# Reproductive Health Equity Act



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 18, 2017)

Not too long ago, the state of Oregon just enforced this abortion law. According to the Reproductive Health Equity Act, abortions are now free in Oregon, even when Americans still pay for their healthcare. But what's even crazier is that taxpayers have to pay for others abortions in Oregon. It also says that nobody should be denied abortions, regardless of income, citizenship status, or gender identity. That's right, citizenship status. It's legal for all reasons at any time too.

http://abcnews.com/Health/wireStory/oregon-governor-expands-abortion-reproductive-coverage-49236536

I know people who are pro-choice thinks abortion should be legal with little to no restrictions, but one thing I don't know is how much of the pro-choice population actually thinks abortions should be free, even to undocumented immigrants. So I'm here to ask for your opinions on this law. Even if you are pro-choice, do you support this law Oregon just passed, or are you not that extreme?

I'm just giving my opinion right here, and not going to repeat it. I am pro-life, and regardless of what form of healthcare you're getting, you still have to pay for your own, with or without the help of your insurance. And if you want healthcare in America, you have to be a citizen here, unless if you're traveling abroad just to get healthcare. So my answer to the poll question is no.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 18, 2017)

healthcare is a human right, abortion is a human right anyone should be able to get the healthcare they need no matter what their financial situation is.

that being said more states need it, that way the strain on oregon won't be as bad


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

Well....I don't support it. My family is against abortion because it's literally killing a human, but in cases that it's an emergency (like you got kidnapped) then I think this is okay. But immigrants? I dont think it's fair, since you said citizens who pay taxes have to pay for healthcare, and this is basically letting non-citizens get free healthcare.
I don't think it should be free to anyone. Most abortions is because of "accidents" that could of been easily prevented, and bad woman will probably abuse this. I don't like that, plus immigrants who can't do abortion can use this as their little ticket to it, and again abusing it, without even paying a bit. I think they should of thought over this more, at least make it not free!

And really, what happened to all this "Donald trump banning abortion" stuff? (I'm Canadian where all healthcare is free so please don't call me an idiot or something lol)

- - - Post Merge - - -



visibleghost said:


> healthcare is a human right, abortion is a human right anyone should be able to get the healthcare they need no matter what their financial situation is.
> 
> that being said more states need it, that way the strain on oregon won't be as bad


I agree with healthcare being available to all despite financial status, but when it comes to abortion (which is bad) it shouldn't be very fair, otherwise woman are gonna keep doing it.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 18, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Well....I don't support it. My family is against abortion because it's literally killing a human, but in cases that it's an emergency (like you got kidnapped) then I think this is okay. But immigrants? I dont think it's fair, since you said citizens who pay taxes have to pay for healthcare, and this is basically letting non-citizens get free healthcare.
> I don't think it should be free to anyone. Most abortions is because of "accidents" that could of been easily prevented, and bad woman will probably abuse this. I don't like that, plus immigrants who can't do abortion can use this as their little ticket to it, and again abusing it, without even paying a bit. I think they should of thought over this more, at least make it not free!
> 
> And really, what happened to all this "Donald trump banning abortion" stuff? (I'm Canadian where all healthcare is free so please don't call me an idiot or something lol)
> ...



abortion is always going to happen and it's always going to be needed lol


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> abortion is always going to happen and it's always going to be needed lol



Well that's just your opinion  there is still people against it, y'know.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 18, 2017)

An interesting fact is that even if abortions are free to undocumented immigrants in Oregon, most of the undocumented immigrants come from a culture where religion plays a large role. So they probably won't use it either.


----------



## xSuperMario64x (Aug 18, 2017)

I don't like this idea. I don't mind the idea of abortions being free under extreme circumstances, but the fact that the state's wants to use hardworking American's tax dollars to pay for some random person's murder of an unborn child is absolutely ridiculous. Especially when that random person is someone who isn't even a legal citizen. That's just messed up.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 18, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Well that's just your opinion  there is still people against it, y'know.



yeah and you ruin ppls lives lol


----------



## rbell2915 (Aug 18, 2017)

Healthcare is a service/good. Not a right. You don't have a right to someone else's labor. You can participate in a voluntary exchange, such as using money to purchase it though. 

And how is ~Unicorn~ ruining people's lives? Where did you pull that from?


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 18, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> Healthcare is a service/good. Not a right. You don't have a right to someone else's labor. You can participate in a voluntary exchange, such as using money to purchase it though.
> 
> And how is ~Unicorn~ ruining people's lives? Where did you pull that from?



healthcare is a right lmao what's up with american ppl yelling about gun rights but basic healthcare isn't a human right lmao ok

doctors arent forced to treat people and not get paid lol they get paid by the government so people dont have to choose between paying their bills or going to the hospital. 
people who oppose abortions do ruin people's lives. having an unwanted baby can definitely ruin your life lol w/ job, money, dream, freedom, whatever. mot everyone wants or can take care of a baby and forcing someone to keep an embryo or fetus or whatever the term is is a violation of their rights to decide over their own body. if you don't want an abortion don't get one but don't make it harder for others to get one.

a blobby almost human isnt more important than a pregnant person lol

- - - Post Merge - - -



xSuperMario64x said:


> I don't like this idea. I don't mind the idea of abortions being free under extreme circumstances, *but the fact that the state's wants to use hardworking American's tax dollars to pay for some random person's murder of an unborn child is absolutely ridiculous. *Especially when that random person is someone who isn't even a legal citizen. That's just messed up.


oh wow i have something terrible to tell u about the military my dude


----------



## rbell2915 (Aug 18, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> healthcare is a right lmao what's up with american ppl yelling about gun rights but basic healthcare isn't a human right lmao ok
> 
> doctors arent forced to treat people and not get paid lol they get paid by the government so people dont have to choose between paying their bills or going to the hospital.
> people who oppose abortions do ruin people's lives. having an unwanted baby can definitely ruin your life lol w/ job, money, dream, freedom, whatever. mot everyone wants or can take care of a baby and forcing someone to keep an embryo or fetus or whatever the term is is a violation of their rights to decide over their own body. if you don't want an abortion don't get one but don't make it harder for others to get one.
> ...



That's strange, I didn't hear anyone yelling about gun rights vs healthcare. That might just be in your head.

And they do get paid, yes, but not by your god the government. How does the government get revenue? By taxing its citizens. Please tell me why I should have to pay for someone else's medical treatment? Especially if I am against abortion? 

By the way, I'm pretty sure the military doesn't go around killing unborn babies, if that's what you were inferring.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> healthcare is a right lmao what's up with american ppl yelling about gun rights but basic healthcare isn't a human right lmao ok
> 
> doctors arent forced to treat people and not get paid lol they get paid by the government so people dont have to choose between paying their bills or going to the hospital.
> people who oppose abortions do ruin people's lives. having an unwanted baby can definitely ruin your life lol w/ job, money, dream, freedom, whatever. mot everyone wants or can take care of a baby and forcing someone to keep an embryo or fetus or whatever the term is is a violation of their rights to decide over their own body. if you don't want an abortion don't get one but don't make it harder for others to get one.
> ...


Well if they had control over becoming pregnant or not, then it's their fault that "their life is ruined". Even if it's a fetus, even if it's not born it, *its still a human being*. You're still killing a person. Too bad if you accidentally get pregnant, shouldn't of done things to cause it  it was under your control! 
It shows you're completely fine with murdering people if you're fine with abortion. And that you respect bad women.

However, if it was a bad emergency cause like I said above that you had no control over it, that's a different story, but still should be paid for.


----------



## rbell2915 (Aug 18, 2017)

I forgot to mention that it was an awesome way of you trying to shut down ~Unicorn~'s argument by telling he/she that they ruin people's lives. I don't know ~Unicorn~ all that well, but I guarantee you he/she isn't like that.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> I forgot to mention that it was an awesome way of you trying to shut down ~Unicorn~'s argument by telling he/she that they ruin people's lives. I don't know ~Unicorn~ all that well, but I guarantee you he/she isn't like that.



Yeah  but it's their opinion, and it's all "freedom of speech" in America so let them run free with it


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 18, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> Healthcare is a service/good. Not a right. You don't have a right to someone else's labor. You can participate in a voluntary exchange, such as using money to purchase it though.
> 
> And how is ~Unicorn~ ruining people's lives? Where did you pull that from?



The correct answer is extreme passion over opinions, which I see from visibleghost. You see, he is polarized on the left wing views. Usually, people who are very passionate about their views on one issue couldn't get along with people that disagree with them. I don't think ~Unicorn~ is ruining peoples' lives for being pro-life, but the internet is full of uncivil people when it comes to handling opinions in general. Not just politics or current events, but also over movies, books, video games, tv shows (especially cartoons like Total Drama Island).

I appear to be very right-winged on almost every issue, yet I do have respect for the left wingers who couldn't agree. Just not the ones who couldn't get along with those that disagree. I wouldn't have a problem if you voted for the fourth option (I voted the first one). Just attacking others or their opinions is not okay.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 18, 2017)

yeah whatever im done w this thread bc i'll get banned ir whatever if i keep posting 

hm youre right the military murders actual human beings lol i guess that's not nearly as bad as aborting an embryo/fetus w/o conciousness or feelings or whatever


- - - Post Merge - - -



Alolan_Apples said:


> The correct answer is extreme passion over opinions, which I see from visibleghost. You see, he is polarized on the left wing views. Usually, people who are very passionate about their views on one issue couldn't get along with people that disagree with them. I don't think ~Unicorn~ is ruining peoples' lives for being pro-life, but the internet is full of uncivil people when it comes to handling opinions in general. Not just politics or current events, but also over movies, books, video games, tv shows (especially cartoons like Total Drama Island).
> 
> I appear to be very right-winged on almost every issue, yet I do have respect for the left wingers who couldn't agree. Just not the ones who couldn't get along with those that disagree. I wouldn't have a problem if you voted for the fourth option (I voted the first one). Just attacking others or their opinions is not okay.



im not attacking anyone i just said that people who stop others from getting abortions ruin lives.


----------



## rbell2915 (Aug 18, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> yeah whatever im done w this thread bc i'll get banned ir whatever if i keep posting
> 
> hm youre right the military murders actual human beings lol i guess that's not nearly as bad as aborting an embryo/fetus w/o conciousness or feelings or whatever
> 
> ...



•mur?der
ˈmərdər
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

•kill
kil
verb
1.
cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

You probably think murder and kill are synonyms (that means they're the same in case you didn't know!) but there's actually a difference. Can you spot the difference? These definitions are straight from Google! 

In case you couldn't, murder is killing someone in cold blood. It's illegal. Now, if you kill someone who is trying to murder you, that's completely different. You were acting in self defense. You were protecting yourself. 

I think that's enough of a language lesson for the moment.

And yes, you were attacking ~Unicorn~ by _specifically telling her that she ruins lives because she had the nerve to disagree with you._


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 18, 2017)

So there are five votes "pro-life". What I wish to see is if there are actually any pro-choicers that are against Oregon's new law. Because even if they think abortion is a right, I don't think they would even support a law this extreme.

I'm against both extremes on every issue, even abortion.


----------



## Bowie (Aug 18, 2017)

I think abortion is the only ethic that I have trouble deciding on how I feel about.

As a man, I feel like it shouldn't be up to me or any other man what women want to do with their bodies. Only women should have that say.

The only thing that I can really say is that I think people should be discouraged from getting pregnant in the first place. Of course, it's different if you were raped or something like that, but if you don't use protection, I hope people don't start getting reckless about it and thinking "oh, if I get pregnant I'll just get a quick, easy abortion".


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

Bowie said:


> The only thing that I can really say is that I think people should be discouraged from getting pregnant in the first place. Of course, it's different if you were raped or something like that, but if you don't use protection, I hope people don't start getting reckless about it and thinking "oh, if I get pregnant I'll just get a quick, easy abortion".



^quite what I am saying lol


----------



## Fleshy (Aug 18, 2017)

I'm honestly not 100% decided. I can't imagine being a woman of low income, of whom has found herself in such a situation and requires an abortion, only to be denied and thus be forced to bring a child into her situation (which I imagine isn't a good one at all). 

I think Sex Ed. is something that needs to be improved, because a lot of abortions are simply due to carelessness / unsafe sex, however, a lot of them aren't and could not have been prevented. I don't find it fair to deny abortions, because there's so much more that goes along with it, it's so complex. 

A massive number of undocumented immigrants don't lead a live that a child should be brought into, in the way of poverty, abuse, drug use, etc. Abortions are preventing women in these situations suffering further and also preventing bringing children into such situations. 

I can also see how this would anger American tax payers, and I understand that. I am not an American taxpayer, but I'm trying to see it from the eyes of people who appose and I can understand the opposition. However, the taxpayers money has been going towards paying for such things, and even corrupt practices (imo) for a long time, this isn't going to make much difference, and instead will help people?





~Unicorn~ said:


> /snip/
> Well if they had control over becoming pregnant or not, then it's their fault that "their life is ruined". Even if it's a fetus, even if it's not born it, *its still a human being*. You're still killing a person.
> /snip/
> .



*
human being*
ˌhjuːmən ˈbiːɪŋ/Submit
noun
a *man, woman, or child* of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
*
person*
ˈpəːs(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a *human being* _(see above)_ regarded as an individual.

- Hence, A fetus / embryo is neither a human being nor a person.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 18, 2017)

Fleshy said:


> I can also see how this would anger America tax payers, and I understand that. I am not an American taxpayer, but I'm trying to see it from the eyes of people who appose and I can understand the opposition. However, the taxpayers money has been going towards paying for such things, and even corrupt practices (imo) for a long time, this isn't going to make much difference, and instead will help people?



Just to clarify the problem with taxpayer funded abortions, the United States' first amendment grants us a freedom of religion. That means, the government cannot interfere with religion. This includes using law or taxes to force people to violate their own religious beliefs. Some belief systems out there, more specifically Christians, believe that abortion is murder, and collecting their tax dollars to fund others' abortions is technically using law to force them to violate their beliefs. Opposition towards taxpayer funded abortions is more about religion, not ethics.


----------



## Damniel (Aug 18, 2017)

Pro-choice all the way. Oregon is making a controversial, but progressive step


----------



## Fleshy (Aug 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Just to clarify the problem with taxpayer funded abortions, the United States' first amendment grants us a freedom of religion. That means, the government cannot interfere with religion. This includes using law or taxes to force people to violate their own religious beliefs. Some belief systems out there, more specifically Christians, believe that abortion is murder, and collecting their tax dollars to fund others' abortions is technically using law to force them to violate their beliefs. Opposition towards taxpayer funded abortions is more about religion, not ethics.



I understand. I don't want to talk ill of anyone's religious beliefs, but abortion isn't murder, quite literally if you follow the definition of murder, it isn't that. Also being pro-choice / pro-life goes further than religion, many religious people are pro-choice and vise versa, it's not related.

In my opinion, religion should be separate from the government / the law. We had to wait long enough for same-sex marriage in the name of "religion", someone's religion shouldn't rule another persons life. If an individual wants it to rule their life, that's OK, but thy don't have the right to force it to rule other's lives.

If you're anti abortion, for religious reasons or not, don't have an abortion, but it's not right to deny other's the rights over their own body.


----------



## Damniel (Aug 18, 2017)

Abortions are never an easy choice for anyone, or resinantes with the woman for a long time. But if she can't support a baby, she shouldnt be forced to. More likely than not, the child wouldn't live a good childhood for economic/domestic reasons. It should be a choice. It's not up to me nor you to decide what a woman chooses, it affects her life in the end. Can't enforce your religious/personal beliefs on someone else.

Then again abortion wouldn't be as big an issue if people were more gay


----------



## Shu (Aug 18, 2017)

Not American, but I'm pro choice and support this 100%.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Damniel said:


> Abortions are never an easy choice for anyone, or resinantes with the woman for a long time. But if she can't support a baby, she shouldnt be forced to. More likely than not, the child wouldn't live a good childhood for economic/domestic reasons. It should be a choice. It's not up to me nor you to decide what a woman chooses, it affects her life in the end. Can't enforce your religious/personal beliefs on someone else.
> 
> Then again abortion wouldn't be as big an issue if people were more gay



This ^ many people assume the woman is heartless etc for choosing abortion. It is always hard on the woman, abortion is a difficult choice for many and there are even cases when a woman does not want to abort but has to. Putting blame on the woman is something that is, from my perspective, ignorant and disregarding her role (the carrier of the child) and the complications that come with it.

yup get gay all the way yo

- - - Post Merge - - -



Fleshy said:


> I understand. I don't want to talk ill of anyone's religious beliefs, but abortion isn't murder, quite literally if you follow the definition of murder, it isn't that. Also being pro-choice / pro-life goes further than religion, many religious people are pro-choice and vise versa, it's not related.
> 
> In my opinion, religion should be separate from the government / the law. We had to wait long enough for same-sex marriage in the name of "religion", someone's religion shouldn't rule another persons life. If an individual wants it to rule their life, that's OK, but thy don't have the right to force it to rule other's lives.
> 
> If you're anti abortion, for religious reasons or not, don't have an abortion, but it's not right to deny other's the rights over their own body.



My religion does not like abortion, but I am still pro choice. I agree here, religious logic and logic of the law should be thought about differently. If one does not like abortion due to their religion, that is fine. But preventing others from getting an abortion by law based on religious beliefs isn't fair to all of those who do want one.


----------



## Mega_Cabbage (Aug 18, 2017)

I don't think free abortions is a good solution. Free and easy access to contraceptives/condoms would be a lot better in my opinion. People who want to have sex can still have sex while not getting pregnant and pro-life people won't see it as murder because a baby wouldn't be in the process of forming.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

I'm becoming clueless on this cause both people who agree and disagree have good and bad points, so idk anymore 

I think the solution to all of this is to make abortion not free. There, now everyone gets what they want!


----------



## Damniel (Aug 18, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> I think the solution to all of this is to make abortion not free. There, now everyone gets what they want!



Except the women who can't afford abortions and furthermore the cost of raising a child


----------



## pizzapie44 (Aug 18, 2017)

today on bell tree forums: abortion


----------



## Miii (Aug 18, 2017)

I'm pro choice up to a point. Past the first trimester, the baby can feel pain so I absolutely disagree with abortion past that point. It's one thing when it's the size of a jelly bean and still looks like a dinosaur, but another entirely when it starts to be able to feel and perceive things.


----------



## Katelyn (Aug 18, 2017)

I'm definitely pro-choice, but practically giving abortions away is pretty ridiculous imo. I mean, it's definitely not something that should be taken lightly. And granted most people put a ton of thought into it before actually going through with it, there will also definitely be people who will abuse this and not care whether or not they get pregnant anymore because hey, they can get rid of it for free. Healthcare is not a right, _nobody_ and I mean *nobody* is entitled to it. And abortion definitely falls under that.

And don't get me started on the whole undocumented/illegal immigrant thing. Because I truly believe they shouldn't even be able to get healthcare in general until they're documented, let alone free s***

A better solution to all of this would be to make contraceptives and other forms of protection more accessible. We need to find ways to prevent the problem _before_ it arises.


----------



## rbell2915 (Aug 18, 2017)

Mega_Cabbage said:


> I don't think free abortions is a good solution. Free and easy access to contraceptives/condoms would be a lot better in my opinion. People who want to have sex can still have sex while not getting pregnant and pro-life people won't see it as murder because a baby wouldn't be in the process of forming.



Explain how condoms are not easy to access? I literally just Google'd it, and you can walk down to Walmart and buy a 36 pack for about $18. That works out to 50? _per condom._ Typically, the financially not-as-well-off already shop at Walmart so they're already in the same store. I'd say that's pretty cheap and easily accessible.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

Damniel said:


> Except the women who can't afford abortions and furthermore the cost of raising a child



Then they shouldn't of gotten pregnant? And I said that if it's an emergency case then it could be free, otherwise it's their fault.
Listen, the point of wanting it to be not free is so that unwanted pregnancies are prevented, while out-of-control situations can still be able to abort. But no, everyone just wants to kill fetuses, don't they?

- - - Post Merge - - -



Katelyn said:


> I'm definitely pro-choice, but practically giving abortions away is pretty ridiculous imo. I mean, it's definitely not something that should be taken lightly. And granted most people put a ton of thought into it before actually going through with it, there will also definitely be people who will abuse this and not care whether or not they get pregnant anymore because hey, they can get rid of it for free. Healthcare is not a right, _nobody_ and I mean *nobody* is entitled to it. And abortion definitely falls under that.
> 
> And don't get me started on the whole undocumented/illegal immigrant thing. Because I truly believe they shouldn't even be able to get healthcare in general until they're documented, let alone free s***
> 
> A better solution to all of this would be to make contraceptives and other forms of protection more accessible. We need to find ways to prevent the problem _before_ it arises.


THANK YOU
(Only for some of this though, some stuff you said there was a little harsh...)
- - - Post Merge - - -



Miii said:


> I'm pro choice up to a point. Past the first trimester, the baby can feel pain so I absolutely disagree with abortion past that point. It's one thing when it's the size of a jelly bean and still looks like a dinosaur, but another entirely when it starts to be able to feel and perceive things.



Ikr  some woman think fetuses are just a piece of trash sitting in their body, they have feelings! And they might not be born yet, but they count as an unborn human. People can be so evil....


----------



## Mega_Cabbage (Aug 18, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> Explain how condoms are not easy to access? I literally just Google'd it, and you can walk down to Walmart and buy a 36 pack for about $18. That works out to 50? _per condom._ Typically, the financially not-as-well-off already shop at Walmart so they're already in the same store. I'd say that's pretty cheap and easily accessible.



Yes they are cheap, but some people still can't afford it. The people who want to have an abortion are often those who cannot handle the financial burden of having a child. They are probably scrambling for money and want to focus on buying more necessities. It's not only condoms either. If a person is being raped by a man, they are not just gonna ask "hey can you put this condom on first?" Birth control pills, IUDs, and etc. can prevent a person from getting pregnant in these unexpected situations.


----------



## Fleshy (Aug 18, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Then they shouldn't of gotten pregnant? And I said that if it's an emergency case then it could be free, otherwise it's their fault.
> Listen, the point of wanting it to be not free is so that unwanted pregnancies are prevented, while out-of-control situations can still be able to abort. But no, everyone just wants to kill fetuses, don't they?



"It's their fault"? So they need to bring a child into the world to suffer? As that child would either be unwanted, or raised by a mother of whom is incapable of caring for the child? That child likely born into poverty, carehomes, around drug use, etc, etc. 

An unwanted child is better than preventing said child's _possible_ suffering? For the sake of an "It's your fault" to the mother?

I'm pretty sure nobody "wants to _kill_ fetuses", they want to prevent *actual* future suffering, and allow women to have control over their own bodies.


----------



## Keldi (Aug 18, 2017)

My view on this is just:
If both gave consent, shouldn't be free
If one did not give consent(ie grape), should be free
I don't want to argue with anybody, I just wanna put my thoughts out there.


----------



## Damniel (Aug 18, 2017)

Katelyn said:


> there will also definitely be people who will abuse this and not care whether or not they get pregnant anymore because hey, they can get rid of it for free.


Who ever thinks this? There might be a few people, but not enough to make this a common idea. 



> Healthcare is not a right, _nobody_ and I mean *nobody* is entitled to it.



Are you for real? Every law abiding and tax paying citizen is entitled to healthcare. It's imperative we're healthy and can afford to keep our good health. 



> And don't get me started on the whole undocumented/illegal immigrant thing. Because I truly believe they shouldn't even be able to get healthcare in general until they're documented, let alone free s***


Not even gonna go into how messed up this is. 



rbell2915 said:


> Explain how condoms are not easy to access? I literally just Google'd it, and you can walk down to Walmart and buy a 36 pack for about $18. That works out to 50? _per condom._ Typically, the financially not-as-well-off already shop at Walmart so they're already in the same store. I'd say that's pretty cheap and easily accessible.



If you cannot afford to be safe during sex, then you shouldn't be having it at all. Contraceptives aren't 100% sure to prevent pregnancy. In fact, many accidental pregnancies involved condoms being used, but not working.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

Keldi said:


> My view on this is just:
> If both gave consent, shouldn't be free
> If one did not give consent(ie grape), should be free
> I don't want to argue with anybody, I just wanna put my thoughts out there.



100% agreed 

- - - Post Merge - - -



Damniel said:


> Not even gonna go into how messed up this is.



Okay uhh i forgot about that part lol, but if it's healthcare that is really an emergency (like something life-threatening) then they should. But something small like this, nah.


----------



## Damniel (Aug 18, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Then they shouldn't of gotten pregnant? And I said that if it's an emergency case then it could be free, otherwise it's their fault.



Your opinion that abortions should not be free is fair enough. But do you think women just decide whether or not they'll get pregnant? If they practice safe sex it's not their fault, it's just nature


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 18, 2017)

Katelyn said:


> I'm definitely pro-choice, but practically giving abortions away is pretty ridiculous imo. I mean, it's definitely not something that should be taken lightly. And granted most people put a ton of thought into it before actually going through with it, there will also definitely be people who will abuse this and not care whether or not they get pregnant anymore because hey, they can get rid of it for free. Healthcare is not a right, _nobody_ and I mean *nobody* is entitled to it. And abortion definitely falls under that.
> 
> And don't get me started on the whole undocumented/illegal immigrant thing. Because I truly believe they shouldn't even be able to get healthcare in general until they're documented, let alone free s***
> 
> A better solution to all of this would be to make contraceptives and other forms of protection more accessible. We need to find ways to prevent the problem _before_ it arises.



I would agree to this if I were pro-choice and pro-Obamacare. But I am already against abortion and free healthcare anyway, so I wouldn't support this.

About Oregon's law, I say it's already bad enough that they're letting people have abortions for free at taxpayers' expense, as some forms of healthcare should be restricted. But the fact that they're allowing illegal immigrants to get it, and the fact they're allowing anyone to get late-term abortions and sex-selective abortions, that's when they're going off the deepend. I never thought they would be defending abortions for all reasons, including discriminatory reasons like sex-selective abortions. And I don't see any reason for abortions from months 7 to 9. But the illegal immigrant part, that's when the law is extreme.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

Damniel said:


> Your opinion that abortions should not be free is fair enough. But do you think women just decide whether or not they'll get pregnant? If they practice safe sex it's not their fault, it's just nature



Well if they practice it then they would know that they are taking the risk to do this, and understand that still an accident can happen.

(Dang I've pretty much spent the whole day here :/ ok enough abortion, abortion is bad just try to avoid it thanks)

- - - Post Merge - - -



Alolan_Apples said:


> I would agree to this if I were pro-choice and pro-Obamacare. But I am already against abortion and free healthcare anyway, so I wouldn't support this.
> 
> About Oregon's law, I say it's already bad enough that they're letting people have abortions for free at taxpayers' expense, as some forms of healthcare should be restricted. But the fact that they're allowing illegal immigrants to get it, and the fact they're allowing anyone to get late-term abortions and sex-selective abortions, that's when they're going off the deepend. I never thought they would be defending abortions for all reasons, including discriminatory reasons like sex-selective abortions. And I don't see any reason for abortions from months 7 to 9. But the illegal immigrant part, that's when the law is extreme.



I like how our news reporter has the best opinions.


----------



## Katelyn (Aug 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> I would agree to this if I were pro-choice and pro-Obamacare. But I am already against abortion and free healthcare anyway, so I wouldn't support this.
> 
> About Oregon's law, I say it's already bad enough that they're letting people have abortions for free at taxpayers' expense, as some forms of healthcare should be restricted. But the fact that they're allowing illegal immigrants to get it, and the fact they're allowing anyone to get late-term abortions and sex-selective abortions, that's when they're going off the deepend. I never thought they would be defending abortions for all reasons, including discriminatory reasons like sex-selective abortions. And I don't see any reason for abortions from months 7 to 9. But the illegal immigrant part, that's when the law is extreme.



I agree with you whole-heartedly on the illegal immigrant part. I just don't see how anyone can truly believe that someone who comes here _illegally_ deserves the same benefits as those who came here legally. It makes no sense.


----------



## oath2order (Aug 18, 2017)

Not a surprise coming from Oregon. They *did* legalize physician-assisted suicide.



Alolan_Apples said:


> I would agree to this if I were pro-choice and pro-Obamacare. But I am already against abortion and free healthcare anyway, so I wouldn't support this.
> 
> About Oregon's law, I say it's already bad enough that they're letting people have abortions for free at taxpayers' expense, as some forms of healthcare should be restricted. But the fact that they're allowing illegal immigrants to get it, and the fact they're allowing anyone to get late-term abortions and sex-selective abortions, that's when they're going off the deepend. I never thought they would be defending abortions for all reasons, including discriminatory reasons like sex-selective abortions. And I don't see any reason for abortions from months 7 to 9. But the illegal immigrant part, that's when the law is extreme.



Sex-selective abortions are a slippery slope imo.



pizzapie44 said:


> today on bell tree forums: abortion



oh honey this is a very common discussion topic; these have been on TBT since the dawn of time.



Shu said:


> My religion does not like abortion, but I am still pro choice. I agree here, religious logic and logic of the law should be thought about differently. If one does not like abortion due to their religion, that is fine. But preventing others from getting an abortion by law based on religious beliefs isn't fair to all of those who do want one.



Exactly! That's what people don't get. Their religion says they can't get an abortion. It's not my religion, therefore I don't have to follow the rules of it.



Mega_Cabbage said:


> I don't think free abortions is a good solution. Free and easy access to contraceptives/condoms would be a lot better in my opinion. People who want to have sex can still have sex while not getting pregnant and pro-life people won't see it as murder because a baby wouldn't be in the process of forming.



I agree that free and easy access to contraceptives would be a good solution. Ironically, the people who are anti-abortion *tend* to also against contraceptives.



Katelyn said:


> there will also definitely be people who will abuse this and not care whether or not they get pregnant anymore because hey, they can get rid of it for free



People will literally abuse anything they can. Just because that's something people do does not mean we should take away services.



~Unicorn~ said:


> Well that's just your opinion  there is still people against it, y'know.



No, it's a fact that abortion will always happen.


----------



## Keldi (Aug 18, 2017)

What I believe started as a simple: Do you like this idea or no?+Short reason...Has turned into what seems to be a war u.u"


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

Keldi said:


> What I believe started as a simple: Do you like this idea or no?+Short reason...Has turned into what seems to be a war u.u"



Topics like this tend to become a war over opinions, sadly. Everyone has different thoughts on this which people obviously are gonna argue over.


----------



## Keldi (Aug 18, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Topics like this tend to become a war over opinions, sadly. Everyone has different thoughts on this which people obviously are gonna argue over.



I can see everybody's perspective, where their reasoning comes from, and I respect all views on this topic. Some just seem a little too hostile and/or aggressive. Or maybe that's just me.


----------



## rbell2915 (Aug 18, 2017)

Mega_Cabbage said:


> Yes they are cheap, but some people still can't afford it. The people who want to have an abortion are often those who cannot handle the financial burden of having a child. They are probably scrambling for money and want to focus on buying more necessities. It's not only condoms either. If a person is being raped by a man, they are not just gonna ask "hey can you put this condom on first?" Birth control pills, IUDs, and etc. can prevent a person from getting pregnant in these unexpected situations.



If you can't afford 50? to spend on a condom you should probably get your **** in order and fix that instead of demanding someone else pay for you.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

Keldi said:


> I can see everybody's perspective, where their reasoning comes from, and I respect all views on this topic. Some just seem a little too hostile. Or maybe that's just me.



Yeah some people go a bit extreme with their opinions :/ but nothing too bad right now


----------



## Keldi (Aug 18, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Yeah some people go a bit extreme with their opinions :/ but nothing too bad right now



Yeah, let's be glad this isn't the YouTube comments section 0-0"


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> If you can't afford 50? to spend on a condom you should probably get your **** in order and fix that instead of demanding someone else pay for you.



Exactly, what's the point of taking the risk when you can't afford a piece of bread?


----------



## Fleshy (Aug 18, 2017)

In the grand scheme of things, there's roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the US currently, lets assume 50% of them are female, and that 50% of those women are of age to get pregnant / able to get pregnant (this is just a guess, I couldn't find any statistics to back this up), that leaves 2.75 million. It is estimated that roughly 2% of women will have an abortion in any given year, that's only 55,000 (roughly) a year, max.

That's such a tiny cost, considering $938 billion of taxpayers money goes towards healthcare, a lot of that towards preventable illnesses, caused by alcohol, diet, harmful drugs etc. Not counting the amount of taxpayers money that goes towards conflict.

I just don't see why "the taxpayers dollar" is such a big deal here, it's a tiny amount being paid out. Saving millions paying for the unwanted children that would be born if free abortions were not available.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

Keldi said:


> Yeah, let's be glad this isn't the YouTube comments section 0-0"



Most people here are civilized with their thoughts on this which is okay, even if I disagree at least they aren't screaming in my face or nothing. YouTube is just cringey kids acting like they're cool, nothing like this


----------



## rbell2915 (Aug 18, 2017)

Damniel said:


> If you cannot afford to be safe during sex, then you shouldn't be having it at all. Contraceptives aren't 100% sure to prevent pregnancy. In fact, many accidental pregnancies involved condoms being used, but not working.



I agree with the quoted portion. If you can't afford it, don't do it.


----------



## Mega_Cabbage (Aug 18, 2017)

rbell2915 said:


> If you can't afford 50? to spend on a condom you should probably get your **** in order and fix that instead of demanding someone else pay for you.



I agree with this completely. Don't have sex if you can't afford the possibility of getting pregnant. If people thought more like that, then there would hardly be a need for abortion. Sadly, people are not thinking of the consequences.


----------



## brownboy102 (Aug 18, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Exactly, what's the point of taking the risk when you can't afford a piece of bread?
> (Sorry I don't like saying the word >~<)



If you're uncomfortable with saying the word sex, you probably need a couple of years before talking about abortion.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 18, 2017)

Mega_Cabbage said:


> I agree with this completely. Don't have sex if you can't afford the possibility of getting pregnant. If people thought more like that, then there would hardly be a need for abortion. Sadly, people are not thinking of the consequences.


Yup, so in my opinion abortion not being free unless in a uncontrollable situation is a good way to solve this. People who wanna do abortion can still do it, and not abuse it as well. People who are too poor to afford it won't have an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Immigrants will still have to pay, and emergency situations can still abort regardless of financial status.

Why not agree? It's a good idea. (Unless you're so extreme with opinion, jeez okay then...)

- - - Post Merge - - -



Sparro said:


> If you're uncomfortable with saying the word sex, you probably need a couple of years before talking about abortion.



I can talk whatever I want. If I don't wanna say it I don't have to.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 18, 2017)

In regards to the whole ownership of a child, even if I only support abortion for emergency issues (rape, fatal pregnancy, baby won't survive), I agree that nobody should be forced to have children. I'm a pro-lifer, but I don't want to have kids. It's too much responsibility, and I am bad at responsibility. And what's more painful than taking care of babies is taking care of teenagers. That would be a nightmare.


----------



## rbell2915 (Aug 18, 2017)

Mega_Cabbage said:


> I agree with this completely. Don't have sex if you can't afford the possibility of getting pregnant. If people thought more like that, then there would hardly be a need for abortion. Sadly, people are not thinking of the consequences.



Okay, I'm glad to see we agree on this.


----------



## Fleshy (Aug 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> In regards to the whole ownership of a child, even if I only support abortion for emergency issues (rape, fatal pregnancy, baby won't survive), I agree that nobody should be forced to have children. I'm a pro-lifer, but I don't want to have kids. It's too much responsibility, and I am bad at responsibility. And what's more painful than taking care of babies is taking care of teenagers. That would be a nightmare.



....If abortion was only legal in certain circumstances people would be forced into having children they don't want?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 18, 2017)

Fleshy said:


> ....If abortion was only legal in certain circumstances people would be forced into having children they don't want?



There's always adoptions. What if someone was infertile, but wants a child? Sometimes, there are situations where you are stuck between a rock and a saloon called "A Hard Place".


----------



## primandimproper (Aug 18, 2017)

Yeah, I'm pro-choice because my mom was a teen parent and I've seen firsthand how damaging it can be to raise an unwanted child. I know for a fact that I would not be alive had my mother not been raised Catholic and had been allowed to get an abortion. 

Not only that but I have multiple mental illnesses that were only worsened because I spent 5 years off medication because my ex-husband and I could not afford health insurance and made too much money to qualify for Medicaid. It actually led to me having a mental break down and effectively ended my marriage, so I firmly believe that everyone should have access to health insurance, regardless of status or income.


----------



## Damniel (Aug 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> There's always adoptions. What if someone was infertile, but wants a child? Sometimes, there are situations where you are stuck between a rock and a saloon called "A Hard Place".



There's already a lot of kids in foster care still awaiting adoption. Doesn't help that adopting is super hard in America


----------



## Fleshy (Aug 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> There's always adoptions. What if someone was infertile, but wants a child? Sometimes, there are situations where you are stuck between a rock and a saloon called "A Hard Place".



There's no shortage of children up for adoption. 

Yes, and sometimes there may be a very simple solution such situations. The average child already spends 3.3 years on average in care before being adopted.

Also, some people don't want to put their child up for adoption.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 18, 2017)

Damniel said:


> There's already a lot of kids in foster care still awaiting adoption. Doesn't help that adopting is super hard in America



That may be true, but no matter what decision you make in politics, something is going to suck. Take for instance, healthcare. If someone doesn't have insurance, they couldn't even afford healthcare. But if they are on Obamacare, they're not going to get accepted, because doctors aren't going to get paid for working on Obamacare patients. Of course, free healthcare may be a good idea to those who are in need, but it can create healthcare waiting lines, which is unethical. Another instance, the electoral college. Get rid of it, not all states will be represented during a presidential election, and it would lead to a one-party rule. Keep it, presidents that win won't refelect what's popular. There's always a poison in every situation in politics, but they have different flavors.


----------



## pizzapie44 (Aug 18, 2017)

posted something but i read twice and realized my error and i don't know how to delete sorry for my mistake


----------



## Shu (Aug 18, 2017)

primandimproper said:


> Yeah, I'm pro-choice because my mom was a teen parent and I've seen firsthand how damaging it can be to raise an unwanted child. I know for a fact that I would not be alive had my mother not been raised Catholic and had been allowed to get an abortion.
> 
> Not only that but I have multiple mental illnesses that were only worsened because I spent 5 years off medication because my ex-husband and I could not afford health insurance and made too much money to qualify for Medicaid. It actually led to me having a mental break down and effectively ended my marriage, so I firmly believe that everyone should have access to health insurance, regardless of status or income.



My heart goes out to you <3 I wish you all the best in your life.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 18, 2017)

pizzapie44 said:


> today on bell tree forums: abortion





oath2order said:


> oh honey this is a very common discussion topic; these have been on TBT since the dawn of time.



Everywhere you go on the internet, there's always controversial topics. TBT is no stranger to political discussions either, and they have been on for a long time. But we did have a spike in political threads on TBT last year. It's already calming down.


----------



## primandimproper (Aug 18, 2017)

Shu said:


> My heart goes out to you <3 I wish you all the best in your life.



Thank you <3


----------



## Goshi (Aug 18, 2017)

Looks like it's gonna be up to me to debunk/refute the common "pro-life" arguments or statements or whatever, here. Summarized for convenience. 

*1. "Why don't you just put them into adoption?"*

Adoption is an alternative to parenthood, not to pregnancy.

And, children put up for adoption actually _don’t_ have fantastic chances of being adopted. There is definitely a hierarchy of preference; white neurotypical male babies are adopted most frequently, followed by white neurotypical female babies. Black babies of [both sexes] are actually adopted so infrequently that some foster care systems have _lowered the monetary requirement necessary to adopt_ - that’s right, they have the best intentions, but they have literally made black children _worth less_ than white children. So if you’re black or half-black or hell, anything other than white and you put up your child for adoption, you're basically playing roulette with a child’s entire life and future. 

In the United States_ alone_, around half a million kids are in foster care in the US. A new child enters the system roughly every two minutes, and the average age of a foster child is ten. Once a child reaches 10, though, their chances at adoption drop significantly. Around 25,000 will age out each year.

Most of the children who are available for adoption out of the foster care system are not the (white, healthy) "babies/toddlers/small children" that people want. Race (not being white) and disability/illness are two huge factors that prevent a child from being adopted if they are able to be so.  In the foster care system, 61% of kids are not white.  And the vast majority have some form of disability of chronic health condition.


30-80% of children in foster care have at least one chronic medical condition

25% of children in foster care have three or more chronic health problems

30-60% of children in foster care have developmental delays

50-80% of children in foster care have mental and behavioral health problems

20% fully handicapped *

So yes, to clarify, this also means there in fact _*is*_ a shortage of potential adoptive parents. Maybe many white, healthy infants are adopted quickly, but most babies born and go into the system are not white and/or healthy. Not to mention that many parents, if they have the money, will go through private adoptions instead. 

Those are from 2006, but it hasn't gotten any better as time's moved on. Refer to: [x] [x]

*More facts:
*


Pregnant people overwhelmingly reject adoption. In the US in 1989, less than 2% of single white pregnant people and practically 0% of single black pregnant people placed their children for adoption. These numbers have not changed in 26 years.

A significant increase in the number of people placing children for adoption would soon exhaust the supply of would-be adopters. As of 2002, only 614,000 people under age 45 had ever completed an adoption. Only a minority of these people adopted American newborns. Most adopted from foster care, from a relative, from a new spouse with children, or from other countries. If every person who got an abortion last year placed the child for adoption instead, the backlog of those looking to adopt would be wiped out in less than a year.

Adoption is expensive. Not just to the adopters, who must pay between $10,000 and $25,000 in the US to adopt a newborn, but to those placing a child as well. While placing a child for adoption is usually free, lost wages, loss to education, and health risks from pregnancy must be paid for.

Pregnancy can have a wide variety of negative health consequences including anemia, UTI’s, hypertension, diabetes, morning sickness, hemorrhoids, yeast infections, placental previa, placental abruption, preeclampsia, depression, and anxiety, in addition to the significant physical danger presented by childbirth.

Deciding to put a child up for adoption doesn’t save pregnant people from having their lives endangered by pregnancy. It doesn’t make the pregnancy symptom-free so that the pregnant person never has to miss a day of work. It doesn’t allow the baby to teleport out of the uterus at the end of gestation, saving the pregnant person from the experience of childbirth and having to take time off work to heal.

Adoptees are four times more likely to attempt suicide than non-adopted peers. Treating adoption strictly as a beautiful thing doesn’t allow many adoptees to express their true feelings.

Pro-lifers frequently try to talk about how the majority of people who get abortions supposedly experience severe emotional trauma (though this claim has been discredited). They never seem to talk about the number of people who experience emotional trauma after placing a child for adoption. One study found that 12 to 20 years later, 75% of people who placed a child for adoption still felt grief and loss._ Seventy-five percent._

Having a child taken back by a birth parent who changes their mind is unspeakably painful for would-be adoptive parents. One woman I talked to described it as “the closest thing I’ve experienced to the death of a child.” Another woman had a baby girl taken back from her fifteen years ago. She said it still stung.

Most important, many people just don’t want to be pregnant. They could have tokophobia, or they could have prescriptions for medications that are inadvisable to take while pregnant, or they could have a job that they would likely lose if they continued a pregnancy, or they could be in an abusive relationship and need to abort in order to protect themselves, or they could just not want a foreign entity growing inside of them for nine months. Adoption is an alternative to being a parent. It is not an alternative to being pregnant.

Now, lemme make it a little shorter.

Adoptees have a higher rate of abuse. There are a lot of sick people out there who are unfortunately vetted by the foster care system and the adoption agencies, and they end up with kids who then later end up tortured and murdered. They don’t do this to their biological children by the way, just the adopted ones.

The children who do not get adopted have crap chances at life in general, due to malnutrition, years of emotional and psychological neglect, and no few of them, having grown up in state care, end up committing crimes and then end back up in state care (re: prison). Obviously this doesn’t happen to every child, but it happens often enough that we have reliable figures on it.

I mentioned being neurotypical earlier. Luck hopefully hits the baby put up for adoption if they have autism, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia (which can occur as early as 6), or seizures (enter Dravet’s Syndrome, which strikes in the first year of life and by age 2, one sufferer was having 100 seizures AN HOUR). And let’s also talk about health; any sort of mitochondrial disease (which is harder to treat and diagnose than *cancer*), cystic fibrosis or cerebral palsy, or hell, even migraines because yes, children get migraines too! There is little-to-no help for children put up for adoption in these circumstances. Even at the best of times in the best of families, these are huge struggles. So imagine how it is for children without families.

I once heard it said that the true tragedy is not an aborted child, but an unloved one. Let’s face it, the aborted child never knows the difference. But the unloved one, the neglected one, that child is gonna suffer every day. 

I’m not saying that children should never ever be put up for adoption because there are legit cases–physical abuse, unfit parents (drug or sexual abuse, poverty is not an excuse to take kids away)–but I hope this post makes it glaringly obvious that “put the baby up for adoption” is not the blanket answer that pro-lifers say it is.

Further reading: [x] [x] [x] [x]

*2. "You shouldn't kill a potential life, it's basically murder."*

No, it’s not.  Murder is a legal term and it has qualifications. Murder is basically defined as "The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse." Murder is unlawful and done without authority; which is why soldiers who kill combatants, people who kill in self-defense, and executioners aren’t legally considered murderers. Abortion is lawful and done under the authority of the pregnant person. Murder happens to another human being; and common law doesn’t see fetuses as another human being.  You can’t murder something that isn’t sentient. Murder entails having malice; Abortion entails needs, wants, or desperation. People generally like to use "murder," because it evokes radically negative emotional responses.  It’s an emotionally manipulative term and an appeal to emotions.  

This sort of thought process involves some schooling on bodily autonomy.

*Bodily autonomy*, or otherwise known as bodily integrity, is a basic human right granted to people at birth that states that no one can use your body without your consent. It is why mandatory blood or organ donation does not exist - you, as a born person, have the rights to your own body and organs. Even corpses have this right, since you cannot harvest someone’s organs post-mortem if they expressed during their life that they didn’t want them to be harvested.

In order to have bodily autonomy, you must be born and be relatively self-autonomous - that you are self-sufficient and not using someone else’s body and organs to survive. 

So, this does not mean that people living off of machines, people in comas or people who cannot physically take care of themselves do not have bodily autonomy. They _*are*_ still autonomous because they have rights over their organs and are not infringing on anyone else’s body. The comatose and deathly ill are being willingly helped to survive and are not using anyone’s bodily organs directly to survive. Bodily autonomy does not mean "doesn’t rely on anyone to live," it means your rights over your own body. 

Fetuses, however, do not have bodily autonomy. They cannot survive outside of the womb on their own, as their bodies cannot physically sustain themselves. They are literally directly relying on someone else’s organs to survive, and like my above point, this does not rely on newborns since although they rely on others for food/shelter, their bodies are running themselves and not on other people’s organs.

Also note: fetuses cannot feel pain until 30+ weeks gestation and are not aware and conscious. Abortions do not happen at this point except for medical reasons. Most recent and accurate study on this done by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - 2010:



Spoiler



Nociceptors  first appear at 10 weeks of gestation in the fetus but they are not sufficient for the experience of pain in themselves. That requires that electrical activity is conducted from the receptors into the spinal cord and to the brain. Fibres to nociceptor terminals in the spinal cord have not been demonstrated before 19 weeks of gestation, although it is known that the fetus withdraws from a needle and may exhibit a stress response from about 18 weeks. At this stage, it is apparent that activity in the spinal cord, brain stem and mid-brain structures are sufficient to generate reflex and humoral responses but not sufficient to support pain awareness. 
At the same time, completion of the major neural pathways from the periphery to the cortex, at around 24 weeks of gestation, heralds the beginning of a further neuronal maturation. The proliferation of cortical neurons and synaptic contacts begins prenatally but continues postnatally. Magnetic imaging techniques have recorded fetal auditory and visual responses from 28 weeks but it has not been possible to record directly when cortical neurons first begin to respond to tissue damaging inputs, although there is evidence of neural activity in primary sensory cortex in premature infants (around 24 weeks). It has been suggested that subcortical regions can organise responses to noxious stimuli and provide for the pain experience complete within itself but there is no evidence (or rationale) that the subcortical and transient brain regions support mature function.

Thus, although the cortex can process sensory input from 24 weeks, it does not mean that the fetus is aware of pain. There is sound evidence for claiming the cortex is necessary for pain experience but this is not to say that it is sufficient. Similarly, the interpretation of ultrasound images is problematic. It is important that ‘labelling’ a set of movements, such as ‘yawning’, with a functional or emotional purpose that is not possible does not imply such a purpose.

A further important feature is the suggestion, supported by increasing evidence, that the fetus never enters a state of wakefulness in utero and is bathed in a chemical environment that induces a sleep-like unconsciousness, suppressing higher cortical activation. Although this cannot be known with certainty, the observation highlights important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the potential pitfalls of extrapolating observations in newborn preterm infants to a fetus of the same gestational age.



I think an important point about bodily autonomy was made in the legal case of McFall vs. Shimp. In this case, a man was dying of bone cancer and needed a bone marrow transplant in order to survive. His cousin was found to be a match, but refused to donate the marrow. The man took his cousin to court and lost the case, because the court ruled that regardless of whether the man would die or not, life-and-death situations do not trump a person’s right to their own body and organs. From the court case:



> "The question posed by the Plaintiff is that, in order to save the life of one of its members by the only means available, may society infringe upon one’s absolute right to his “bodily security”?
> The common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue.
> […] In preserving such a society as we have it is bound to happen that great moral conflicts will arise and will appear harsh in a given instance. In this case, the chancellor is being asked to force one member of society to undergo a medical procedure which would provide that part of that individual’s body would be removed from him and given to another so that the other could live.
> Morally, this decision rests with the Defendant, and, in the view of the Court, the refusal of the Defendant is morally indefensible. For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn. This request is not to be compared with an action at law for damages, but rather is an action in equity before a Chancellor, which, in the ultimate, if granted, would require the submission to the medical procedure. For a society, which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concept of jurisprudence. [Forcible] extraction of living body tissue causes revulsion to the judicial mind."



If you're still here and paying attention, you're probably wondering, "Why is McFall vs Shimp relevant?" Well, simply because a fetus is relying on the pregnant person’s body and organs for survival. Pregnancy can lead to many complications and risks to the pregnant person. If the person does not want to be pregnant, then the fetus is directly infringing on the pregnant person’s right to govern the use of their own organs. 

As McFall vs Shimp and other legal precedents have stated, regardless of whether the subject will die or not, they *do not* have the right to use someone else’s body without their consent. This applies to fetuses, since fetuses are directly using someone else’s body. If the pregnant person does not wish to be pregnant anymore, regardless of the fetus’s death, the pregnant person’s rights to their organs comes first. 

If every born person must follow the right to other people’s bodily autonomy, then *fetuses* must follow it too. Every person has the right to their own body, and like McFall vs Shimp said - "For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion to his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded." _Exceptions cannot be made to basic human rights without weakening the very foundation of those human rights._

Now, I will address a misconception commonly had here. Many folks seem to think that pregnant people go through like, six months of pregnancy and then suddenly decide that they want an abortion willy-nilly when in reality, people that seek out later-term abortions usually do so because of health reasons, financial reasons (abortions are expensive and getting together the hundreds of dollars for one can take time for some people), a lack of accessibility (such as when the only abortion clinic in-state is a four hour drive away), or not realizing that they were pregnant until later in the pregnancy.

Even if an almost full term pregnant person decided that they were sick of being pregnant and wanted to end their pregnancy… inducing labor is an option. but regardless of intent or stage of pregnancy, because of bodily autonomy a pregnant person should be able to get an abortion for any reason at any time. 

Bottom line, it doesn’t matter whether or not we assign a fetus "personhood," as it doesn’t really change whether or not a pregnant person should be forced to give up their bodily autonomy against their will. Like, no woman can just steal a man’s liver in the dead of night, even if she needed those organs to live. The elderly don’t get to just go around and harvest the kidneys of the young in back alleys. You can’t just, like, kidnap a person and drain all their blood, even if it is used for life saving procedures. Fully grown, autonomous people with rights and consciousness are not allowed to violate the bodily autonomy of others, even in deadly situations. 

So… why would we let a fetus get an exception? Use another person's blood and uterus and stomach and everything else for months and altering their body irreparably, occasionally without their consent? Abortion is first and foremost an issue of consent and bodily autonomy, and any argument about personhood is a distraction from that.

So yeah, the whole "The body inside yours isn’t yours." argument is also invalid. Theoretically, even if the "body inside my body" isn’t mine, it doesn’t belong without my consent. I’m allowed to evict it, as it were, if it’s not me and it’s inside of me. To me, the whole "body inside your body" is only normalizing forced pregnancy.

*3. "Every fetus in my eyes is still an unborn child, no matter what, and having an abortion at any stage is still morally impermissible."*

Sort of ties into the previous ones, but it's a bit more specific and frustrating. Let's use all that we've learned and put it here.

For this moment, I’ll treat the fetus as an actual child. In the case of pregnancy-again, treating the fetus as a child, the child is biologically dependent on the pregnant person. The child must use the pregnant person’s blood and biological resources (and I’m not even getting into the horrible conditions that go along with pregnancy) to survive. If not, they will die. Many anti-choicers argue that it is morally impermissible to let a child die even if it actively uses the biological resources of another person. You also argue that the government must actively deny the choice of a pregnant person to terminate this pregnancy because the child is dependent on their body.

There are other realities in which people-fully developed, fully realized people-are highly dependent on the biological resources of others and will die without these resources. These people are on the organ wait list. These people are those who receive blood transfusions. If we are to deny a pregnant person the right to not have their biological resources be used by another person, then we should also be able to force people to give their blood and their organs against their will. It should be legal and ethically permissible to tie someone down and take their other kidney, take their blood, take part of their liver, part of their bone marrow, etc. This is only if you allow exceptions for abortions when the pregnancy will threaten the life and health of the pregnant person.

If you still don’t think abortion is morally permissible even if the pregnant person is going to die, then, using that exact same line of thought, it is morally permissible for the government to forcibly take vital organs from other people to those on the organ donation list, including the heart, their entire liver-I could go on.
In either case, you’ve used a line of reasoning that denies human rights. And don’t sit here and tell me that "pregnancy is totally different," because on a biological basis it’s really not. 

The only differences (that I’m glad to point out) really do nothing to help your argument:

1. Pregnancy is much more taxing on the human body than something like donating blood (and if you’re really healthy, maybe even donating a kidney)

2. Pregnancy lasts 9 months with long term physiological effects, donating blood lasts 30 minutes tops with no long term physiological effects, donating a kidney is usually safe for the donor and the donor spends a couple of days in the hospital with about 4-6 weeks recovery and normally no long term effects (long term effects definitely can happen, but that’s tangential to the point I’m making).

Likewise abortion isn’t murder, it’s literally denying the use of your body to a second party and forcibly removing them from your body. Therefore abortion perfectly fits into the right to control your body because the right includes controlling who or what is using your body or organs. 

*4. "Why don't you just stop having sex?"*

Sex is *not* consent to pregnancy.

Consent is continuous. Think about it like this: I may consent to putting my hand on a hot stove, but obviously I’m allowed to take my hand off to stop the burning and get my hand some medical treatment to help with the burning.

Sex may sometimes lead to pregnancy, but even if someone does consent to getting pregnant - pregnancy lasts 9 months. If someone initially consented to it but did not want to be pregnant anymore, they can revoke consent by getting an abortion (or inducing labor if it’s late enough in the pregnancy). Just as they can get medical treatment for their burnt hand even if they ‘consent’ to getting burnt, they can get medical treatment by getting an abortion even if they initially consented to pregnancy.

I can consent to something but then revoke consent. If I consent to have sex with someone but then decide I don’t want to anymore halfway through, I can revoke consent, and if my partner refuses to stop then it is rape. And consent to one thing is not consent to another thing, consenting to swimming is not consenting to drowning just because it is a possible outcome.

Even by using the logic that consenting to one action is consent to its consequences, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have the right to treat those consequences. Abortion is expensive and painful and inconvenient, and it’s a fix to the consequence of being pregnant when you don’t want to be. Just like getting an STD is a consequence but we’re allowed to treat them with antibiotics, or if I get in a car crash by driving recklessly and break my leg I can fix the consequence of my broken leg with medical treatment.

Sex shaming isn't the answer, basically.

Every time you get into a car, no matter what protection you use, you risk getting injured in a car crash. Every time you go for a swim, you risk drowning. No one calls you irresponsible for it and no one would dream of denying you medical attention, even if you didn’t protect yourself, why do it with an unwanted pregnancy? The desire to have sex and the desire to have children are completely different and most people are far more ready to **** than to have a baby. If one got pregnant accidentally and wanted to keep the it, would you deny them medical attention because they were ‘irresponsible?’ Probably not, so why do it with abortion?

*Extra clarifications:*

If you're pro life, you're basically just anti safe abortions. They're gonna happen whether you like it or not. All you're doing is increasing unsafe abortions that can end up with more people dying and increase botched abortions.

1. Studies have shown that abortion rates stay the same whether abortion is legal or not. The only difference is that in countries where abortions are illegal, pregnant people are hurt and killed - between 60,000 and 80,000 pregnant people die each year due to lack of abortion access. this can also be shown before Roe v. Wade, when abortion was legalized in the U.S. 

2. Abortion has been shown to be an overwhelmingly safe procedure when done legally - studies have shown it to be thirteen times safer than childbirth. 

3. "Post abortion syndrome" is _made up_ - there is *no tie* between abortion and depression.

4. Abortion _does not _cause breast cancer. 

5. Those who're denied abortions are three times more likely to end up below the federal poverty line afterwards.

6. A study by the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists took all of the most recent medical information and studies and came to the conclusion that fetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks gestation, and even if they *can* feel pain, evidence points to fetuses being sedated by chemicals in the amniotic fluid that keep them sedated. 

...So why do I think the "pro life" agenda is such BS, anyway?

Well, first of all, it's not uncommon for their organizations to  propagate inaccurate medical information or straight-out lie about abortion safety and risks. All you gotta do is look at pro life websites such as Abort73, which has several inaccuracies stated on it, including(but not limited to) claiming abortion causes cancer (disproved by the National Cancer Institute, as I've linked earlier), and that abortion is unsafe (Take a look at their citations, they cite data from the 1970′s that's clearly outdated as medical procedures have improved and changed since then. Invalid studies are also used.)

Other "pro life" organizations, including but not limited to "Students for Life" and "Operation Rescue" talk about "post abortion syndrome," while a study done by the American Psychological Association cited above has stated that PAS does not actually exist and that there's no correlation.

Also, those as involved as I am can may remember the whole "Planned Parenthood sells baby parts!" fiasco which was stated by sting videos from an antiabortion group called "The Center for Medical Progress." These videos were fabricated, all state investigations into Planned Parenthood about these allegations have cleared Planned Parenthood of any accusations and the makers of the videos have been indicted for using illegal means to obtain the videos.  

Abortion is very often a necessary procedure used to remove a miscarried fetus that was unable pass naturally. Every time "pro lifers" pass laws restricting abortion, especially late-term abortion, it puts people in these situations at risk. When "pro lifers" pass laws criminalizing abortion, they are passing laws with the ability to criminalize someone for having a miscarriage.

They might pretend they don’t want to attack people who have had miscarriages - or they might just truly be ignorant to what their laws actually do - but no matter what, pro-“life” laws can and do hurt those who are suffering from miscarriages.

Also... may I put up a little mention that the whole pro life "movement" is connected with terrorism/terrorist attacks? According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded,[12] 100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats,[13] and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. So, even if you only count the terrorist attacks in which damage was done. You’re looking at 587 successful terrorist attacks from pro-lifers (not included death and anthrax threats). 

That's not even all of 'em, either.

Lastly, crisis pregnancy centers (CPC) are pro-life organizations whose goals are to keep people from having abortions. They do this through a number of tactics including harassment, misinformation, and downright lies. According to the NAF, there are roughly 4,000 CPCs in the United States and only 2,000 abortion clinics. That means that it is likely there is one in your community, or in one close to you. It is important to note that most of the time these places do no provide medical services and are not staffed by medical personnel although they do sometimes offer free pregnancy tests and/or ultrasounds.

*Miscellaneous addressing:*

I don’t understand the "some people regret it" angle as an argument against legal abortion, for a few different reasons:


Most people don’t regret it.

There’s people who regret carrying to term and choosing adoption, and there’s people who regret carrying to term and becoming parents. Are those choices suddenly wrong too?

Part of being an adult in a free society is that we’re allowed to make - and live with - our own choices. It’s up to the person in question to weigh out options, make the choice they feel is best, and hopefully be happy and satisfied with the outcome. Sometimes we make the right choice and sometimes, in retrospect, we don’t. This doesn’t just apply to pregnancy, but to every decision in life, big or small. It’s infantilizing to tell people that their liberty and freedom has to be diminished in order to prevent them from making choices they might regret.

Also, abortion access isn’t just in the best interests of parents, it’s also in the best interests of _the children_. Children who are the result of unwanted pregnancy are more likely to be abused. Preventing unwanted pregnancy thus helps reduce child abuse. Abortion is a last-resort way of preventing unwanted pregnancy. Because when you have access to abortion, and unexpected pregnancy resulting in a baby changes from a mistake that the parents had no choice about following through with to a chosen addition to the family who happened to come at an unexpected time. 

Pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood immediately transforms from an unwanted, dangerous, and burdensome social obligation to a choice each pregnant person gets to make. Give a person control, and even if their decision is to go through with a thing they’re uneasy about, they will be happier with that choice than they would’ve been if coerced, and a parent who is happier with their parenthood is a better parent.

*I’m pro-choice, which really means I’m pro-bodily autonomy. That means I support these things:*


Not being forced to stay pregnant

Not being forced to have an abortion

Being able to get sterilized without hassle or shame

Not being forced to get sterilized

Affordable care for carrying a pregnancy to term

Respecting patients’ right to consent during childbirth

Access to affordable contraception

Comprehensive sex education

Not being forced to have sex without contraception

Freedom from all rape and sexual assault

Compassionate treatment of sexual assault victims and justice in the courts

Wearing whatever clothing you want without harassment

Access to affordable gender confirmation surgery and hormones for trans people

Ending infant circumcision and genital mutilation

Respecting patients’ right to consent to all medical treatment

Death with dignity for the terminally ill

Elimination of torture as an interrogation technique

Ending domestic violence and all other violent crime

Ending sex, organ, and surrogacy human trafficking

Sex workers legally working in safe, violence-free environments

Consent for all interactions involving your body

_Your body, your choice._

Also, I don't devalue human life. I am as pro choice as it gets, but I also value life more than any pro lifer I have had the displeasure of meeting. In my experience pro choicers value life more than pro lifers do, because we value the lives of people already here, who can suffer. 

That's all I've got to say. 

"Preventing [women] from accessing safe abortion care, limiting the methods that decrease the abortion rate, and making it harder for [mothers] to survive and their children to thrive: Why do the people who support these policies get to call themselves “pro-life” again?" --Jill Filipovic, "We Aren’t Afraid of Life, Sarah Palin"

(Also, more relevant to the thread: It’s been shown that tax-funded birth control and sex ed programs actually *save* the government money because paying for education and safe sex practices is cheaper than paying for pregnancy and childbirth costs. Paying for abortions instead of pregnancy/childbirth would definitely be cheaper as well. Do your research.)


----------



## Shu (Aug 19, 2017)

Goshi said:


> Looks like it's gonna be up to me to debunk/refute the common "pro-life" arguments or statements or whatever, here. Summarized for convenience.
> 
> *1. "Why don't you just put them into adoption?"*
> 
> ...



I applaud you my friend this is my mindset in a post whoaaaa :O 

EDIT: out of curiosity did you write this post here or for an assignment of some sort because it's very detailed and well written.


----------



## Goshi (Aug 19, 2017)

Shu said:


> I applaud you my friend this is my mindset in a post whoaaaa :O
> 
> EDIT: out of curiosity did you write this post here or for an assignment of some sort because it's very detailed and well written.



I put this stuff together pretty often. What's on there has already been saved to word docs on my computer from two years back, but for the convenience of this thread I organized it, coded it, and added on some more stuff.

Thanks for the compliment.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 19, 2017)

@Goshi o.o thanks for the documentary...

But seriously, you care THAT much to type up so much just about abortion? That's crazy.


----------



## seliph (Aug 19, 2017)

I logged back in here after months to give props to Goshi 'cause holy ****

Get bodied @pro-lifers


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

Despite that long post pointing out the facts, I am not changing my opinion on abortions. Even if they don't think an unborn fetus isn't considered a human, it's still a human to some, and not part of the woman's body either. It spends the first nine months developing in the woman's body, then once it's out, it's already viable, but still needs to develop (bone fusion, brain development etc.). I may see what you believe on the whole issue, and you may have a lot of evidence to back it up, but I still choose to believe that abortion is murder, taxpayer-funded abortions is government interference with religion, and that abortion rights should be limited. Whether or not I know more about the issue, I'm set in stone on my side.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 19, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Despite that long post pointing out the facts, I am not changing my opinion on abortions. Even if they don't think an unborn fetus isn't considered a human, it's still a human to some, and not part of the woman's body either. It spends the first nine months developing in the woman's body, then once it's out, it's already viable, but still needs to develop (bone fusion, brain development etc.). I may see what you believe on the whole issue, and you may have a lot of evidence to back it up, but I still choose to believe that abortion is murder, taxpayer-funded abortions is government interference with religion, and that abortion rights should be limited. Whether or not I know more about the issue, I'm set in stone on my side.



Same, I'm not letting a chapter book full of the history of abortion let my opinion drown.


----------



## brownboy102 (Aug 19, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Same, I'm not letting a chapter book full of the history of abortion let my opinion drown.



If your opinion is blind to fact, I'm afraid that your opinion becomes null. You cannot be blind to fact.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Same, I'm not letting a chapter book full of the history of abortion let my opinion drown.



But pro-lifers should still read Goshi's post, to see more on why they think abortion should be legal. They can still be set in stone like I am, but they shouldn't run or hide from this.


----------



## seliph (Aug 19, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> @Goshi o.o thanks for the documentary...
> 
> But seriously, you care THAT much to type up so much just about abortion? That's crazy.



"How dare you care and take the time to type up an informative post about a topic that is used to shame girls + women and often puts their lives at stake" - some kid who can't bare the thought of saying "sex"


----------



## Goshi (Aug 19, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> @Goshi o.o thanks for the documentary...
> 
> But seriously, you care THAT much to type up so much just about abortion? That's crazy.



No offense, but from that reply alone it kind of shows how little you recognize how this effects people.

But, to answer your question, yes. I do care very much.



gyro said:


> I logged back in here after months to give props to Goshi 'cause holy ****
> 
> Get bodied @pro-lifers


----------



## pizzapie44 (Aug 19, 2017)

antonin scalia's ghost is going to haunt this thread for all eternity


----------



## Goshi (Aug 19, 2017)

Goshi said:


> (Also, more relevant to the thread: It?s been shown that tax-funded birth control and sex ed programs actually *save* the government money because paying for education and safe sex practices is cheaper than paying for pregnancy and childbirth costs. paying for abortions instead of pregnancy/childbirth would definitely be cheaper as well. Do your research.)



Also, made this addition in relevance to the thread topic.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

Sparro said:


> If your opinion is blind to fact, I'm afraid that your opinion becomes null. You cannot be blind to fact.



They still have the right to believe what they want to believe. You may show me the facts that prove my opinion on a particular issue wrong and I can validate them, but I would still be stuck to my beliefs because I can get facts from the other side. No matter who you side with, facts backing both sides are correct, unless if it includes exaggerations or something objectively ridiculous (i.e. mining for coal makes you a plant hater, universal healthcare is bad because it's an Orwellian practice, taxes should be increased because the rich are evil). This is why I choose to stick with my pro-life opinions, even if Goshi's points are valid.


----------



## tifachu (Aug 19, 2017)

I am pro-choice. The subject of healthcare and abortion/pro-life vs pro-choice are two different things to me.

I think all healthcare should be free, not just abortions.
Though, this little step would be helpful for many women and young girls.
Also, who cares if our tax money goes to it? 
Tax money also goes to the military, I don't see how health care is worse.

Also, everyone's situations are different. Some women/girls absolutely cannot raise a child at the time they want an abortion. Going through with a pregnancy can be worse than aborting a fetus. Puts the poor woman in debt, struggling for money, the child can grow up deprived of proper affection because mom is working her a** off just to have a meal, and also, not everyone's parents can be happy about their _literal child-aged child_ giving birth to a child of their own.

While I am _very _meticulous about taking my BC pill every day, on the ~1% chance I ever do find out I'm pregnant, you can bet I'm aborting that fetus right away. Considering I'm not even in my second year of college, don't have a part-time job let alone a full-time one, and that I'm still in my "-"teen years. Not to mention, I have the mentality of an actual child, because of my personality, and also mental illness. So no, I'm not going to let a child grow up with me the way I am now. My mother also says she's going to be kicking me out of the country to go live with her relatives in the Philippines, if I do have a child at my age.

Oh and just bc someone aborts a fetus at one point in their lives, doesn't always mean they won't want a pregnancy later on. Timing is everything. We give birth after 9 months, why not wait a few years till the time is right and the child & mother can live happily? Maybe I will have a child one day, maybe I won't, but I promise myself it will not be any time soon. Not until I at least finish college and get a real job. _At the least._ It would preferably be when all my college debt is paid off or almost paid off.

Btw I hope everyone who sees a tiny fetus as a life doesn't eat meat. Or eggs. Or use any animal products at all.
Cuz those are actual living, sentient, alive lives, that are well past the stage of exiting from a vag***/cloaca. . . ,

//take a shot every time u see the word child


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

Goshi said:


> No offense, but from that reply alone it kind of shows how little you recognize how this effects people.
> 
> But, to answer your question, yes. I do care very much.



So you are very passionate about the issue. And yes, I saw your point on the taxpayer funded abortions and how it saves money. But the whole reason why this thread exists is because I felt that Oregon's abortion law was too extreme, and I don't know if pro-choicers actually believe undocumented immigrants should have abortions for free. The issue is more than just about abortion. It's about immigration rights too, and whether undocumented immigrants should be allowed to have abortions for free.


----------



## kelpy (Aug 19, 2017)

I would say that I'm Christian.
But I still don't think I have ANY right to tell someone to do/not do something just because I think its wrong.

On that note, in my opinion, I believe abortion is something that should be 100% available (to as many people as possible. just because you're not a citizen doesn't mean you don't deserve to be helped imo) to be legally and safely performed in a professional, clean environment.

High-five to Goshi for the wonderfully written "documentary"- it was very well supported and generally rad to see someone really do their research and not be lazy like me 

But yeah I don't have access to news 24/7 anymore- which is probably a good thing- but also means I'm not entirely caught up on this whole ordeal. So excuse any errors hehh... i'm also somewhat young so I wouldn't say I'm the most mature/wisest person to be talking about this... lol


----------



## brownboy102 (Aug 19, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> They still have the right to believe what they want to believe. You may show me the facts that prove my opinion on a particular issue wrong and I can validate them, but I would still be stuck to my beliefs because I can get facts from the other side. No matter who you side with, facts backing both sides are correct, unless if it includes exaggerations or something objectively ridiculous (i.e. mining for coal makes you a plant hater, universal healthcare is bad because it's an Orwellian practice, taxes should be increased because the rich are evil). This is why I choose to stick with my pro-life opinions, even if Goshi's points are valid.



But I haven't seen you counter Goshi's post yet, which leads me to assume that you have nothing to counter it with. You're giving reason for not changing your opinion but none of it, in my eyes, is justified until you can counter the argument.

- - - Post Merge - - -



tifachu said:


> /take a shot every time u see the word child



Sounds like a trip to alcohol poisoning


----------



## seliph (Aug 19, 2017)

I think it says a lot when people who call themselves "pro-life" want undocumented citizens to receive less healthcare.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

Sparro said:


> But I haven't seen you counter Goshi's post yet, which leads me to assume that you have nothing to counter it with. You're giving reason for not changing your opinion but none of it, in my eyes, is justified until you can counter the argument.



Are you really sure that I need to reconsider my opinion? Do you really want me to become a pro-choicer instead of a pro-lifer? Because I'm not going to change my opinions, even under new knowledge, peer pressure, or internet posts.


----------



## brownboy102 (Aug 19, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Are you really sure that I need to reconsider my opinion? Do you really want me to become a pro-choicer instead of a pro-lifer? Because I'm not going to change my opinions, even under new knowledge, peer pressure, or internet posts.



I'm asking you to provide some of that "counter argument" you spoke of earlier.



Alolan_Apples said:


> They still have the right to believe what they want to believe. *You may show me the facts that prove my opinion on a particular issue wrong and I can validate them, but I would still be stuck to my beliefs because I can get facts from the other side.* No matter who you side with, facts backing both sides are correct, unless if it includes exaggerations or something objectively ridiculous (i.e. mining for coal makes you a plant hater, universal healthcare is bad because it's an Orwellian practice, taxes should be increased because the rich are evil). This is why I choose to stick with my pro-life opinions, even if Goshi's points are valid.



I'm also asking you not to ignore fact in favour of belief.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

Sparro said:


> I'm asking you to provide some of that "counter argument" you spoke of earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also asking you not to ignore fact in favour of belief.



Sorry for my misunderstanding of what you were saying.

I can't think too much of a counter-argument right now, but for that whole "pro-life linked to terrorism" part, all political issues have people like this, not just pro-lifers. There's eco-terrorism, Antifa, and a whole lot of other political violence issues. Usually the more controversial groups are the most threatened out of anything.


----------



## N e s s (Aug 19, 2017)

I see we're on TBT Abortion discussion #1000 now, thanks apples


----------



## Livvy (Aug 19, 2017)

lol @ the people straight up saying "I'm not going to let facts and valid points that have proven me wrong change my opinion!!" 

Like what are you basing your opinion on then. I've never seen people so proud to be willfully ignorant.


----------



## Vizionari (Aug 19, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Despite that long post pointing out the facts, I am not changing my opinion on abortions. Even if they don't think an unborn fetus isn't considered a human, it's still a human to some, and not part of the woman's body either. It spends the first nine months developing in the woman's body, then once it's out, it's already viable, but still needs to develop (bone fusion, brain development etc.). I may see what you believe on the whole issue, and you may have a lot of evidence to back it up, but I still choose to believe that abortion is murder, taxpayer-funded abortions is government interference with religion, and that abortion rights should be limited. Whether or not I know more about the issue, I'm set in stone on my side.



It's fine if you personally believe abortion is murder. But that's not what being pro-choice is. Pro-choice is giving the woman the *choice* whether to abort her baby or keep it. Pro-choice is *not* anti-life. I feel like people keep misunderstanding that :/

Also the part about government interfering with religion: it's true we have freedom of religion, but there's a reason we have separation of the church and state.


----------



## KaydeeKrunk (Aug 19, 2017)

Full support. If I get into it anymore I'll probably not be able to stop. Just... if you need or want an abortion you deserve to get a safe one.


----------



## Goshi (Aug 19, 2017)

gyro said:


> I think it says a lot when people who call themselves "pro-life" want undocumented citizens to receive less healthcare.



Took the words right outta my mouth, lol.



Alolan_Apples said:


> Sorry for my misunderstanding of what you were saying.
> 
> I can't think too much of a counter-argument right now, but for that whole "pro-life linked to terrorism" part, all political issues have people like this, not just pro-lifers. There's eco-terrorism, Antifa, and a whole lot of other political violence issues. Usually the more controversial groups are the most threatened out of anything.



Normally when confronted with the issue of violence as the evidence in question, the better choice is not to dismiss it but to address it.


----------



## Hyoon (Aug 19, 2017)

I just wanted to comment on the illegal immigrant and healthcare sentiment here.

It's really is not hard to be a decent human being. If there's someone needing help (medical help for that matter that could be life threatening), are you going to stop and ask them for their papers before calling an ambulance? How does that sound at all ethical? If you're going to say it's because they broke the laws, then do we stop medical treatment for murderers/criminals because they broke the law as well? Should we start being selective with who we allow to give medical treatment to? I think I'm gonna stop my tangent there lol...

But yeah, I'm just gonna echo some great things that was already said. Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean you can impose on someone else's choice. It's their life, not yours. You don't know their circumstances, so who are you to judge their decision?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

gyro said:


> I think it says a lot when people who call themselves "pro-life" want undocumented citizens to receive less healthcare.



In the contrary, it makes perfect sense that illegal immigrants wouldn't get free healthcare. And do you know why? If you want to have the same citizenship rights as everyone else (financial aid, voting, food stamps, medicaid etc), you have to be a citizen. Now if they are traveling abroad and need healthcare, whether or not they are going for healthcare or tourism, but need healthcare, that's a different story. But if you're not a citizen of the United States, you shouldn't even live here. Unless if you want to sign up for amnesty, then that wouldn't be a problem. But we shouldn't have people crossing the borders or the seas illegally just to get free stuff.


----------



## brownboy102 (Aug 19, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> In the contrary, it makes perfect sense that illegal immigrants wouldn't get free healthcare. And do you know why? If you want to have the same citizenship rights as everyone else (financial aid, voting, food stamps, medicaid etc), you have to be a citizen. Now if they are traveling abroad and need healthcare, whether or not they are going for healthcare or tourism, but need healthcare, that's a different story. But if you're not a citizen of the United States, you shouldn't even live here. Unless if you want to sign up for amnesty, then that wouldn't be a problem. But we shouldn't have people crossing the borders or the seas illegally just to get free stuff.



I hadn't realized that crossing the seas to escape war and risk of death for the safety of their own lives and their BORN children's lives was such a crime. 

Think about what you say for a moment.


----------



## visibleghost (Aug 19, 2017)

"pro life" means "i care more about unborn babies that arent human beings yet than i care about immigrants, women, children who are born and have a crap life because of povert or w/e"

newsflash: people who are in bad situations haven't always done something to deserve to be there.


----------



## seliph (Aug 19, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> In the contrary, it makes perfect sense that illegal immigrants wouldn't get free healthcare. And do you know why? If you want to have the same citizenship rights as everyone else (financial aid, voting, food stamps, medicaid etc), you have to be a citizen. Now if they are traveling abroad and need healthcare, whether or not they are going for healthcare or tourism, but need healthcare, that's a different story. But if you're not a citizen of the United States, you shouldn't even live here. Unless if you want to sign up for amnesty, then that wouldn't be a problem. But we shouldn't have people crossing the borders or the seas illegally just to get free stuff.



Buddy no matter how you twist it, it makes 0 sense to call yourself "pro-life" and then pick and choose which lives you actually care about.

I don't care if someone hopped a gate, snuck on a plane, or swam across the freaking ocean. If your life's in danger you deserve to be helped. End of story.

Editing this 'cause honestly, your life doesn't even need to be in danger. You still deserve help & to be treated like a human being.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

Sparro said:


> I hadn't realized that crossing the seas to escape war and risk of death for the safety of their own lives and their BORN children's lives was such a crime.
> 
> Think about what you say for a moment.



Okay, if you want to know why I am out of touch with the rest of you guys, it's because I don't appeal to ethics. I appeal to morals. I see that most of you supported Oregon's abortion law, even for illegal immigrants, for ethical reasons. To me, I felt that Oregon's abortion law was one of the most extreme laws I've seen come from the left wing. To those that agree that human life begins at conception, Oregon's law sounds like they're letting people commit murder, for free. And taxpayers have to pay for it. I felt that this is immoral. The whole immigration issue, I only support legal immigration. Illegal immigration is immoral. You see, I put morals in front of ethics, economic rights in front of invidual rights, and traditional values in front of modern values. That's why I can never agree with most of you. I like how you're voicing your opinions and staying civil, but my sense of morals, economic rights, and traditional values outweigh the rest. I would avoid both extremes as well, but I'm naturally right-winged. That means I can only go so far on the ethics, but at least enough to cover the more serious issues.

And I know you guys will say that we are wrong to shove our morals down others' throats, but we don't like to be forced to violate our morals either.

But if there is any defense for pro-choicers I can give, there's a couple, but one thing I can say is that the pro-life Republicans are hypocrites. They don't want women having abortions for religious issues, yet they make lies and defend them, when the 9th commandment of the Ten Commandments forbids lying. So if they want to prevent women from having abortions except for serious reasons, they should also stop lying to others. The Democrats lie too, but that's not necessarily making them hypocrites since they aren't supporting some social issues for moral reasons either.


----------



## kelpy (Aug 19, 2017)

Serious question; I see the "murder" argument a LOT in these conversations so I just really wanna ask because I'm super curious,
Where did this originate? Like, why do you think life is begun at conception? Does it have anything to do with your religious beliefs?
Again, just really curious what your guys' thoughts are- no offense intended.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

Lythelys said:


> Serious question; I see the "murder" argument a LOT in these conversations so I just really wanna ask because I'm super curious,
> Where did this originate? Like, why do you think life is begun at conception? Does it have anything to do with your religious beliefs?
> Again, just really curious what your guys' thoughts are- no offense intended.



That's been going on for centuries. And yes, it was related to religion.

Somehow, I'm not getting any additional support after a few friends agreed with me before that documentary. *But I got what I wanted from this thread*. Not sure how the poll reflects society as a whole, but I can conclude that despite how extreme Oregon's abortion law is, those who are pro-choice typically agrees with Oregon's new law. Even when it's allowing illegal immigrants to get free abortions when the reasons are to get away with having a child, the child is the wrong sex, or aren't ready to take care of children. Before I created this thread, I thought this was something so extreme that not even pro-choicers would actually agree with. And it's true that there are pro-choicers that are against this too, but it seems like that the only people that would oppose this legislation are those who identify as pro-life (ranging from moderate to extreme). Only they would think that Oregon's law is too extreme (it actually is, yet pro-choicers would support this for ethical reasons). But my concusion is only based on this poll. I'm not sure if pro-choicers actually even agree with this law, or if the poll options are skewered by age and generation. Judging by the demographic of this site, I can tell that most of you are overly open-minded. Even I wouldn't go that far.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 19, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> That's been going on for centuries. And yes, it was related to religion.
> 
> Somehow, I'm not getting any additional support after a few friends agreed with me before that documentary. *But I got what I wanted from this thread*. Not sure how the poll reflects society as a whole, but I can conclude that despite how extreme Oregon's abortion law is, those who are pro-choice typically agrees with Oregon's new law. Even when it's allowing illegal immigrants to get free abortions when the reasons are to get away with having a child, the child is the wrong sex, or aren't ready to take care of children. Before I created this thread, I thought this was something so extreme that not even pro-choicers would actually agree with. And it's true that there are pro-choicers that are against this too, but it seems like that the only people that would oppose this legislation are those who identify as pro-life (ranging from moderate to extreme). Only they would think that Oregon's law is too extreme (it actually is, yet pro-choicers would support this for ethical reasons). But my concusion is only based on this poll. I'm not sure if pro-choicers actually even agree with this law, or if the poll options are skewered by age and generation. Judging by the demographic of this site, I can tell that most of you are overly open-minded. Even I wouldn't go that far.



Yes, you got what you want, and the argument should finish now. I feel like some people can freely say things to me just because I'm young and I disagree, but it's my opinion on this so I don't know why I apparently can't share an opinion because I'm younger?

But we should stop before this gets any worse. Still love you all despite opinions, bye


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Yes, you got what you want, and the argument should finish now. I feel like some people can freely say things to me just because I'm young and I disagree, but it's my opinion on this so I don't know why I apparently can't share an opinion because I'm younger?
> 
> But we should stop before this gets any worse. Still love you all despite opinions, bye



Wanna get the thread closed? Cause I think it is the time. Not trying to shut off others from voicing their opinions, but my goal was met here.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 19, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Wanna get the thread closed? Cause I think it is the time. Not trying to shut off others from voicing their opinions, but my goal was met here.



Already reported it. I still feel offended by what some people said to me so I don't anything else being said.


----------



## xSuperMario64x (Aug 19, 2017)

Political thread ended in a dispute? What a surprise.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 19, 2017)

xSuperMario64x said:


> Political thread ended in a dispute? What a surprise.



This isn't gonna be a forever-and-ever war, just to see people's opinions and disagree/agree with them. Which has been done enough in this and now it should be closed.


----------



## Hyoon (Aug 19, 2017)

Didn't realize that illegal immigrants are also human beings was such a progressive and "overly open minded" idea. Yikes.


----------



## N e s s (Aug 19, 2017)

@Alolan_Apples idk what you got from this other then back and forth bickering with likely teenagers and then saying it reflects society but w/e


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 19, 2017)

N e s s said:


> @Alolan_Apples idk what you got from this other then back and forth bickering with likely teenagers and then saying it reflects society but w/e



I don't even know why this turned into a war instead of just nice opinion sharing. But hey, I made a new friend at least


----------



## N e s s (Aug 19, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> I don't even know why this turned into a war instead of just nice opinion sharing. But hey, I made a new friend at least



"Nice opinion sharing" lololololol I don't think u've ever done a political thread on tbt before now


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

Hyoon said:


> Didn't realize that illegal immigrants are also human beings was such a progressive and "overly open minded" idea. Yikes.



I didn't mean to say that illegal immigrants shouldn't have the basic human rights we do. I was trying to say that if they want to have the same citizen rights we do, they must be citizens, or at least sign up for amnesty since they aren't lost causes. As for whether healthcare is a basic human right or not, I agree with the few members that say that it's not a basic human right. But anyone can get healthcare, regardless of citizenship status. Just not free abortions, especially for trivial reasons. That's where I threw in the "overly open-minded" phrase.


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 19, 2017)

N e s s said:


> "Nice opinion sharing" lololololol I don't think u've ever done a political thread on tbt before now



Nope, not until now....well this was an interesting one


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Nope, not until now....well this was an interesting one



Not to throw this thread off topic, but Ness is right. Last year, Brewster's Caf? was plagued with political discussions that didn't end well. They got so heated that mods had to keep locking them.


----------



## xSuperMario64x (Aug 19, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Not to throw this thread off topic, but Ness is right. Last year, Brewster's Caf? was plagued with political discussions that didn't end well. They got so heated that mods had to keep locking them.



Yes and we rly don't need that again.
Keep convos civil yall


----------



## ~Unicorn~ (Aug 19, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Not to throw this thread off topic, but Ness is right. Last year, Brewster's Caf? was plagued with political discussions that didn't end well. They got so heated that mods had to keep locking them.



At least it's not like that now....

Come on staff....lock this already!


----------



## Hyoon (Aug 19, 2017)

I mean Alolan_Apples can close the thread though...??? They're OP.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Aug 19, 2017)

Hyoon said:


> I mean Alolan_Apples can close the thread though...??? They're OP.



It's not a trading thread. Only the mods and admins can close discussion threads. But I can report one of my posts to lock this thread. And I already did.


----------



## Katelyn (Aug 19, 2017)

~Unicorn~ said:


> Already reported it. I still feel offended by what some people said to me so I don't anything else being said.



I don't know why you feel offended. People shut you down just like you shut them down. You can't say someone's crazy for standing by their opinion and then not expect to get some backlash from them.


----------



## meo (Aug 19, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> healthcare is a human right, abortion is a human right anyone should be able to get the healthcare they need no matter what their financial situation is.



This sums up my position. In other words, yes, I am in support.


----------

