Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Poll Abortion: Pro Life or Pro Choice

To kill or not to kill

  • Total voters
    90
mryounggun said:
You want the government to be in charge of whether or not people can reproduce?
Click to expand...
In a way, yes, at least on a local level. This current government could not do it though, as we don't have the necessary personnel in place to support programs that would aid such a policy in being effective towards producing a more stable society. As of now, people reproduce with little to no regulation; the burden already falls on local communities/governments as it is. Big brother programs aren't going to cut it if the child still returns to a troubled parent/home.
 
mryounggun said:
The very easy, obvious answer here is that people want to be kind and conciliatory when a person has a miscarriage. It’s called tact. No one is gonna be like ‘Toughen up, ma. It was just a clump of cells!’…even if it was 6 weeks into the process and it was just a clump of cells.

I’m very much pro choice and view early terms pregnancies as a clump of cells. When talking about a woman who had a miscarriage, even if that woman isn’t present, I’m not gonna refer to it as a clump of cells because regardless of my own viewpoint, a woman just lost her offspring and it’s likely very meaningful to her.

It’s WILD that so many pages have been dedicated to this part of the discussion that is, for all intents and purpose, meaningless.
Click to expand...

This again goes back how much you value the baby. When she doesn't want it you're cool calling it a clump of cells. When she does, you think that's messed up to do.

An offspring was lost either way. But you only feel the need to be delicate if the mother is sad. If a 1 year old dies, we're kind an conciliatory when discussing it regardless of its parents' feelings. We just start valuing life at a different time.
 
Loneshot said:
This is situational. It becomes the government's responsibility as a representation of the people's will and better interest. The government can both stay away and guide through policy. Once the child is born, there is always the potential for the responsibility to fall onto the community, so the government has to have some say in who can potentially create a burden on their community.
Click to expand...

That's EXTREMELY far away from you saying you want the government out of most, if not all, of people's business. This is wanting to give them waaaaay more power.

Also, I think this is close to eugenics.
 
Last edited:
Imo, yall make things more deeper than it should be because of whatever reasons that have some of yall not being direct on things

Once a woman finds out she's pregnant. 98% of folks if not 100% automatically think it's a human being that has been created.
That's straight forward

To ease the woman's mind from her irresponsibility act in many of these cases, (with the exceptionof incest, and rape, ) but lets be 100, if you as a women are having sex, you are aware what could happen, then you have folks wanna say it's a group of cells if we are not as adults made up of a group of cells now.

We at creation and as a 80 year old man, you are made of cells.

Cells form tissue, tissues forms organs, etc.

That's how the most high designed the human experience

So you wanna stop playing the game at level 1, you still have played the game.

Aborting should have the mother, father, grandparents, involved in this decision. Imo
 
Last edited:
Bow to Royalty said:
That's EXTREMELY far away from you saying you want the government out of most, if not all, of people's business. This is wanting to give them waaaaay more power.

Also, I think this is close to eugenics.
Click to expand...
The point of the government is not to check freedoms, but maintain stability if freedom is abused in a way that weighs on a community. Even a natural right should be checked.
 
SeaSnake said:
We had that argument in middle school. It’s like this with the child support part a lot of times the custodial parent is in some assistance by the state. State pretty much feels like if they gotta pay for your kid you as a man need to pay them.

I know that not every situation but in the cases where a woman can’t get an anortion and he does not want the kid does he still get to get off free.

And then we have the responsibility side of it. Society shouldn’t award a deadbeat but having them get off Scott free. Just be a bunch of bastard born with no consequences. And more if that is worse
Click to expand...

For me, if she has the right to abort, then he does too if she decides to keep the baby. Noone ask how her aborting the man's child affects his mental, his side of the family's mental. And for those who may reply to my post and say, they don't hear men talking about how they are affected by her decision, it's because it's not talked about by the media, how that man felt and also, most men don't talk about their mental issues in public.
But if she can abort, things she be placed or put on the woman so that she can never abort again.
As I said, she can't have sex etc. Some of these chicks have 2,3,4 abortions.

I also think aborting should be the cost of that child added up to the age of 18

If it will cost you as a parent 700k to raise a child from 0 -18, that's how much a woman, since it's her body and she wants to go through with it, that amount to pay to get it done. She foots the bill
The reason aborting is so common, the cost ain't high to get it done. Up that cost and folks will think twice about going down to that clinic.

If a man want her to get it done, then the cost should be his bill, double, since she has to get it done. Doube that 700k
A life is much more than 500-2000 bucks or how much ever it is to have an abortion.

You have some chicks aborting then 2 months later, getting a bbl smh.
 
Loneshot said:
The point of the government is not to check freedoms, but maintain stability if freedom is abused in a way that weighs on a community. Even a natural right should be checked.
Click to expand...

I'm just having a real hard time linking this to you wanting less government interference. I understand what you're saying it stance is. I just think you may need to re-assess your views on government power and interference.

Also it's not "her body, her choice" if you only allow her to make the choice you approve.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
I'm just having a real hard time linking this to you wanting less government interference. I understand what you're saying it stance is. I just think you may need to re-assess your views on government power and interference.

Also it's not "her body, her choice" if you only allow her to make the choice you approve.
Click to expand...
To simplify. Right now it's her choice. Though in my ideal society, the debate wouldn't even exist because people would be thinking much deeper about procreation.

People don't fully consider all that goes into parenting. Often, people just go with a flow and expect the school and their community to do part of their parenting for them and it should not be that way. I doubt that half of all pregnancies are planned well ahead of the act. People just want to have sex, they aren't trying to become a parent.
 
Loneshot said:
To simplify. Right now it's her choice. Though in my ideal society, the debate wouldn't even exist because people would be thinking much deeper about procreation.

People don't fully consider all that goes into parenting. Often, people just go with a flow and expect the school and their community to do part of their parenting for them and it should not be that way. I doubt that half of all pregnancies are planned well ahead of the act. People just want to have sex, they aren't trying to become a parent.
Click to expand...

Oh well ya, in a utopia everyone would be doing the right thing and there would be much less need for government. But in our current reality you want more government control.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
Oh well ya, in a utopia everyone would be doing the right thing and there would be much less need for government. But in our current reality you want more government control.
Click to expand...
In the opposite value though. The government can tell you not to burden your neighbor. You want the government to allow that burden to persist for the sake of preserving life. The issue is that this same government immediately ceases carrying about that life beyond preserving it.
 
Loneshot said:
In the opposite value though. The government can tell you not to burden your neighbor. You want the government to allow that burden to persist for the sake of preserving life. The issue is that this same government immediately ceases carrying about that life beyond preserving it.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is, you're taking away a right based off a prediction that might not even happen.

You'll stop those in poverty from having children because you're guessing their kids will be bad for society.

What's your stance on those currently living as the people you want to avoid existing? Should recidivist be killed?
 
Bow to Royalty said:
The problem with that is, you're taking away a right based off a prediction that might not even happen.

You'll stop those in poverty from having children because you're guessing their kids will be bad for society.

What's your stance on those currently living as the people you want to avoid existing? Should recidivist be killed?
Click to expand...
If you're in poverty you definitely should not be having children.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
If that's the case then pro choice is pro choice, and the mother always gets to make the decision. You can't say "her body, her choice" just because you take that choice away from her later than other people. It's not still her body and her choice at 8 months?

There are pro choice people that think life begins at birth, and think late term abortions are okay. I'm not saying that's everyone on that side's stance, but it's not just 1 or 2 extremists on that side saying it.
Click to expand...

The people who think late term abortions should be a thing is such a miniscule amount it's not even worth discussing. People who are pro choice aren't out here supporting abortions at 7 8 and 9 months and to present your stance as if that's a huge part of pro choice people hurts you more than it helps.

Again pro choice people mainly focus on just that...the choice of a woman to make a decision without a law telling her she's going to prison for it.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
This again goes back how much you value the baby. When she doesn't want it you're cool calling it a clump of cells. When she does, you think that's messed up to do.

An offspring was lost either way. But you only feel the need to be delicate if the mother is sad. If a 1 year old dies, we're kind an conciliatory when discussing it regardless of its parents' feelings. We just start valuing life at a different time.
Click to expand...

If the mother WASN’T sad…I still wouldn’t call it a clump of cells. Me not calling it a clump of cells is based on it being a miscarriage, not based on how the mother feels about it.
 
BlackRain said:
The people who think late term abortions should be a thing is such a miniscule amount it's not even worth discussing. People who are pro choice aren't out here supporting abortions at 7 8 and 9 months and to present your stance as if that's a huge part of pro choice people hurts you more than it helps.

Again pro choice people mainly focus on just that...the choice of a woman to make a decision without a law telling her she's going to prison for it.
Click to expand...

How's it hurt my argument? I said they exists and it's not just 1 or 2 extremist. I never acted like it was the most common view in the pro choice group.

I don't see how people aren't getting the hypocrisy in what you, and others,have said. If you're not OK with late term abortions you're not pro-choice. You just say a later deadline for when you take a woman's right to choose away. You still believe in telling a pregnant woman that she is no longer allowed to make the decision of what she does with her body.

That's not pro-choice that's just less far down the pro-life side.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
How's it hurt my argument? I said they exists and it's not just 1 or 2 extremist. I never acted like it was the most common view in the pro choice group.

I don't see how people aren't getting the hypocrisy in what you, and others,have said. If you're not OK with late term abortions you're not pro-choice. You just say a later deadline for when you take a woman's right to choose away. You still believe in telling a pregnant woman that she is no longer allowed to make the decision of what she does with her body.

That's not pro-choice that's just less far down the pro-life side.
Click to expand...

It hurts your argument because it's not something that's even a truly relevant concern because it's not something people are doing.

Me not being ok with something doesn't mean I wanna restrict somebody's else right to do it. That's where the choice in pro choice comes in. You're so caught up on this extremely minimal amount of late term abortions, which if you did your research you'd know that abortions after a certain time frame are majority once again due to viability and quality of life and not a woman changing her mind in the 7 or 8th month, that you're trying to frame being pro choice or not around that and that's where you're falling short
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top