Am I the only gay person who doesn't like abortion?

most rapists go unpunished

 

It is easily preventable, wear a fucking condom, not take someone's life away.

---------- Post added 14th Apr 2013 at 02:17 PM ----------

And how is that exactly the mother or the baby's fault?

 

Haha, oh wow.

 

Tell that to the rapists.

Exactly. Why make her carry a child of the rapist?

Life isn't always sunshine and rainbows. If a child was always a joy, adoption centres would not exist.

 

Yeah the idea of using - what will become - a living human being as a punishment for having sex is fucking vile, especially coming from the ones posturing & pretending to be 'compassionate'.

 

@ Jay No heart or simply desperate or otherwise mentally altered because it is just too much to bare?

You don't read the news? Ever heard of shaken baby syndrome? Never seen news about killed infants, or newborn babies buried in the back garden and such? People get desperate. It's not because always they are a bad person, but because they are put in a bad situation, which having children untimely/unwanted can be.


What about the partners? Even if the mother might love the child, the partner might hate it because it's not his for instance. Whatever happens, it's never truly positive for either mother or child.



I wonder how many disfunctional families you have seen?

If you think that a child is always a joy it just reflex your upbringing. It's easiest to think from your own perspective and repeat what's been told you.
That's okay, but don't expect people that have a broader view to always agree.

 

Guys, last warning: keep it civil.

Attacking other posters won't fly, and I don't want to have to lock this thread. This is a support forum first and foremost, and if you can't maintain that atmosphere throughout the whole forum, then we can't let threads like these stay.

As for my own two cents: yes, rape cases should be considered, but pregnancies as a result of rape make up a very, very small percentage of all rape crimes and all prengancies. In terms of making an argument out of it, it should not be the basis.

 

We weren't arguing the percentages we were arguing how hypocritical it is to make exceptions for abortions if you believe it's all "baby-murder".

Question for anti-choicers with "exceptions"-
if you really, truly believed abortion was "taking innocent lives" how do you justify all the asterisks you put on it?
Is that to seem more PC?

 

Abortion is about unwanted kids. Results of rape are among them. For me it makes no difference why the kid was not wanted (at that moment).

You can't simply state that every child is a joy. It might turn out to be, no matter what the circumstances, but having one you didn't want might also turn your life or that of the child to hell.

 

Yes, but Jay argued that rape doesn't justify abortion, and we are trying to point out why it's wrong.

People who are pro-life seem to not see the big picture. All they see is a life saved, and the pretty cutesy face of the child. Every kid is a joy? Reality is not as pretty. Not everyone is rich. They may not be financially prepared to raise children. Should they part with their children and give them up for adoption? Is this the humane thing to do, since pro-lifers care so much about humanity? Or should they just raise their kids anyway, no matter how terrible their living condition may be? Not every woman is ready to be a mother, especially if the kids are unwanted. You don't have to look far, just google teenage moms. Not every child born can be raised properly. Think about it. You're not saving those children. You're damning them and their families to a life of miseries and pain. I live in Asia, so it may not be applicable to you all. But I've seen with my own eyes many kids who are raised in a condition that is not suited for a human to live, simply because abortion was out of the question. I've seen kids who became beggars on the street, pickpockets, street gang members,... I've read about newborn babies abandoned by their mothers, or killed in the fields. Wouldn't it be better if they hadn't been born? Obviously you would argue that we need to improve living standards, the kids are not to blamed, it's their fault for not being able to raise their children and they should be held responsible, etc. but ultimately, unwanted children are almost always bound to live a terrible life. Would you call those children "saved"?

Secondly, why must the women be subjected to 9 months of pregnancy, the duty to be a mother and raise a child (which often means giving up their career)? Who are you to tell them they have to endure these things just because you believe abortion is "killing babies"?

Unless you can prove (and make sure) that every party can be happy with the child being born, pro-life is a moot point.

My brother was an accident. Luckily, my family was financially stable and could support another member. Had it been otherwise, we would be in deep shit now. I wouldn't be able to go to college, my mum wouldn't be able to support both of her sons to stay in school. And even if the mother can support her child, it is entirely within her right to decide whether to abort or not.

 

I always thought the magic line of "being born" or exiting the vagina was very arbitrary. Why is it ok to kill this parasite, that so many of you have chosen to call it, months before birth, but not 5 minutes before birth. What is the difference, it is being a parasite the whole time. The only salient point to this arguement is when does the clump of cells become a human baby. And why is wrong for me to say that it becomes a baby after leaving the vagina. Why shouldn't I be able to kill the fetus 5 minutes before birth? It isn't thinking or sentient, babies don't remember what happens to them at 1 day of age.

A second point. I am fine with pro-choicers arguing their side. I have seen many call pro-lifers "bad people". I would hope you are also fine with me judging people who have abortions, just as I judge people who run up debt, its irresponsible behavior and it deserves to be judged.

 

The inherent flaw here is that judgement is a subjective action. What you deem irresponsible may not be what others deem irresponsible.

 

Moral relativity is a pointless stance to take, which is basically what your point amounts to.

 

I am actually very pro-life, but all of my stance are based on non-religious reasons (since I am non-religious), being it's a living being, if you kill it; it's murder. Though I'm raised in a Catholic community, that's the only thing I picked up on it, but I know it won't ever being illegalized, and I really don't know if it should or not... and I really don't judge others who support it or have had the procedure.. personally I just don't like it

---------- Post added 14th Apr 2013 at 05:26 PM ----------

except rape.. that's so diffrent, or if life is at stake for the mother or the fetes

 

If I had a conjoined twin, and if our organs were arranged in such a way that I could survive surgical separation and my twin couldn't, would I have the right to choose to have surgery even though it meant killing them? (Assuming that if we didn't have surgery we'd both live, which would definitely be the case if we'd lived long enough for me to choose.)

And it's not even as big a deal as a conjoined twin, because no matter what you do, the baby will be out of your body in a few months.

 

In my circumstance, if I was to become pregnant:
-My life would be in danger.
-I'd almost certainly pass on a genetic condition which can be crippling, and has resulted in my mother and sister having to have major brain surgery before the age of 30, with side effects which have effectively ruined my mother's life.
-The pregnancy would almost certainly not be due to consensual sex.
-I do not want to raise a child, and would resent a child born of an unplanned pregnancy. I cannot support a child at the moment, particularly one who I'm only forced to have because some people think it's an apt (and lifelong) punishment for "not taking responsibility".

Why should I and the foetus be forced to go through all of that?

 

Bad cases make bad law. And the two aren't really comparable. One is an incredibly rare event that would probably generate years of new precedent and case law, the other is an incredibly common event that already has strong, fleshed-out cases for and against it. Furthermore, and I cannot be clear enough about this an embryo is not equivalent to a baby. Almost all abortions are performed within the first trimester, when the embryo is incapable of consciousness. It posses no desire, no will to live.

If, if elective abortions were performed in the third trimester, you might be able to make a convincing case that the fetus' bodily autonomy was on par with its mother's, but third-trimester abortions are exclusively performed for medical reasons. In fact, by US law, they can only be performed for medical reasons.

And, of course, all this rests on the assumption that the pro-life movement actually cares about the life of the embryo, for which the evidence is seriously lacking:

 

The majority of the pro-life argument is based on moral relativity - if everyone agreed it was pointless, this thread wouldn't exist. Ergo, you can't disregard it.

 

One of my best friends recently had her first child. I originally thought that she should have had an abortion. It had me thinking about my stance on the topic.

And...

it still stands. The whole "but I wouldn't be alive if I was aborted!" comment doesn't fly. You wouldn't even know! You would have no clue. I think we need to start making logical comments here.

And who likes abortion? Let's kill that one. No one, and I mean no one (unless you are sick and twisted) likes abortion. That's like, one of the biggest ways biggest try to hate on us.

Frankly, there isn't much we can do. Women need the support and help to make the right decision - but it should stay with them. My friend told me that a friend of hers had an abortion...and regretted it oh so much. I'm pretty sure (read 100%) that was the same girl who now has another child. Guess what? I've heard stories. She's a pretty bad mom. She shouldn't have kids.

I stand by my pro-choice stance because this is NOT a cake-walk. You cannot use a child to "grow up" or "become a better person" unless you really, really, really, really, really, really, really are ready to make that decision. And no matter what you say, safe-sex doesn't always work. I used to think "oh, well if you're worried about getting pregnant, don't have sex..." hahahahah. Yeah, that works well.

 

I'm just curious; does anyone here have a coherent argument for the pro-life position? (Instead of emotional appeals like "I could have been aborted" and "It has a heart-beat.") Or if someone wanted, I could provide a few arguments for the pro-choice position.