HollywoodMole said
Well, it really doesn't make sense to me because I think that the only person who should decide whether to have their bodies in surgeries and such is them themselves and no one else. So, I really can't agree with anything that doesn't really give me enough reason like saying "It's cruel".(Though I suppose I'm not really giving enough reason, but my brains tired right now.)

Well experience(and law class) has taught me most people that lean towards pro-life are Christan raised, and have a strong feeling towards every life even those unborn should be given a chance to be born and live, rather then let someone else pick for them, when they are unable to.

Another reason is that most people having abortions are teenagers who don't care for the baby, and or don't want to have one, but still want to have sex.

HollywoodMole said
Well, it really doesn't make sense to me because I think that the only person who should decide whether to have their bodies in surgeries and such is them themselves and no one else. So, I really can't agree with anything that doesn't really give me enough reason like saying "It's cruel".(Though I suppose I'm not really giving enough reason, but my brains tired right now.)

This.

People should make their own decisions on what THEY want to happen to their own bodies.

Derpestein said
This.People should make their own decisions on what THEY want to happen to their own bodies.

I going to play the devil's advocate and ask you. What about taking responsibility for ones actions? Why throw away the life of someone not yet born, because YOU don't feel like taking care of them, You don't feel like seeing the consequence for your actions, and would rather take the easy way out, and destroy the baby?

Although such a volatile topic may be a controversial choice for Nat to pick, I also massively respect that he's making a legitimate effort. Let's not actively discourage people taking on board others' advice and trying to contribute, eh?

As for the topic at hand, I'm pro-choice to a limited extent. I quite like the system we have here in the UK - it has to be before 24 weeks, and two different doctors have to agree that it would be damaging either physically or mentally to the mother. It can't just be an "emergency contraceptive", but if there is legitimate reason then an abortion can be carried out.
The thing I always struggle with in this debate is whether the mother should be able to have an abortion if she doesn't want the child because they feel they cannot provide a life of adequate quality - say, they're severely below the poverty line, or they're an addict or some shit like that, who knows. The obvious answer is that they give the child up for adoption, but it seems somewhat cruel to force a mother through pregnancy and childbirth, and then to depart with a child they're biologically hardwired to be emotionally attached to, all because they're trying to do a good thing for that child. This is the point in the argument where I just throw up my hands and give up, because I never feel like there's a right or wrong answer and it becomes an exercise in semantics (for me, at least.)

natsumehack said
I going to play the devil's advocate and ask you. What about taking responsibility for ones actions? Why throw away the life of someone not yet born, because YOU don't feel like taking care of them, You don't feel like seeing the consequence for your actions, and would rather take the easy way out, and destroy the baby?

Well, it depends on the situation. If it's because you weren't using protection or something, then just birth it and if you don't want to raise it put it into adoption or something, and if you really can't be arsed abort it. But, if you've been raped or something, I think someone should just abort it.

Halo said
Although such a volatile topic may be a controversial choice for Nat to pick, I also massively respect that he's making a legitimate effort. Let's not actively discourage people taking on board others' advice and trying to contribute, eh?As for the topic at hand, I'm pro-choice to a limited extent. I quite like the system we have here in the UK - it has to be before 24 weeks, and two different doctors have to agree that it would be damaging either physically or mentally to the mother. It can't just be an "emergency contraceptive", but if there is legitimate reason then an abortion can be carried out. The thing I always struggle with in this debate is whether the mother should be able to have an abortion if she doesn't want the child because they feel they cannot provide a life of adequate quality - say, they're severely below the poverty line, or they're an addict or some shit like that, who knows. The obvious answer is that they give the child up for adoption, but it seems somewhat cruel to force a mother through pregnancy and childbirth, and then to depart with a child they're biologically hardwired to be emotionally attached to, all because they're trying to do a good thing for that child. This is the point in the argument where I just throw up my hands and give up, because I never feel like there's a right or wrong answer and it becomes an exercise in semantics (for me, at least.)

That's the thing about these kinds of topics, it's all grey. There is no one right or wrong answer.

HollywoodMole said
Well, it depends on the situation. If it's because you weren't using protection or something, then just birth it and if you don't want to raise it put it into adoption or something, and if you really can't be arsed abort it. But, if you've been raped or something, I think someone should just abort it.

That's interesting you mentioned rape. Rape is a two way street, men can be raped. So hollywood what if the women raped the man, and she will now have a baby. Should she still abort it?

natsumehack said
That's interesting you mentioned rape. Rape is a two way street, men can be raped. So hollywood what if the women raped the man, and she will now have a baby. Should she still abort it?

I know, and honestly someone who rapes shouldn't have a baby in the first place. I would disagree with that, rapists are technically very serious criminals, and they are one of the few people I think shouldn't have these rights. A thief? Fine. But rapists are really sick people who should be in prison, so If I had the power I would never give them the right to abort. People who can emotionally cripple deserve to be emotionally crippled twice as worse. So, I guess technically I'm not pro-life under some circumstances.

HollywoodMole said
People who can emotionally cripple deserve to be emotionally crippled twice as worse.

One might argue the following,

1) They probably are already emotionally crippled.

2) Fighting fire with fire isn't always the best tactic, especially with delicate subjects like the mind and psychological states.

HollywoodMole said
I know, and honestly someone who rapes shouldn't have a baby in the first place. I would disagree with that, rapists are technically very serious criminals, and they are one of the few people I think shouldn't have these rights. A thief? Fine. But rapists are really sick people who should be in prison, so If I had the power I would never give them the right to abort. People who can emotionally cripple deserve to be emotionally crippled twice as worse.

Notice you said Can emotionally cripple.

If you take into the idea that if you can emotionally cripple a person you deserve to be emotionally crippled twice over?

Wouldn't that mean almost everyone deserves to be emotionally crippled twice as worst, despite not doing it, but because they CAN?

Lucian said
One might argue the following,1) They probably are already emotionally crippled.2) Fighting fire with fire isn't always the best tactic, especially with delicate subjects like the mind and psychological states.

Even then you must ask the question, why would a person RAPE another person?
What does person A get out of doing this action to Person B?

natsumehack said
Even then you must ask the question, why would a person RAPE another person?

See my first point. There is probably something wrong mentally in the mind of somebody willing to do the deed already.

natsumehack said
What does person A get out of doing this action to Person B?

Could be any number of things. Maybe they want to feel in control, maybe they're a sex-addict, maybe they do it because they know it will scar person B deeply, maybe they feel entitled. It's like asking why someone performs any sort of heinous act against another person. There are a ton of possible reasons.

Lucian said
See my first point. There is probably something wrong mentally in the mind of somebody willing to do the deed already.

Another possible reason is impulsion, a spur of the moment action. They are reasonable people, but given the current situation they are in, and the power impulsion has, they could easily do something to which under any normal circumstance would not, and later deeply regret such the action they have taken.

My god, you guys are actually doing this.

Cpt Toellner said
My god, you guys are actually doing this.

I called it quits about an hour ago, in my defense. Figured I might play along since even this is better than the constant shitposting that we usually get from Nat. Also, we have some new people, so maybe it could help us get to know them to ask these sorts of questions, blah blah blah.

Because this shit always turns out well. It's not like we collectively haven't had this discussion dozens of times already and enlightened approximately no one.

Have fun with the impending lock.

Dervish said
Because this shit always turns out well. It's not like we collectively haven't had this discussion dozens of times already and enlightened approximately no one.Have fun with the impending lock.

Sherlock wanted a serious discussion that I started, she got one.

Even then the only bad things in this thread are people like you, who keep saying stuff like that.

natsumehack said
Sherlock wanted a serious discussion that I started, she got one. Even then the only bad things in this thread are people like you, who keep saying stuff like that.

I can't believe I'm saying this but, Nat has a pretty good point. The only negativity thus far has been from the people who come into the thread to repeat the same stuff that was said on the first page.

HollywoodMole said
Well, it depends on the situation. If it's because you weren't using protection or something, then just birth it and if you don't want to raise it put it into adoption or something, and if you really can't be arsed abort it. But, if you've been raped or something, I think someone should just abort it.

This.

To everyone supposedly calling the inevitable shitstorm that will happen in this thread: I'd like to say that Spam generally has a better track record with such controversial issues than OT does, and so far at least, the discussion in this thread has all been perfectly reasonable and respectful.

Normally I stay the hell away from these threads... in OT. But this one looks like it's coming out just fine, and I find it extremely refreshing to see a thread like this coming from Nat of all people.

At any rate, onto my opinion:

I'm pro-choice because everything's so gray. Morally, I believe abortion is wrong... in most circumstances. While I would discourage, say, teens who fuck without thinking of the consequences and then choose to abort rather than just using protection in the first place - I understand that not every desired abortion stems from that. Like others in the thread said, there are plenty of reasons why a woman should definitely be able to get an abortion - like if the child is a product of rape, or if the mother knows she won't be able to give the child a decent life, etc. Because of that, despite the fact that I feel abortion is mostly wrong, it's not a black and white thing - you can't just make it illegal because of those who take the moral low road, because there are times when telling a mother she can't have an abortion would definitely make you look like the bad guy.

On top of that, it's just such a touchy and controversial issue. So, I don't think abortions should be limited by law, because the situation is different for each person and in many cases I feel it could be necessary. I personally think it's wrong unless you have a good reason to get one, but I don't want to stop people who do have a good reason. Hell, I don't even want to prohibit by law the mothers that don't have the best reason, because it's not my business! And who am I to judge what counts as a "good reason" anyway? There's too much gray simply regarding what reasoning could be considered as "acceptable" for an abortion that I don't want that to be strictly regulated by law, either. Just leave it open for anyone who feels they need it and if you don't want people getting abortions, then talk to the people you know face-to-face about it. You might be able to convince someone to not abort and become a mother. But where it concerns people you'll probably never meet and whose circumstances you'll never know? Don't stop them from deciding for themselves what's right.