Pro-life or Pro-choice

Status
Not open for further replies.
And you call us pro-life people, closed-minded? This is wrong already. Whenever you're trying to debate something you should always be open-minded to other people's opinion. If you just neglect to listen other points of view, then your opinion, statements and arguments must be overriden as you're already initially stating you refuse to learn more about it. You can't go in a debate with a negligent attitude.


Are you really denying my right to comment on an issue that concerns us all as a society based on an aspect of me that I did not decide? That mentality is just too wrong already. Are you really telling me to look away and act indifferent to the mass infanticide that is being committed every day? If you think you should, then it would also give me the right as a man to act indifferent to world hunger, sexual harassment victims, war etc. A baby is also a man's problem as half of the genetic material of that baby is the father's. The fact that it's inside your body doesn't mean you can decide it's fate. If you really think men should have no opinion on this, all abortion-permissive laws on the world must be repealed because it was men who promulgated them. I just think it's highly discriminatory that you don't think I can have an opinion on this, just because I was born a man. Keeping men away from this discussion is very retrograde and reminds me of the times that women weren't allowed to vote or decide just because they were born women. Keeping us away from it would justify nonsense stuff like keeping women away from other topics and stating that it's not women's business.



Is it really her choice to decide on someone else's fate? You're denying him the basic right to live. Abortion because of avoiding more kids to live poor or painful lives would justify mass infanticide around the world, just to avoid their suffering, you know? That's extremely classist because you only want rich people to have children.


I do care about mass infanticide being committed very day because I have something called humanity?

- - - Post Merge - - -




Umm, I have a question for you. Do you really think abortion clinics care about women? No, they don't, they just care about money. They are more give like "pay me 200 dollars to perform a procedure on you that I didn't even talk to you about the process, risks, pros and cons of" rather than "we care about women's rights".

So you work at an abortion clinic? The very clinics that are shown secure the women who face pro-life advocates screaming to their faces with megaphones? Basically carried in as they're too destroyed from not only having to go through an abortion by means which are non of yours, or their business, but also being completely ridiculed for it by people who don't put any effort past that. No effort to help the children once they are born. Going against LGBT parenthood for the 400,000 children in foster homes in which that's okay. Going against any pre-natal, pre-school, school lunch, Medicare, or like there of by means of supporting. The only thing pro-life advocate care about is control. Making that of women who give birth nothing, but vessels as evident from how once that child comes of the age to deal with her own dilemma she'll be treated the same way. If that's the case, then where is the "life" in such a title then?
 
oh, that was actually one of the big things I found myself to come to my above conclusion

alongside iirc a huffpost article

Then quote it here

- - - Post Merge - - -

Going against LGBT parenthood for the 400,000 children in foster homes in which that's okay. Going against any pre-natal, pre-school, school lunch, Medicare, or like there of by means of supporting. The only thing pro-life advocate care about is control. Making that of women who give birth nothing, but vessels as evident from how once that child comes of the age to deal with her own dilemma she'll be treated the same way. If that's the case, then where is the "life" in such a title then?

Umm, sorry, but I really missed the part when I said I was against LGBT parenthood, school lunches, medicare or any other type of support? You can't judge me based on things I never said lmaoo
 
Then quote it here

- - - Post Merge - - -



Umm, sorry, but I really missed the part when I said I was against LGBT parenthood, school lunches, medicare or any other type of support? You can't judge me based on things I never said lmaoo

That's the general consensus regarding pro-life advocates which is where I took that concern. Funny how you deny that, but not the control part huh?
 
i am actually familiar with abby johnson's case but for those who aren't, abby claims to have witnessed a third-trimester ultrasound abortion which horrified her so much that she left the planned parenthood clinic she worked at and became a pro-life activist. she also claims her boss pushed her to "perform more abortions", which many people, including her close friend have deemed untrue. records also debunk her claims of witnessing said abortion. her friend says the whole entire story is just abby trying to get back at her boss who fired her.

it's an absurd claim of hers that she was pressured to perform more abortions as it is, but especially when discussing planned parenthood. planned parenthood is a non-profit (abby claims they are for profit, which is false, and one of many reasons to take what she says with a grain of salt) organization that not only provides many services other than abortions, but in relation to abortion/pregnancy they also provide sexual education, a number of contraceptives, pregnancy tests, adoption services and referrals, and even childbirth classes. abortions are actually one of their less frequently provided services. knowing this, abby's claims seem very vindictive and fabricated. if this was all true we would definitely hear about it more.

this is a good read on the abby johnson case: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/fact-fiction-pro-life-celebrity-abby-johnson-unplanned/

Ok, thank you very much for quoting an external website. I really appreciate when people peacefully try to make me see their point of view. However, I still don't think that story to be 100% true, and even more because it's from a very small newspaper, which may have untrustworthy sources. Even more, I researched more about the guy who wrote that article and although Nate Blakeslee may have a point, I don't consider him to be a trustworthy source of information regarding abortion stories because, for instance, he never really got to interview any of the people involved in the story. Also, he engages in stupid and pointless twitter fights, which, at least for me, don't add up for a good source of information. Also, his opinion is totally biased towards Democrats as I learned in his twitter fights. Finally, he accepts Planned Parenthood's records of a particular day, but admits that "Johnson may well have been present at some point for an ultrasound-guided abortion". But then he writes that her ex- friend Laura Kaminczak has said that Johnson did in fact mention seeing an abortion performed on an ultrasound not long before she quit. Does an objective reporter go with a self-serving, unverifiable "record", or a contemporary, otherwise antagonistic, human verification?

You should also check out these links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A16gzm9eaa8

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/...d-pregnant-employee-discrimination-women.html

- - - Post Merge - - -

That's the general consensus regarding pro-life advocates which is where I took that concern. Funny how you deny that, but not the control part huh?

But well, each and every individual has even slightly different views on something, so it's wrong to assume someone behaves a certain way (stereotypes) just because it belongs to a certain group. Also, I really missed the part when I said I was in favor of banning abortion just for the sake of intrinsically trying to control a certina group of people.
 

looking this person up, because I don't do videos...

and so what I'm getting is some guy who performed abortions adoptive daughter got killed in an accident and he suddenly decided abortion was bad despite no actual correlation to the two things, and we're supposed to take him at face value because.... why?

like it sucks, but don't force your personal misgivings on everyone else

- - - Post Merge - - -

oh and the article is locked behind a paywall or something, so lmao
 
Last edited:
looking this person up, because I don't do videos...

and so what I'm getting is some guy who performed abortions adoptive daughter got killed in an accident and he suddenly decided abortion was bad despite no actual correlation to the two things, and we're supposed to take him at face value because.... why?

like it sucks, but don't force your personal misgivings on everyone else

- - - Post Merge - - -

oh and the article is locked behind a paywall or something, so lmao

Oh, you should just create an account, they will charge you nothing, it's free. The article was about how some pregnant women were mistreated by Planned Parenthood.
 
Is it really her choice to decide on someone else's fate? You're denying him the basic right to live. Abortion because of avoiding more kids to live poor or painful lives would justify mass infanticide around the world, just to avoid their suffering, you know? That's extremely classist because you only want rich people to have children.

You're comparing a cluster of cells with a baby.
You can give your little opinion on the internet however it won't change anything about the fact that you have nothing to say about women and their OWN bodies. No you don't care about those foetuses, are you willing to raise them? Or help the women who didn't abort them? As many said in that thread before, I'd rather see an aborted foetus than an unwanted baby.
Stop putting the blame on women for once, and stop talking about "infanticide", this is not an infanticide, this is women deciding what is right for them and their potential offspring.

Do you really think women would stop aborting if it were to become illegal? They would just take even more risks, putting their own life in danger. I'd rather let them live their life and let them choose.
Of course a tiny amount of women are using abortion as a contraceptive, but trust me, the majority isn't. This is something you think about, A LOT.
Also what you said about "the white men who promulgated the abortion laws"... duh women couldn't vote those laws since female politicians were so rare. And fyi, in France, it's a woman who made the abortion laws, and she'll always be remembered as a hero for many.
Take action to help the unwanted babies, help the fosters, and maybe you'll be able to give your opinion.
 
Ok, thank you very much for quoting an external website. I really appreciate when people peacefully try to make me see their point of view. However, I still don't think that story to be 100% true, and even more because it's from a very small newspaper, which may have untrustworthy sources. Even more, I researched more about the guy who wrote that article and although Nate Blakeslee may have a point, I don't consider him to be a trustworthy source of information regarding abortion stories because, for instance, he never really got to interview any of the people involved in the story. Also, he engages in stupid and pointless twitter fights, which, at least for me, don't add up for a good source of information. Also, his opinion is totally biased towards Democrats as I learned in his twitter fights. Finally, he accepts Planned Parenthood's records of a particular day, but admits that "Johnson may well have been present at some point for an ultrasound-guided abortion". But then he writes that her ex- friend Laura Kaminczak has said that Johnson did in fact mention seeing an abortion performed on an ultrasound not long before she quit. Does an objective reporter go with a self-serving, unverifiable "record", or a contemporary, otherwise antagonistic, human verification?

You should also check out these links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A16gzm9eaa8

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/...d-pregnant-employee-discrimination-women.html

- - - Post Merge - - -



But well, each and every individual has even slightly different views on something, so it's wrong to assume someone behaves a certain way (stereotypes) just because it belongs to a certain group. Also, I really missed the part when I said I was in favor of banning abortion just for the sake of intrinsically trying to control a certina group of people.

It would appear to me that you don't know what general consensus means.
 
You're comparing a cluster of cells with a baby.
You can give your little opinion on the internet however it won't change anything about the fact that you have nothing to say about women and their OWN bodies. No you don't care about those foetuses, are you willing to raise them? Or help the women who didn't abort them? As many said in that thread before, I'd rather see an aborted foetus than an unwanted baby.
Stop putting the blame on women for once, and stop talking about "infanticide", this is not an infanticide, this is women deciding what is right for them and their potential offspring.

Do you really think women would stop aborting if it were to become illegal? They would just take even more risks, putting their own life in danger. I'd rather let them live their life and let them choose.
Of course a tiny amount of women are using abortion as a contraceptive, but trust me, the majority isn't. This is something you think about, A LOT.
Also what you said about "the white men who promulgated the abortion laws"... duh women couldn't vote those laws since female politicians were so rare. And fyi, in France, it's a woman who made the abortion laws, and she'll always be remembered as a hero for many.
Take action to help the unwanted babies, help the fosters, and maybe you'll be able to give your opinion.

Yeah, they’re just a cluster of cells, but aren’t we all? I think it’s very arbitrary to state that life starts at birth. Would you consider a chicken still developing in an egg as life? Because I can assure you that if I went on killing chickens still in the egg, PETA would come at my door instantly.

Also, I really missed the part when I said I didn’t care about the poor. In fact, I do. I regularly donate clothes, money, food, medicine and other articles to orphanages or other organizations. In fact, I volunteered several times to help in a place where they helped orphan kids or poor mothers. Stop assuming stuff about myself.

- - - Post Merge - - -

It would appear to me that you don't know what general consensus means.
Even if I didn’t knew, it very wrong to assume stuff over other people. Actually, that’s one of the principal problems of society. It’s like saying if you’re Arab you’re gonna explode because it’s general consensus. Or saying all Catholics are very conservative. These are all wrong assumptions.
 
Pro-choice. I think it's better to avoid having a baby if you don't want one than having it and either neglecting it or putting it up for adoption where maybe it wouldn't end up getting adopted ever or for a long while. I've seen so many instances where it would have been better for the baby to not have been born.
 
Yeah, they’re just a cluster of cells, but aren’t we all? I think it’s very arbitrary to state that life starts at birth. Would you consider a chicken still developing in an egg as life? Because I can assure you that if I went on killing chickens still in the egg, PETA would come at my door instantly.

You know what else is just a cluster of cells? Cancer, which is an apt comparison if somebody was forced to carry around a child they didn't want.

I don't personally believe life starts at birth, things like premeture births and c-sections counter that IMO, but I also understand the argument to those who do (though I've personally seen very few people who argue it starts at birth).

Generally people tend to go with the fetus having a heartbeat and brain activity since those are the two things most will agree something requires to be 'alive', not to mention 2 out of 3 of the things that when missing will classify something as dead. These two things generally happen around 6-8 weeks IIRC. Before this a fetus isn't much different to a tumour really, and if the mother doesn't want the baby then it may as well be a cancerous tumour since it's just going to grow and grow until it eventually kills her bank account and dreams...Or be put into adoption potentially giving the mother a lifetime of grief that they've done something like that.

But back on to "I think it’s very arbitrary to state that life starts at birth". Well, we need a point where we can say "that's life now, you can't kill it anymore, tough luck". As I say, I personally believe it to be when the brain starts showing activity (I don't count the heartbeat so much), but is that any different from men across the globe spraying millions of their children into tissues, socks and the faces of their partners? Of course it's different, pretty much because of an arbitrary point where we've decided "that's not life yet".

As for the chicken comparison, I'll have an opinion when throwing near hatching eggs at the wall becomes a thing anybody actually does.

Even if I didn’t knew, it very wrong to assume stuff over other people. Actually, that’s one of the principal problems of society. It’s like saying if you’re Arab you’re gonna explode because it’s general consensus. Or saying all Catholics are very conservative. These are all wrong assumptions.

Not really, because the "all Arab's are terrorists" thing is just a racist stereotype where as the actual general consensus is that "we're not stupid, we know that #NotAllArabs". For something to be a general consensus, a majority of people have to agree with the said statement, not a small vocal minority and lowbrow "adult" comedies.
 
:eek: Don't know what I expected clicking into here, so much heated discussion !

I'm pro-choice, I have 0 perspective or say in anything a woman chooses to do.

I believe punishments put in place to stop abortions is absolutely disgusting, and that there are a number of moral and health reasons that would make any punishments monstrous and heartless. Not that women need to have medical emergencies or some tragic event take place to justify getting one.


I don't care if someone is against abortions or would never be okay with their partner or themselves having one, but once you believe in legal punishment for women who go through with one, I think you've jumped too far off the deep end.
 
There is just so much that I can speak about on this subject. To me, it?s not a matter of pro choice or pro life. Women are required as much body autonomy as men. Because whether you are a man a woman or something in between, you are a person. You should be in control of your life. Abortion isn?t something that people go out to get and think nothing of. Pregnant people know what it means to end a pregnancy, it?s an extremely hard decision to make. Stop harassing them over it.

This is by far the best statement I've read throughout this thread. And is completely true! I have worked in the prenatal setting and had to learn how to facilitate and counsel families through genetic testing which and the process of terminating a pregnancy.

First off I think trying to say man's or woman's opinion is invalid is just stupid overall. I care more about where that opinion is coming from. If its coming from a male OBGYN or other doctor related to healthcare especially in that field.... yeah I want that person's input. If it is from someone whose only experience is reading on the internet or biased based on some sort of personal emotional experience, then yeah I'm less inclined to listen to them in a serious conversation. No woman is ever happy going through a termination and the majority of terminations are done as early as possible. Usually its because there is some genetic abnormality that means the fetus' chance of living to birth is very small (Trisomy 18/13 or Turner Syndrome). Those women are devastated and just want to move on. Are their exceptions, yes..... but I guarantee the majority of abortions happen like this, and usually its through a health professional.

There are laws to abortions, i believe its 24 weeks is the general cut off to have an abortion. Usually pregnancies are noticed by this point and its decided to keep or not, let alone these other medical factors coming into play. Late term pregnancies can be terminated after these 24 weeks, but that is only if there is a severe medical reason for the baby or mother... AGAIN, the majority of terminations follow these regulations and have health professionals to guide them through the decision making process that is just not a fun conversation to have.

The whole money hungry corporate agenda argument really pisses me off, because I work with a lot of doctors and nurses who didn't go into this field for the money.... there are far better ways to make more without getting the education and having the long hours that go along with healthcare jobs. People use the comparison of cancer care is so lucrative why would they release a "cure for cancer" when we can make so much money. All of the doctors I work with are there for patients first and foremost, care deeply for these patients, so to say we are doing it for the money is ridiculous and those people have no concept of cancer/ cancer care. I would say that its probably largely the same, people aren't just doing abortions because they can be done cheap and billed high.... like what? If you talk to reputable healthcare professionals who work with facilitating abortions, I bet they would all think the same way.

Yael said:
Most of its body parts have grown by the 12 weeks. It does not have the same genetic material as you, so it isn't a part of you. It's an individual life you should take care of. It's not your decision what should happen to the baby as it's not your body.

I've seen a 12 week terminated fetus outside the womb and I guarantee you it does not look much like a human... A person is 50% DNA from each parent, I stand that that means each parent needs equal say in determining what is done. The woman carries the child, but a man is also never given the opportunity to do that... If I'm counseling a family about this decision and the husband/father of the baby isn't participating you better believe I'm gonna engage him and figure out what he thinks.

Also the comparison to slavery was just.... weird. Pretty sure slavery was still profitable during the civil war times, hence why the south (where agriculture was a prominent industry) fought so strongly, because the slave labor was cheap. The north didn't hide slaves in their houses and fight a war because of a washed up factor of an industry not as relevant to them..... this is getting off topic

The last thing I'll touch on is the elected terminations based on genetic conditions like down syndrome. I've worked with children with special needs in an overnight camp and essentially acted as a parent to these kids for a few days. In that time I got so much respect for those parents and really learned that its so hard to have that as your life. Most genetic conditions are not chosen to happen (the majority of cases of down syndrome have no reason for them, they can happen in any pregnancy). Yes you have the religious people who get through it because "god brought them that child" and thats great for them. However I also fully recognize that a family may not be capable to raise a child with special needs, may be terrified of what might be ahead in that situation that they had no control over. So if they choose to terminate, I want to make sure they are fully aware of the options and have an accurate idea of what its like to raise a child with special needs before making that decision.... but that is there decision and I fully support it in my field (Genetic counseling)

In summary, you can assume all you want and read as many articles on the internet. But until you actually experience something in the field and work with people who have disabilities or children with disabilities or go through an abortion/termination then, yeah your opinion is gonna hold less credit in my eyes....

Stay in school children

- - - Post Merge - - -

Also, are there unsavory abortion clinics and people who don't follow what I describe? absolutely, there are bad examples in every industry and every consumer for anything... that doesn't mean you ruin it for the people doing it right or think any less of the people (the majority of which are in situations I described) who go through it the "right way"
 
Yeah, they’re just a cluster of cells, but aren’t we all? I think it’s very arbitrary to state that life starts at birth. Would you consider a chicken still developing in an egg as life? Because I can assure you that if I went on killing chickens still in the egg, PETA would come at my door instantly.

Also, I really missed the part when I said I didn’t care about the poor. In fact, I do. I regularly donate clothes, money, food, medicine and other articles to orphanages or other organizations. In fact, I volunteered several times to help in a place where they helped orphan kids or poor mothers. Stop assuming stuff about myself.

- - - Post Merge - - -


Even if I didn’t knew, it very wrong to assume stuff over other people. Actually, that’s one of the principal problems of society. It’s like saying if you’re Arab you’re gonna explode because it’s general consensus. Or saying all Catholics are very conservative. These are all wrong assumptions.

Which is why I asked you two questions following your first response which you very much ignored. Don't tell me that I'm assuming when you choose not to answer what I've already asked. What I described was not solely for you, and until you've actually experienced how clinics operate first hand I don't see why you should be speaking for them.
 
Last edited:
Hey, brother, I don't wanna argue with you on your stance here. I think you have every right to speak with that level of conviction, and believe in whatever you want. That's your right, and you're clearly very passionate about this.

However, in regards to this part of your argument:

Are you really denying my right to comment on an issue that concerns us all as a society based on an aspect of me that I did not decide? That mentality is just too wrong already. Are you really telling me to look away and act indifferent to the mass infanticide that is being committed every day? If you think you should, then it would also give me the right as a man to act indifferent to world hunger, sexual harassment victims, war etc. A baby is also a man's problem as half of the genetic material of that baby is the father's. The fact that it's inside your body doesn't mean you can decide it's fate. If you really think men should have no opinion on this, all abortion-permissive laws on the world must be repealed because it was men who promulgated them. I just think it's highly discriminatory that you don't think I can have an opinion on this, just because I was born a man. Keeping men away from this discussion is very retrograde and reminds me of the times that women weren't allowed to vote or decide just because they were born women. Keeping us away from it would justify nonsense stuff like keeping women away from other topics and stating that it's not women's business.

I just want to say that the reason we can't speak on abortion the same way as other users here is because we are coming from a limited perspective. It's not that we can't or shouldn't have any opinion or say. I agree with you there, that the father's opinion does matter, but his opinion is coming through the lens of someone who cannot phantom or truly empathize with the decision being made. (To the extent that a woman can, that is.)

His opinion is also coming from the perspective of someone who didn't grow up with the same fear and shame tactics that women face, and who's livelihood/health isn't directly affected.

It's like race or poverty. Can a white person have an opinion of the discrimination of minorities? Absolutely, and he can empathize to some extent, but never fully. There are social interworkings and societal dynamics that even if explained to you, won't be fully comprehensible. If I described what breaking your leg felt like, you'd get it, but you also wouldn't know that pain, y'know?

It's important to remember your limited perspective, and that you're speaking on life altering decisions that you will never have to make, feel, or decide. And that the people you're arguing with here are the people who will have to face those things. Even if you were pro choice, you wouldn't face the same backlash and legal prosecution that women would. You also wouldn't have to live with the same amount of pain and guilt.
They're telling you how they feel man, and yes, how they feel does matter more than how you think on this topic.

It's easy for you to speak this stance. It's easy for me to say the opposite. Women don't have that privilege, this affects whether they are socially and legally prosecuted. So, all I'm saying is, when you're writing back and forth to these users, try to remember that they are coming from a whole different world, that is more complicated than just if cells are alive or not. You don't have to change your stance, but try to learn something from them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top