I wouldn't even label it 'failing', I'd label it an occurrence. I understand your rationale however, they are different.

Abortion does go back into the depths of time though, via many different means, so I wouldn't label it necessarily as 'unnatural' in contrast to the body's own events (implanting the embryo or not).

Keep in mind, I'm all for scooping the little shit out before it's time to start picking names or buying baby shoes. So it's not as if I'm on the pro-life side.

But there IS still a difference between the natural failure rate of the body for healthy conception and development (factoring in things like the body self-aborting unhealthy growth), and actively going in to deliberately wipe out something that would probably survive to term and through birth without your direct medical intervention. With eating natural abortifactants falling somewhere in a grey area in the middle (at least if we can find any good ones the Romans didn't harvest to the point of extinction).

(And for even more nuance, I could even point out that if I was personally inclined to let nature take its course I'd have been dead at age 21 when my gall bladder exploded. Medical science, invasive surgery, and spitting in the eye of God/Fate's will is what kept me alive. So it's not like I'm a proponent of the idea of letting bodily processes solely succeed or fail on their own and let fate or the gods decide the outcome.)

Slavery, military rape, beating homosexuals to death, human sacrifice, and murdering the fuck out of people who annoy you/have things you want/are living somewhere you feel like moving to are also things that go back into the depths of time, though. And plenty of people would suggest those are terrible things as well, and should also be banned by any enlightened and moral society.

The "Appeal to Tradition/Appeal to Antiquity" is a logical fallacy for a reason. Just because things have been done in the past doesn't necessarily mean they should be done in the future.

If anything, most liberal/progressive arguments boil down to "we have to be better than the past". It doesn't matter what people in the past did if we in the present consider what they did wrong. We have a moral obligation to do the right thing as we currently see it.

The real problem is that people today disagree over which part of the issue is the "wrong" we should be fixing.

HEY! Human sacrifice isn't evil! How else are we supposed to forstall the endtimes if our gods don't have their daily diet of blood?

Plus there have seriously been people advocating for utilizing humans as part of the food process. That one I'm being serious about. 'Human composting' being the most common one, but I have definitely heard at least one person argue humans should go Soylant Green/Glagar's Human Rinds on everybody cause 'it's just meat' and 'we'll need it to help with future food shortages'. Suffice to say I think a LOT of people would have problems with that (especially religious people). But yea, while tradition and the respect of it has it's place in society, especially as part of a population's cultural identity, just because something happened in the past and was considered 'okay' at least for a while does not mean it IS right. Especially since you're effectively cherry-picking the cultures in which abortion was considered 'okay' and ignoring the ones that didn't. Plus said cultures where it was also usually had women being far less equal to men than the situation today. If we were to say that abortion is okay because of them, then why should we also reject their notions of gender equality?

abortion happened on equivalent levels in all cultures regardless of whether or not it was considered morally permissible

What's odd to me is that there are references to abortion in Abrahamic texts... teaching people to use abortion as a test to see if a woman is cheating on her husband. :-/

abrahamic man - *holds up fetus*
'what's this then, hmmm???'
abrahamic woman - 'It's a...it's a...miracle??'

I support abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty

abortion happened on equivalent levels in all cultures regardless of whether or not it was considered morally permissible

Yea... Either you're not explaining that well or I'm calling a complete and total BS on that. There's no way it happened the same in Medieval Europe, Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, the various American tribes, China, and so-forth. If you seriously think that a society that would have considered abortion a taboo worthy of going to hell over would have women doing it just as much as one which held no such taboo... I don't know what to say to you. Where are you even getting that notion from?

Yea... Either you're not explaining that well or I'm calling a complete and total BS on that. There's no way it happened the same in Medieval Europe, Ancient Rome, Ancient Egypt, the various American tribes, China, and so-forth. If you seriously think that a society that would have considered abortion a taboo worthy of going to hell over would have women doing it just as much as one which held no such taboo... I don't know what to say to you. Where are you even getting that notion from?

Pro-choice. People are not legally obligated to sustain the life of others at their own bodily expense.