Abortion poll (may be triggering)

Pro-choice. Always always always always.

 

Pro-choice, to the extent that I think anyone stupid enough to not use contraception when they can't look after a child for some reason or another should be forced to carry the child to term as their punishment.

But otherwise completely pro-choice. Some of the ridiculous arguments employed by the pro-life camp completely alienate people. I don't understand how churches can be both anti-contraception AND pro-life.

 

So you think if people got pregnant in a way you disapprove of should be forced to carry a pregnancy to full term?
Dude what the fuck.
No really.
That's fucked up.

---------- Post added 30th Jun 2013 at 10:28 AM ----------

I agree with what you're saying about "Pro-life", but you don't have to be pro-abortion to be pro-choice. You could personally feel you never want to have one or that you feel it's wrong, but still respect the bodily autonomy of others.

 

I am very authoritarian. Sorry.

 

Plus you're basically saying that people who definitely can't take care of a child should be forced to. What about the child? Having a baby should never be a punishment, but of your own free will.

 

We'll simply have to disagree.

 

..Yeah. Great idea. Bring an unwanted child into the world to a family that doesn't want it where there's a good chance it'll be abused.

Brilliant.

 

Bcs u no children only exists 2 punish sluts!!!

 

I'm sure a lot of parents would agree with you there!

 

I think you missed the sarcasm.

 

Whoever tries to tell a woman what to do with her body can fuck off.

 

I agree 100%, but just because I don't like something doesn't mean it should be illegal or that it's wrong

 

I'm pro-choice. The government should not have any say in what a woman chooses to do with her body.

 

Male-assigned (so I went with male), strongly pro-choice. Here's the argument that cemented it for me.

Say Bethany has a brother Bobby. Bobby suffers from kidney failure, but the wait list for a kidney transplant is so long that he has to wait nine months for one. If he doesn't get a kidney soon, he will die. Bethany is the only person who can give him a kidney, and they even promise to put her kidney back when Bobby gets a permanent one of his own. Bethany thinks about it for a long time, and decides that she's not comfortable with the risks associated with it. Thus her brother dies.

Would you say she made the wrong decision? Would you even call her decision amoral? Maybe. But would you argue that she should be legally required to give her kidney to her brother? That it shouldn't be a choice? I hope not. We have this idea (rightfully so) in our culture that no one should be required to give of their body so that others may live, even after death (which is why organ donation is an opt-in system).

So why is it any different when Bobby is Bethany's unborn son instead of her brother? Why should she be required to give up her body so that he may live then? By saying she shouldn't have the choice to abort her baby, pro-lifers are giving a woman fewer rights than we give a corpse.

So if someone smokes, should they be denied treatment if they get lung cancer? If they get into a sky-diving accident, should they be denied treatment for their broken bones? If they become an alcoholic, should they be denied treatment for their liver disease? Unless you say no to those questions, you're singling out pregnant women for being denied medical treatment because of not taking steps to prevent getting into their current state, and that is messed up.

You're also saying that the child should be brought into the world as punishment for the woman. That the child should exist to punish her. That is especially messed up.

 

Male and pro-choice for the standard "let her run her own body" reasons.

 

:eusa_doh:

You've hit the nail on the head. Insurance providers, or here the NHS, should not have to pay for a smokers cancer treatment unless they give up smoking forever. The same goes for drinking.

 

Bruv what is wrong with you

 

Seriously?