Poll Abortion: Pro Life or Pro Choice
- Thread starter Chicity
- Start date
20 weeks yes. Which is why I said there's a difference between asking that question about someone pregnant at 20 weeks vs 5 weeks. Your question being loaded comes in because of your admitted belief that whether it's 5, 10 or 20 weeks you feel there's a life in there regardless and unless you establish first whether or not the person you're asking that question to also shares that belief then for those who don't agree their answer will seem inherently place them as basically a child killer as has already been stated by someone who is pro life
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
Why at 20 weeks would you consider it murder? If I'm understanding correctly, by your standards it's not a life at that point.
Its not loaded because it intentionally follows the popular pro-choice standard. If you say an abortion is OK before the baby can survive on its own because it's not a life at that point... then what's the difference between 5, 10, 15, and 20 weeks if at all those points the baby can't survive on its own?
deadeye
Warrior
True.
It really is two different arguments:
Right to choose............and when life starts.
I don't believe in abortion, but I realize it's not my place to tell a woman what she should or shouldn't do with her body.
However, people lose me when they try to justify their stance based on when they "think" life starts.
Simply because, if they truly believe in a woman's right to choose.........then when a life starts really shouldn't matter to them either way.
To me, it just seems like they're using it as a way to come to terms with the actual act of quote/unquote......"terminating a pregnancy."
Last edited:
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
I think it's more seen as protecting those that can't protect themselves. I think that's a big part of the pro life vs pro choice debate is which perspective you choose. You view it as telling a woman what to do... which is fair. But others can view it as protecting a baby that can't protect itself.
People base their stance on when life starts because the idea of taking a life vs stopping the process of life beginning is where the actual laws concerning abortion are made. I said it in jest earlier but some people view any form of contraception as wrong. So the idea that there needs to be a baseline established on when life begins isn't a bad thing to do.
AZTG
OG
I dont believe that.
Cause if it was about protecting those that cant protect themselves, I would expect that level of compassion in all forms of life.
But the same people who want to ban abortions to protect those who cant protect themselves, are saying fuck bringing the Afgans here who need protection because they worked for the US in afganistan.
So nah, i dont believe that cause I dont see these people having that level of compassion.
Its because those people want to get into heaven. Lets keep it real and call it what it is.
No that's not correct. My opinion on the 20 weeks time frame is more based on social than science as I do think that by that time there should have been enough time to decide whether or not, given there's no health issues for the mother or fetus, on whether or not to carry to full term and at 20 weeks pregnant in the minds of the majority at that point life does exist even if it's in its infant stages of doing so. So by 20 weeks if the woman has most likely decided to carry to full term and she were to be harmed in any way then yes at that point her and the growing life inside her is harmed. At 5 weeks not so much.
The same country that is currently dealing with people openly rejecting something that can protect others who can't protect themselves...that's not the moral high ground America can stand on when. America doesn't give a fuck about life once it's actually here and living. Just look at how people treat homeless kids, teens and mentally impaired.folks, the elderly etc.
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
This sounds like moving the goal posts unless I missed something. I feel like you've mentioned how developed the fetus is as a key point a few times, and at what point it's considered a life.
Now you're basing life on how long the mother had to think it over, and the baby's ability to survive is irrelevant?
I can separate my personal beliefs from what the law states or others opinions. I've mentioned that because to some a life isn't considered a life until it has a viable chance to survive on its own. Hence me also mentioning people with do not resuscitate orders or people who have stated if they're ever in a vegetable state to let them die because to them that's not living as they can't survive on their own.
But I also recognize the social view that once a pregnancy has reached a certain point it's pretty much agreed upon by most that life does exist which is why a 20 week time frame vs a 5 week time frame are two very different points of decision making.
The Lonious Monk
Celestial Souljah
Abortions aren't internal buttons that women can push themselves. They are medical procedures that were developed by agents of society and provided by society. It's not that wild that everyone in the society get a right to weigh-in on whether such procedures should be allowed.
Ya'll really acting like abortions are the same as chicks getting piercings or tattoos. It's not the same thing. Another life is at stake when it comes to abortions, and, in general, your personal rights in this country start to be limited when they involve other people. That's why mask and vaccine mandates are a thing right now.
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
You keep saying agreed upon by most, but I don't think that's the case. Pro-life people may all agree that at 20 weeks there's life, yes. But no, I don't think it's agreed upon by most pro-choicers that 20 weeks is life. We've had people base life on the ability to survive on its own and consciousness, and at 20 weeks the baby has neither.
You can't compare this to DNR's. That's the person making a decision for themselves, and it's usually based on avoiding a permanently poor quality of life.
But let's make it a more apples to apples comparison. Let's say the doctor is telling a wife that her husband is a vegetable for now, but he's expected to make a full recovery and wake up just fine in 7 months with no lingering issues. Would you be ok with people pulling the plug in those scenarios? Do you think the husband would want the plug pulled in that scenario?
The comparison is in what constitutes being alive or having life which is where the main point of the abortion discussion lies. Also many people decide to have an abortion because they don't want to bring a child into this world and have them experience a poor quality of life that can set them on a path they may not he able to recover from. Or affect their own quality of life to a point they may not be able handle. So the reasoning still fits as it's a person taking control of where and how they want their life to go.
Your scenario you just created once again doesn't fit because there's a known conclusion to the scenario. In the beginning stages of a pregnancy anything can happen. Hell there's a multitude of stories of women who didn't even realize they were pregnant or having a miscarriage they just thought it was an unusually heavy period that month. So trying to compare a situation with an already established end result in your scenario vs one where the results could very well be up in the air depending on many different circumstances still doesn't fit that well.
Stomp Johnson
Smooth.
Pro-choice.
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
The non-medical reasons for aborting the baby have nothing to do with if the fetus is a life or not. I don't get the purpose of any of that part.
Stop changing the scenario i give to avoid an answer. I said the doctor said the husband is EXPECTED to make a full recovery with no lingering issues. That's the same expectation of pregnancy. That's why doctors give you a due date... they're expecting you to have a baby. And they continue this expectation until they have a reason to think otherwise. I didn't give a known conclusion...I gave a medical expectation.
Can you answer now?
The non medical reasons absolutely do influence the idea of whether or not a fetus is considered a life. Or else people wouldn't say shit like "why not just put the baby up for adoption" to women who are still in the early stages of the 1st trimester and considering abortion. To discount that is to discount a good portion of people's objections to abortions aka your side of the argument and the reactions it brings
And your scenario still doesn't fit because someone being in a vegetable state doesn't often have a set time frame for coming out of it. That's why it's called being in a vegetable state. What you're talking about is more like a coma and even then there's no time guaranteed time frame for someone to come out of those depending on their injury.
Bow to Royalty
Just facts
Bruh, how much money, your career goals, your relationship with the father have 0 impact on whether what's inside you is a life or not.
Why are you trying soooo hard to avoid answering?
I'm a pro-choice extremist.
I believe in aborting babies, and I also believe in the death penalty.
I believe in aborting babies if there's going to be medical problems. Like if you know that the kid is going to be retarded, or a siamese twin. Or only have 1 arm or something. But not necessarily just because you don't want to have a baby. Although I do think it should be the woman's choice, not society.
I'm also pro death penalty. I think if you do something that warrants death, like treason, or espionage, or committing murder while committing a felony (e.g. killing somebody while robbing a bank), or even multiple counts of rape or child molestation, you should die. You shouldn't do life in prison, you should just die and save the taxpayers money. No starting over.
And I don't care if the state makes a mistake. Mistakes happen. Kill the killers and the child molesters. I'll be the one to pull the switch. And personally I think the child molesters are worse than the killers. I can understand why you would kill somebody in certain circumstances, I can't conceive of a circumstance that warrants molesting a child.
Here's a police officer that got 260 years for raping people. I know this thread is about abortion, but I think abortion and the death penalty go hand in hand. I don't see how you could be pro-choice and be against the death penalty and vice versa.
I think this cop should have gotten executed rather than sent to prison for 260 years. When police officers break the law it's worse than if an ordinary person breaks the law because he took an oath to protect and serve. Ordinary people take no such oath.
When I say I'm a "pro choice extremist", it means I'm like a Nazi. I would have no problem being the one that decides who gets exterminated. Child molesters, predicate felons, jews, etc.
So yeah, I don't believe that "all life is precious". I think some people are wasting air when they breathe and the world would be a better place without them. And if a woman is pregnant with a baby she doesn't want, but she can't get an abortion then she probably won't take care of herself while she's pregnant (smoking crack, shooting heroin, etc.) and then the baby comes out all fucked up, underweight and underdeveloped. What's the point?
I believe in aborting babies, and I also believe in the death penalty.
I believe in aborting babies if there's going to be medical problems. Like if you know that the kid is going to be retarded, or a siamese twin. Or only have 1 arm or something. But not necessarily just because you don't want to have a baby. Although I do think it should be the woman's choice, not society.
I'm also pro death penalty. I think if you do something that warrants death, like treason, or espionage, or committing murder while committing a felony (e.g. killing somebody while robbing a bank), or even multiple counts of rape or child molestation, you should die. You shouldn't do life in prison, you should just die and save the taxpayers money. No starting over.
And I don't care if the state makes a mistake. Mistakes happen. Kill the killers and the child molesters. I'll be the one to pull the switch. And personally I think the child molesters are worse than the killers. I can understand why you would kill somebody in certain circumstances, I can't conceive of a circumstance that warrants molesting a child.
Here's a police officer that got 260 years for raping people. I know this thread is about abortion, but I think abortion and the death penalty go hand in hand. I don't see how you could be pro-choice and be against the death penalty and vice versa.
I think this cop should have gotten executed rather than sent to prison for 260 years. When police officers break the law it's worse than if an ordinary person breaks the law because he took an oath to protect and serve. Ordinary people take no such oath.
When I say I'm a "pro choice extremist", it means I'm like a Nazi. I would have no problem being the one that decides who gets exterminated. Child molesters, predicate felons, jews, etc.
So yeah, I don't believe that "all life is precious". I think some people are wasting air when they breathe and the world would be a better place without them. And if a woman is pregnant with a baby she doesn't want, but she can't get an abortion then she probably won't take care of herself while she's pregnant (smoking crack, shooting heroin, etc.) and then the baby comes out all fucked up, underweight and underdeveloped. What's the point?
B_A
I was here
Truthfully if we cannot give the "breath of life", we shouldn't take it.