Social Are you pro choice or pro life?

Are you in favour of

  • Total voters
    142
What about if we could vote to abort other peoples babies? I want that in the poll please
 
nostradumbass said:
That's pretty simplistic. Nobody said it isn't a life because of the circumstances. I know it's not legally self-defense, especially since killing it for any reason at all is already legal. We recognize that killing another person is wrong, but there are circumstances when killing is justifiable, which makes no claim that the person sacrificed isn't a person. It's a silly argument that nobody has made to say that both of them dying is preferable to saving one of them, and it's still a life. The circumstance sacrificing a life to save others is more common among adults than in pregnancies

Of course the frequency of these "saving the mother's life" abortions is very relevant when you claimed "she knew the risk". You know there is a tiny chance of a roller coaster flying off the track and killing everyone or a plane crashing, but you don't just say "oh well, they knew that was a possibility" and let bygones be bygones.

Are any of the pro-abortion people in favor of allowing only abortions that save the mother's life? Of course not, so why do all of you keep using that? Nobody would argue for the legalization of shooting people you don't like and give examples of justified shootings to excuse the rest. People who are shot are people, unborn children are people, and there are life-threatening circumstances where taking another life is justified.
Click to expand...
It's not legally self-defense, it's not even conceptually self-defense. It might be survival but that's conceptually different.

Okay since you're struggling with the argument I'm making. You're saying that it's okay to kill people within the womb under certain circumstances. Fine. The core segment of that position is that it's okay to kill those people, who are in the womb, while they are not in a position to argue against their own death. Then you add whens and whys.

Once a person takes that position, they cannot go to someone else and say "You cannot kill people in the womb." They've already said otherwise.

And once they accept that killing people, who are in the womb, is acceptable, they are now in a pro-choice position. Maybe the rape victim aborts, maybe they don't but it's their choice. Maybe the woman in a dangerous pregnancy aborts, maybe she doesn't but, again, it's her choice.

You're still arguing pro-choice but then passing a moral judgment on which choices are okay and which choices are not. It's not a pro-life position. Understand? Moralizing on why one choice is better than the other is still a pro-choice argument.

Get it? It doesn't matter why you support abortions in one circumstance and not in another. At the end of the day, unless you're against abortion in all circumstances then you're effectively in the pro-choice camp and not the anti-abortion camp.

I'll try one last question set to help you reason through this: Would you require women who were raped to get abortions or would you force them to keep the baby? Or...would you let the woman choose?
 
I'm against most human life and most people reproducing.

I swear this whole world needs a video tutorial on how to pull out.

I firmly believe that their should be a minimum IQ and household income to qualify you to have a child. If you can't meet those basic requirements, then you're just a drain on actual people that are useful to society.
 
panamaican said:
It's not legally self-defense, it's not even conceptually self-defense. It might be survival but that's conceptually different.

Okay since you're struggling with the argument I'm making. You're saying that it's okay to kill people within the womb under certain circumstances. Fine. The core segment of that position is that it's okay to kill those people, who are in the womb, while they are not in a position to argue against their own death. Then you add whens and whys.

Once a person takes that position, they cannot go to someone else and say "You cannot kill people in the womb." They've already said otherwise.

And once they accept that killing people, who are in the womb, is acceptable, they are now in a pro-choice position. Maybe the rape victim aborts, maybe they don't but it's their choice. Maybe the woman in a dangerous pregnancy aborts, maybe she doesn't but, again, it's her choice.

You're still arguing pro-choice but then passing a moral judgment on which choices are okay and which choices are not. It's not a pro-life position. Understand? Moralizing on why one choice is better than the other is still a pro-choice argument.

Get it? It doesn't matter why you support abortions in one circumstance and not in another. At the end of the day, unless you're against abortion in all circumstances then you're effectively in the pro-choice camp and not the anti-abortion camp.

I'll try one last question set to help you reason through this: Would you require women who were raped to get abortions or would you force them to keep the baby? Or...would you let the woman choose?
Click to expand...
What I'm struggling with is how you're finding this to be a decent argument. You wouldn't make such a silly argument with anything else where you take something that we all accept to be immoral or criminal and use the rarest of exceptions where it's justifiable and use that to excuse it as the norm. Sex is good when both consent, so your core argument is it's good to have sex with people, so you must think it's acceptable to bang kids or have sex with someone who's screaming no. People steal survival supplies in hurricanes, so your core argument is robbery is acceptable so you must think people should be able to rob stores whenever they want. You can choose to fight back if you're getting mugged, so you must think it's fine to just KO old ladies for walking too slow. You can kill someone if your own life is threatened, so your core argument is killing people is acceptable, so you must be pro murder. This argument is lunacy.

The choice is not just keep it or kill it. If a woman gets pregnant from a rape, which again is fantastically rare, I think she should put it up for adoption. That would also make it pretty damn easy to catch the rapist and send him to prison.
 
Pro choice but let these whores pay for It themselves.

Woman should be able to make the decision.

Years ago I knew this guy who was dating this crazy chick. She decided she wanted a baby with him. So he starts filling her up an she gets pregnant. He is all excited because he was going to be a dad. They start planning everything for the baby and things look good for them. One day she decides she doesn’t want to have a baby yet and just goes and flushes it and goes home that night and tells him like it is no big deal. The guy was devastated about it and she just did not care or see what the big deal was.
 
nostradumbass said:
What I'm struggling with is how you're finding this to be a decent argument. You wouldn't make such a silly argument with anything else where you take something that we all accept to be immoral or criminal and use the rarest of exceptions where it's justifiable and use that to excuse it as the norm. Sex is good when both consent, so your core argument is it's ok to have sex with people, so you must think it's ok to bang kids or have sex with someone who's screaming no. People steal survival supplies in hurricanes, so your core argument is robbery is ok so you must think people should be able to rob stores whenever they want. You can choose to fight back if you're getting mugged, so you must think it's fine to just KO old ladies for walking too slow. You can kill someone if your own life is threatened, so your core argument is killing people is ok, so you must be pro murder. This argument is lunacy.

The choice is not just keep it or kill it. If a woman gets pregnant from a rape, which again is fantastically rare, I think she should put it up for adoption. That would also make it pretty damn easy to catch the rapist and send him to prison.
Click to expand...

Are you going to answer my series of questions or continue making strawman arguments?

I never said that one version of abortion is better or worse than another. I said that they are both pro-choice arguments. You are arguing the morality of different pro-choice positions. I'm stating in order to do that, you have to first be okay with abortion.

People who are pro-life or anti-abortion are against abortion in all cases. Once someone is okay with abortion in some circumstances then they are no longer anti-abortion. They are now pro-choice.

Sex is good. You can be against sex with children and be against rape but you're still saying that sex itself is acceptable. If you're anti-sex then you're against it in all circumstances. If you're against sex with children and against rape but still okay with sex between consenting adults - you're not anti-sex. You're pro-sex with restrictions. There are people who anti-sex. They live lives of abstinence with no exception.

If you're anti-theft then you're against theft during hurricanes as much as you're against stealing from a store. If you think it's okay to steal supplies during a hurricane then you're okay with theft in the right circumstances. There are people who are anti-theft. Even if they needed supplies during a hurricane, they would find a way to pay for them.


So, I'll ask again: If a woman became pregnant via rape - would you support her right to choose whether or not to keep it?

Try to answer it because if you don't, I'm just to keep re-posting it until you do.
 
Anung Un Rama said:
<WellThere>

Why post all that other stuff if the first sentence contradicts your initial claim?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Gotta read the whole thing son. You will get it eventually I promise. Just focus a little.

If- by making abortion illegal, you also reduce access to sex education, family planning, and birth control, you will end up with more unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. Which will lead to more abortions, not less. Even if it is illegal.
 
Last edited:
Ripskater said:
At Planned Parenthood. Our govt funds PP. So I hope we defund PP because of the number of abortions they do.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is circular logic. Funding Planned Parenthood (for the essential women's healthcare services they perform) does not equal paying for abortions (a small part of what they do, and which the women almost always pay for). Also, whenever a Republican is President, they make a policy where PP is forbidden from using federal funds for abortions. Trump is President now, so it's in effect. However, even Trump has recognized that PP performs essential women's healthcare services and so they shouldn't lose funding across the board, which many conservatives advocate for.
 
cooks1 said:
Does it bother you at all that making abortions illegal will actually lead to more abortions than if they are legal?
Click to expand...
And it makes them more unsafe and often fatal as well.
 
Pro-Choice. Keep your religion out of government and effecting personal decisions.
 
SBJJ said:
100% pro life. Unless I knock someone up, then i turn 100% pro choice
Click to expand...
AKA the Trump position. I think he's probably paid for more abortions than any man in history. :p
 
Pro Choice.
But if you're over 17 and get an abortion of convenience, you should be tattooed with a reminder.
 
@Lead and @Tobacco being pro-life but not letting it define their politics or force them to justify indefensible policy positions that are politically adjacent?

<mma4>

It's actually unfortunate that the pro-life movement has been commandeered and defined by morons. It's one of the few right-wing positions that isn't empirically bunk or hypocritical.
 
panamaican said:
Are you going to answer my series of questions or continue making strawman arguments?

I never said that one version of abortion is better or worse than another. I said that they are both pro-choice arguments. You are arguing the morality of different pro-choice positions. I'm stating in order to do that, you have to first be okay with abortion.

People who are pro-life or anti-abortion are against abortion in all cases. Once someone is okay with abortion in some circumstances then they are no longer anti-abortion. They are now pro-choice.

Sex is good. You can be against sex with children and be against rape but you're still saying that sex itself is acceptable. If you're anti-sex then you're against it in all circumstances. If you're against sex with children and against rape but still okay with sex between consenting adults - you're not anti-sex. You're pro-sex with restrictions. There are people who anti-sex. They live lives of abstinence with no exception.

If you're anti-theft then you're against theft during hurricanes as much as you're against stealing from a store. If you think it's okay to steal supplies during a hurricane then you're okay with theft in the right circumstances. There are people who are anti-theft. Even if they needed supplies during a hurricane, they would find a way to pay for them.


So, I'll ask again: If a woman became pregnant via rape - would you support her right to choose whether or not to keep it?

Try to answer it because if you don't, I'm just to keep re-posting it until you do.
Click to expand...
<{walkerwhut}>

I did answer it.

nostradumbass said:
The choice is not just keep it or kill it. If a woman gets pregnant from a rape, which again is fantastically rare, I think she should put it up for adoption. That would also make it pretty damn easy to catch the rapist and send him to prison.
Click to expand...

Nobody has made the argument against anything in all circumstances with no exceptions, including killing, theft, physical violence. I've not heard one person say the mother should die, that would be the opposite of "pro-life" and that's not what the pro-abortion people are arguing for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,062
Messages
55,464,370
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top