Toribash
It's very hard to prove rape in courts. I feel that only letting women who can prove they've been raped is a huge wrongdoing and really doesn't allow freedom at all. If you instead want them to just say they've been raped and be handed an abortion, what incentive is there to not always claim that one has been raped?
Just make it expensive of as hell. After all it's not like that fetus is going to be going to school in 5 years.

If you get knocked up it's your fault be on the pill and or wear a damn condom, if you're drunk banging people it's still entirely your fault. Abortions ain't cheap and cost the tax payers money to pay for your mistakes. Have the damn baby and put it up for adoption. Unless you're very young and have not finished school or are even in your 20s then abortion could be viable, but still. Getting rid of would be children is fucking retarded Morals a side it's still retarded. Really shows what kind of human being you really are.

It costs less to get rid of would be humans than it is for Dental that's hella fucked.
Originally Posted by T0ribush View Post
Just make it expensive of as hell. After all it's not like that fetus is going to be going to school in 5 years.

If you get knocked up it's your fault be on the pill and or wear a damn condom, if you're drunk banging people it's still entirely your fault. Abortions ain't cheap and cost the tax payers money to pay for your mistakes. Have the damn baby and put it up for adoption. Unless you're very young and have not finished school or are even in your 20s then abortion could be viable, but still. Getting rid of would be children is fucking retarded Morals a side it's still retarded. Really shows what kind of human being you really are.

It costs less to get rid of would be humans than it is for Dental that's hella fucked.

tl;dr: How dare abortion contribute to our economy? That's wrong!

You know that even after taking a morning after pill and using a condom, it's still possible for conception to occur, right? You're going to limit a person's ability to take control of their own life because it costs you money? That's not even a remotely decent reason for cracking down on abortion. Sure getting drunk can cause a lapse of proper judgment, but the way you say that makes it sound like women getting drunk is the only cause of unwanted conception. Men also get drunk, surprisingly enough, and tend to be more physically capable of overpowering a mate.

Children are not just one person's responsibility. You can not sit back and place all blame on women as if it's entirely their fault that they're pregnant. Women can't get pregnant alone. If you want to shame women for being sexually active, you could head back to the dark ages where women only get to do housework and raise children.
I feel like abortion should be aloud only when both the male and female agree to abort it. Right now only the woman needs to agree to make the abortion which is totally unfair, if the woman doesn't want it while the man wants the baby, she would birth the baby then give it to the father where he can look after + getting money from the woman as child support unless people think both of the people are unfit for child care. The only exceptions is that if the woman is a rape victim and if the birthing of the child risks her life. Well that's my opinion and I know some people will disagree and shit.

Oh and women have bullshit rights like fucking raping a man and gets pregnant, being able to birth the baby and the SUE THE MAN FOR CHILD SUPPORT, which is plainly the most stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
Last edited by Stone; Nov 28, 2016 at 10:20 PM.
ishi - "I'm Hampa's Bitch Slappin' Hand"
I'm so proud Sparky
Yeah when I was typing my thing up, I was thinking about that it's the woman that has to carry it, but I still feel that the man has a part of if their child get's to live or die. The only way I can see to fix the issue is the remove the baby from their womb and moving it to another womb (basically donating their body like a family member or a new girlfriend) without the baby dying, which right now is impossible if I recall correctly so medical science will need to evolve further for that.
ishi - "I'm Hampa's Bitch Slappin' Hand"
I'm so proud Sparky
The male supports both the women and the baby while they sit around getting emotional and fat or they're living off of tax payers money or they're taking paid leave from work. That man has every right to his kid be being born, if he's trying to earn money to support all three of them.

The idiots getting pregnant and impregnating woman out weigh the people who accidentally get pregnant by a huge margin, like a broken condom? That shit is rare as hell, like finding a deep fried spider in your Asian food, it happens, but not enough at all for it to be a problem.

Also to being on the pill there is a 99.99% it ain't happening like how a condom is 99.99% sure that it isn't going to get your woman pregnant. Combine them both with a level head on your shoulders, the chances are very low.
Last edited by T0ribush; Nov 28, 2016 at 11:15 PM.
Somebody explain to me (because a lot of you seem to be making this judgment) why they think the 'rights' of a foetus/embryo to live outweighs the rights of a woman to do whatever the hell she wants to her body?

A lot of you are like, 'OK, if it's rape then abortion should be legal, but if some woman is being reckless then abortion isn't OK'. Why does that matter? The only thing that should matter is whether or not the woman wants to have the baby and how far along the pregnancy is.

tldr; why is unborn life so 'sacred' and negates the rights of a woman to do whatever she wants with her body? I can only assume this moral position comes from people that are religious or grew up around religion.
Last edited by Ele; Nov 29, 2016 at 03:38 AM.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
Okay, well, foetus and embryo are both words used to dehumanize. Of course, you may argue that their initial purpose is to describe the various developmental stages of the human, but it's occurred to me that the pro-choice side will use these words commonly, up until birth. In order to make the human life sounds anything but a human life, these words continue to navigate the abortion discussion, and understandably, if the pro-choice side wants to maintain that particular boundary between policy and morality.

That's some conspiratorial outlook right there. I don't think I have to respond to that. I'm going to continue to call a foetus a foetus and an embryo an embryo. You know, because that's what they're friggin called.

Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
The objective standpoint in this debate is that life begins at conception. Every scientific textbook will tell you this. You will only find arbitrary definitions as to when human life begins on the other side; some say life begins at 10 weeks, some say 24, some say not until birth, some say when he/she/it can feel pain, some say when self-awareness kicks in, etc. These aren't substantial and are lacking in objectivity. Of course, people won't hesitate to justify violence when it suits them.

That's not an objective fact at all. 'When does life begin' is one of the central questions in abortion that's debated - There is no scientific consensus on this (did you know sperm is also alive). Just because Ben Shapiro tells you that it's an objective fact doesn't make it an objective fact.

Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
If you claim otherwise, then you are openly admitting that human life has no value, that we should throw away anything we know about human development, that you are embracing a society where we live without moral consequence and do whatever the fuck we like as long as we bloody well like it. That, to me, does not sound like an improvement.

Yeah, nah. It's not saying human life has no value. It's recognising that the life and rights of a woman are more important than the perceived rights of some unborn child. It's valuing current human life over potential human life. You're completely hysterical if you think that this equates with 'life has no value'.
Last edited by Ele; Nov 29, 2016 at 05:29 AM.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
Of course, we all know what regime exterminated human beings based on their genetics.

gotta love that inevitable nazi regime reference. you look very clever using arguments like that

The "where does life begin" question is a tricky one, but that's not necessarily the only line of reasoning either. you can look at the economic and societal benefits as well, you don't need to just reason based on abstract human rights and whether unborn people deserve them

although my 2 cents on that topic are that life basically begins at conception. a sperm is just that - a sperm. It has no individual capability to become a person. Same thing with an egg. They will continue to be sperm and eggs barring human interference. That's not the case with embryos/fetuses. Barring unfortunate accidents of nature, they are on the inevitable path to being people. any interruptions in that process are depriving that lifeform of its normally inevitable personhood, and honestly there is no moral highground for pro-choicers on this part of the question


that of course isn't to say that there aren't good arguments to be made from other perspectives like the ones i mentioned earlier, but pro-choicers need to put the conception schpeal behind them, because it's not a battle they can win.
for the record, i'm pro choice
Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
I'm sorry, but if you're going to convince me that human life starts elsewhere, then you're gonna have to pull your sources together because that is an extraordinary claim.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just seeing where you're coming from. It seems to be from a standpoint of 'b-b-but they look human'.

Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
If the argument was subjective, then it would be influenced by personal feelings and opinions, but this is not the case. There is a rational position to take on all of this, which goes as far as saying that when the sperm fertilises the egg, human life starts. It's the only sustainable view.

No, it's not the only 'sustainable view'. It's just the only viewpoint your close mind is willing to recognise - That makes it subjective.

Originally Posted by Mallymkun View Post
No, potential has nothing to do with it. The 'foetus' in the womb is a physically, objectively existing thing. It is vital that we don't set values on each other, no matter what our developmental stage, shape or size. Of course, we all know what regime exterminated human beings based on their genetics.

Ugh, the edginess! It's amazing that you think that sort of thing actually bolsters your argument. You wrote that and went 'Oh yep, that's a great point'.

By your strict logic, a woman wouldn't be able to take a morning after pill since human life begins at conception. Now, take a step back and think about how silly that is. Think about making that claim in real life to a women and think about the resulting slap and your smarting cheeks.

You're not living in the real world. Don't worry, it's just because you're young. You'll gain more perspective as you age.