Pro-life or pro-choice?

[Bioture]

Personally I would never have an abortion. Though I have to admit there are women who have abortion because they are selfish, there are also women who have abortion because they trully concerned with the quality of life their unborn child would have.

Baby humans are not like baby lizards, they can not hit ground running. To bring a child to this world, parents need to provide more than just food and shelter. To properly raise a child, you need to also spend time with them, care for them, love them, provide them with education and basic life skills. If you can not provide this for at least 18 years after the birth of a child (assume it is an healthy child with no genetic disorder to start with), in my opinion, you should not have that child at all.

By not allowing an abortion, you might just bring misery to both the mother and the child.

I think that is a very selfish and narcissistic view of a child - period. How are "you" bringing misery to anything? Yes a child takes work. And someone took the time to work on you, right? Quite frankly, I never once touched whether or not we should "allow" abortion, because that is where the mess is. Who are you to allow an individual the right to choose?

As for properly raising a child, here's a giant fucking clue to all the idiot broads and chumps out there that can't support one: stop FUCKING EACH OTHER. Sex gets you pregnant. Children are a commitment. They cost money! They need things! But guess what - they don't just happen as if you stumbled into a trap or something. I didn't wake up this morning and "oh shit my wife is pregnant!"

Do you really think that 90% of abortions are all incest and rape? No, it's the other way around. People have irresponsible sex, then want to get away from the responsibility of having a child by killing it. How is this not a human rights issue? I work at the department of justice. Every year, they have a protest on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade right outside my office. This past Wednesday, they made a wonderful mess of things.

How about this: Educate yourself. Stop thinking that children are an inconvenience, because they're not. Stop believing that just because you have the right to an abortion, that you can act irresponsibly. Start thinking about how we can make the adoption process better - especially in the United States. Did you know it's easier to adopt overseas than it is to adopt stateside? How can we better the use of contraceptives, and better the education of our general populous? These are things we have to tackle. Not whether or not Roe v. Wade has any bearing on whether or not a fetus is a person. It has the potential to be, and that's enough to make it a serious human rights issue.

I'm done feeding the troll now.

[T3l Ca7]

I think abortion is a violation of human rights. I'm actually a little surprised that most progressives are so adamantly pro-abortion, as I think it's actually the next human rights hurdle that needs to be overcome. In Roman times, infantacide was common, because children were perceived to be property of their parents, without rights for themselves. Now, we recognize the personhood of children, and killing children is universally accepted as morally wrong. Two hundred years ago, slaves were considered as the property of their owners, and had no human rights. Killing a slave was merely just destroying something that you owned. Now, it's nearly universally accepted that those slaves were persons, and deserved their own human rights.

Which brings us to today. I understand the argument that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body and I agree with it, so long as it does not infringe on the basic human right of life of someone else. I know that all (if not most) pro-choice people out there do not consider a fetus as a human life, deserving of human rights (if so, I don't think you would be pro-choice!). However, 200 years ago, slave owners viewed slaves as sub-human, as did parents to children even longer before that. Slave owners would have objected that they should have the right to do what they wanted to their property.

Yes, I understand that infantacide, slavery, and abortion are all different issues, with different societal implications and cultural nuances. However, the point is that we see in history that society has progressed to recognize various "peoples/groups" to be persons deserving of human rights, and I think/hope that the same will be true for unborn babies. These changes come not only with legislation, but with a general shift in thinking. It goes much deeper than just politics to general worldview. Progressives have led us in the fight for human rights in so many different areas, and it is a little surprising to me (and a little sad) that for the most part, they aren't also fighting for human rights in the realm of abortion.

Personally I would never have an abortion. Though I have to admit there are women who have abortion because they are selfish, there are also women who have abortion because they trully concerned with the quality of life their unborn child would have.

Baby humans are not like baby lizards, they can not hit ground running. To bring a child to this world, parents need to provide more than just food and shelter. To properly raise a child, you need to also spend time with them, care for them, love them, provide them with education and basic life skills. If you can not provide this for at least 18 years after the birth of a child (assume it is an healthy child with no genetic disorder to start with), in my opinion, you should not have that child at all.

By not allowing an abortion, you might just bring misery to both the mother and the child.

[gran guerrero]

And I hate the argument that most religion ppl say that it's God's will.

Fuck you, like you know what God wants. Did you speak to God? Did God tell you personally?

What if it was God's will to create the idea of abortions? Perhaps it was God's will to make killing babies easier than going through infanticide, fuck I'm sure the people back then said killing their babies was God's will.

If all of life is God's will, then everything that is GOOD and BAD is GOD'S WILL. Fucking people want to sugarcoat God like God is all loving, you fucking Christians like to ignore your Old Testament like it never happened.

LETS BLAME THE DEVIL! Fuck you.

The Devil was God's creation, and it's God's will that the devil exists. If it was God's will to not have a fucking Devil, there'd be no fucking Devil.

God loves you, and hates you because people make it out to be that way. Let God's will tell you what God's will is, not some fucking person.

Good luck ever finding that out, because you will never know God unless you probably die. Perhaps it was God's will to bring back those babies to wherever death leads you too because God didn't want those babies living in this hell hole of a planet filled with fucking idiots.

[gran guerrero]

Infanticide is where they killed a baby after it was born

Abortion is where they killed an embryo from becoming a baby before birth

apple and oranges

likewise, no mother should have an abortion in the third trimester

you can argue for the second trimester

but fighting for the first trimester is stupid, miscarriages happens more often than not in this stage that can be harmful to the mothers.

More likely than not if a woman wants an abortion it should be decided in the first trimester, waiting any longer than that shows that the mother doesn't want to give up her baby but if she ends up doing it too late then she's no better than a baby killer

[Bioture]

I am going to add some substance to this bullshit. I may have wasted my time, but here goes. As a preface, I am a Christian and consider myself a libertarian.

I think abortion is a violation of human rights. I'm actually a little surprised that most progressives are so adamantly pro-abortion, as I think it's actually the next human rights hurdle that needs to be overcome. In Roman times, infantacide was common, because children were perceived to be property of their parents, without rights for themselves. Now, we recognize the personhood of children, and killing children is universally accepted as morally wrong. Two hundred years ago, slaves were considered as the property of their owners, and had no human rights. Killing a slave was merely just destroying something that you owned. Now, it's nearly universally accepted that those slaves were persons, and deserved their own human rights.

Which brings us to today. I understand the argument that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body and I agree with it, so long as it does not infringe on the basic human right of life of someone else. I know that all (if not most) pro-choice people out there do not consider a fetus as a human life, deserving of human rights (if so, I don't think you would be pro-choice!). However, 200 years ago, slave owners viewed slaves as sub-human, as did parents to children even longer before that. Slave owners would have objected that they should have the right to do what they wanted to their property.

Yes, I understand that infantacide, slavery, and abortion are all different issues, with different societal implications and cultural nuances. However, the point is that we see in history that society has progressed to recognize various "peoples/groups" to be persons deserving of human rights, and I think/hope that the same will be true for unborn babies. These changes come not only with legislation, but with a general shift in thinking. It goes much deeper than just politics to general worldview. Progressives have led us in the fight for human rights in so many different areas, and it is a little surprising to me (and a little sad) that for the most part, they aren't also fighting for human rights in the realm of abortion.

[Supreme]

The main problem, besides the power imbalance, is that it creates sub-par genetics

[Epinephrine]

I'm pro life. There shouldn't be a death penalty. Since I don't believe that a person is a person until they are born, abortions are not a problem for me as they don't count.

As for incest, the problem is that incest creates certain severe power imbalances which is one reason why it's frowned upon. Imagine if a father sexually abuses his child, but then says 'well it was a consensual relationship!'. Where I live, you can consent at 14, so it's actually a real problem. Furthermore, you can have siblings or even older parents/older children (>18) 'blackmailing' each other for sex and so on. By clearly stating that 'it's wrong', then you get that out of the way. Perhaps there can be certain exceptional cases where it's probably morally okay (i.e. last 2 people alive, need to do something with your time and you're both adults), but those are few and far between.

That said I'm sure there were ancient societies where this was accepted. Especially in the 'upper classes', where you're only allowed to marry certain people of certain linages. I'm sure just as first cousin marriage was allowed, there's been countless sibling examples too.

[Celestial Jeddak]

For the genetic disorder stuff, lets say in theory, this brother-sister couple (age difference of 2 years) stated they were not going to have any kids, and protected sex, if they had it. Then all that is left is society's point of view of incest as a "social taboo" and if their point of view has no foundation (as the genetic disorder thing does not play since this couple is not having kids) is it still reasonable to consider it a social taboo?

As for taking advantage of younger ones, the whole philisophy is adults who are of age and consenting should be able to love who they want, so this would be a problem to deal with after, if it did start occuring. I dont think its fair to put a ban on something like this for "potential" problems that may arise.

I feel you have to be either,
Ok with gay marriage and incest
or not ok with gay marriage and incest

I feel there are toooo many people in the "I'm ok with gay marriage, but incest thats messed up!" category. Both are social taboos why is one accepted now and not the other.

DoTheFandango said, more concisely and clearly than I would have (sigh), what I mostly think about incest. As far as what you're saying, I've had those thoughts/problem too. Ok with gay marriage but nothing else.. probably because the media feeds everyone opinions to adopt.

It might be that a proper study on the psychology or whatever concerning the affects and origins of love, sex, and incest. Well, I'm just keeping this really short. But that's what I think.

Who knows. Maybe if incest is ok then having sex with your kids will be ok. Something along those lines. Wouldn't want to damage the economy though..

[Celestial Jeddak]

is because of doubling recessive genetic possibilities

This is what the 'genetic disorders' really are. I just call it bullshit..

[T3l Ca7]

Tel-cat what do you think about incest?

Ok, if I say I support gay marriage and against murder, then incest comes somewhere in between.

I heard of openly gay, fat and proud ... maybe even public cross dressers. But I have never heard of openly incest and proud? I am sure if you do it behind your closed doors, I will just try to not know about it. In other words, it is your choice if you want to do it, but I don't think you will have many supporters.

P.S. hump your young single, hot step-sister is totally fine IMO ... as long as your are not closely biologically related.

[DoTheFandango]

But why the fuck are we talking about incest when we can be talking about delicious, delicious abortions. How many have you guys paid for? What was your favorite part? Mine was keeping the car warm and listening to Paul Simon's "Graceland" while the lady toyed around and did what she had to do. Such a great album.

[DoTheFandango]

I don't think the two are mutually inclusive at all. One is the act of strangers that meet and have a mutual relationship. There's a definite differences in two marginally related adults (which I believe what you are referring to) having an adult relationship and a relationship that is created out of the sickness of an adult indoctrinating his family with beliefs of inbreeding. There are too many volatile emotions involved with the idea of consent when it comes to family lines. You can't "worry about this later" when it is a prevalent wrench in your thought process.

[Spock!]

Since being gay came up:

I think it is a sickly thing that goes against human instinct. But just because I disagree with their lifestyle doesn't mean that I treat them any different from any other human. They are making a choice that doesn't harm any others, unlike abortion.

I think they should be able to get married, or legal unions whatever, because I don't think the government has the right to interfere with people private lives.

I am just so sick of all the gay promoting in the media, gosh. We all acknowledge that they exist, now stop shoving it in our faces.

[Spock!]

Once seed meets egg, its a human life form. Killing a helpless young human is a heinous crime against humanity. (Just use a damn condom.) Even in the case of rape I don't believe in it, you would just be committing a worse crime than the one committed against you. They will say "My body, my choice" or some bullshit like that, but what about that poor little person inside you? He/she doesn't get a choice and should have at the very minimum the right to come into existence.

Amen.

[Downfall]

Genetic disorder bullshit is not bullshit. It's not as high as everyone claims (I think in reality it's a 5-10% increase in the possibility of physical deformation/psychological disorder) but this is because of doubling recessive genetic possibilities, and you can go ahead and look it up yourself. But more realistically, it's the largest and most widely accepted social taboo. The reason of this is in part due to the strong and deep emotional ties one has with a family. Those can be manipulated and preyed upon to cause harm to younger members of a family that could cause them to feel obligation to feed those that wish to take advantage of them. As with homosexuality, there is a discussion on the actual legality of banning such a relationship, but allowing it allows for much more harm than good.

For the genetic disorder stuff, lets say in theory, this brother-sister couple (age difference of 2 years) stated they were not going to have any kids, and protected sex, if they had it. Then all that is left is society's point of view of incest as a "social taboo" and if their point of view has no foundation (as the genetic disorder thing does not play since this couple is not having kids) is it still reasonable to consider it a social taboo?

As for taking advantage of younger ones, the whole philisophy is adults who are of age and consenting should be able to love who they want, so this would be a problem to deal with after, if it did start occuring. I dont think its fair to put a ban on something like this for "potential" problems that may arise.

I feel you have to be either,
Ok with gay marriage and incest
or not ok with gay marriage and incest

I feel there are toooo many people in the "I'm ok with gay marriage, but incest thats messed up!" category. Both are social taboos why is one accepted now and not the other.