CreateDebate


Debate Info

88
83
Pro-choice Pro-life
Debate Score:171
Arguments:99
Total Votes:196
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Pro-choice (51)
 
 Pro-life (48)

Debate Creator

Saurbaby(5579) pic



Another abortion debate, but with a little side story :)

 

SO, this image is being used to promote Pro-life. Which makes me sick. Can you see what's wrong with it? This is an abortion, how they USE to be done, at 23 weeks. That's illegal to even have abortion then in most places, unless the mother's life is in danger. 

I seriously think that promotors of pro-life need an education on abortion before they can say anything. This one girl said on this image that She thinks people who have abortions don't know what they're actually doing and that this should be shown to all before.

 

SHE is the uneducated one. -__-

 

Okay, my minor rant is over :)

Debate about whatever you want from here. I just think it's sick that they tried to use this to guilt people into being pro-life.  

Pro-choice

Side Score: 88
VS.

Pro-life

Side Score: 83
3 points

It's definitely dishonest to present this as a picture of abortion in general, and sadly it preys on people who have no better source of information. Most women will not have abortions using this procedure, and their fetuses will not look at all like that. They probably will not even be recognizably human. If a woman went to a clinic, she would at least be told the truth about what would happen to her if she wanted an abortion.

However, D&E;is still in use today although it counts for a small fraction of all procedures. Abortions aren't pretty, no matter how they're done. If you are pro-choice, you may have to accept the fact that they are just tough for laypeople to look at, even suction aspiration. It's not at all a point in favor of pro-life; childbirth and open-heart surgery can turn stomachs, too.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
churchmouse(328) Disputed
3 points

What could we show that you would find acceptable as the picture of abortion. You people do not care about medical facts, scientific facts. IT DOES NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST TO YOU. You want abortion legal…on demand period.

The fact is abortion is the act of KILLING A LIVING HUMAN BEING. THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The heart starts beating around 22 days…..THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Now I know what our laws say…that killing should be an option for women. But tell me….what would you call killing a living human being without its permission? The unborn can't speak for themselves.

It does not matter what the procedure is…it outcome is the same thing. Death to the unborn. It is killing by burning, scrapping, dismembering, vacuuming the child until its dead. That is every abortionists goal. The unborn has to be killed in the womb….not outside. This picture is accurate and shows abortion. Those who are pro-abortion of course would not like this pic….it puts action to reality…it gives a face to what they condone. And what they condone is barbaric.

This is a surgery or procedure that is like none else on earth. Most doctors try to save lives. And abortionists kill lives.

Side: PRO-LIFE
zombee(1024) Disputed
3 points

What could we show that you would find acceptable as the picture of abortion.

Pretending pro-life people care about scientific fact is bullshit. Not that it's impossible to be scientifically honest and still be pro-life, but so many outspoken pro-life people and groups who have no problem using misinformation, emotional blackmail, intimidation and deceit to manipulate people into doing what pro-life thinks is right. Pro-choice people don't have to lie, because they don't care if no one chooses an abortion as long as they aren't being lied to or bullied. In fact, I think you'd find most pro-choice people would agree that the fewer people need/want abortions, the better. But being dishonest or cruel is not the way to go about making that happen.

Why are D&E;illustrations so commonly used for pro-life propaganda when D&E;accounts for less than 5% of all procedures? Not because it's an honest representation of what most abortions look like, because it isn't. It's because it's supposed to be scarier and more guilt-inducing. If you show this picture to an average woman who is considering an abortion and tell her this is what her procedure will look like, you are probably lying to her.

(I'm not the one putting the semicolon after D&E;, the website is doing that.)

You want abortion legal…on demand period.

You got it.

The fact is abortion is the act of KILLING A LIVING HUMAN BEING. THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The heart starts beating around 22 days…..THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Please show me where I denied that a fetus is a human. Oh wait, I didn't, because I'm not an idiot. Of course a fetus is a human- did you expect me to claim it's a different species? The argument for abortion is sometimes concerned with personhood, not the presence of homo sapien DNA and you're getting the two confused. But I think abortion would still be acceptable even if the government extended legal personhood to fetuses. One human should not use another human as a life support system unless the host is giving ongoing consent. This applies regardless of the age or legal status of either party or the relationship between the parties. If it's in your body and you don't want it there, you have a right to try to find someone who will take it out.

But tell me….what would you call killing a living human being without its permission.

Abortion if it's a fetus, murder if it's not. It's cool how there's two different names for that, isn't it? That's so we don't get them confused.

It does not matter what the procedure is…it outcome is the same thing. Death to the unborn.

Oh shit, really?! Well then call me pro-life! Or don't, because I already knew that. Maybe say some more obvious things.

Those who are pro-abortion of course would not like this pic

I'm fine with it. It's not pretty but it's a fairly realistic representation of an uncommon medical procedure. Medical procedures generally are not pretty. It's the use of it to scare women who won't even be getting this procedure that I have a problem with.

Most doctors try to save lives. And abortionists kill lives.

More obvious things! If there is someone here who didn't realize abortion exterminates a living thing, I'm sure they'll thank you.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
1 point

Admit you're killing a baby...but again..shit happens..it's your choice.

These pro-lifers then, they better be cranking out a baby every time the female produces an egg..or at least tries. By not fertilizing that egg, you are in fact preventing life to live. Are you a dick? Preventing a life to live...killing a life...whats teh difference? You have the power of God either way.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
2 points

"The ability to tell fact from fiction decreases proportionally as the desire to believe increases."

The only way to continue belief in "pro-life" arguments from the stances these arguments are taken from on that side, is to distort fact. The greater the need these groups feel to continue their mis-guided belief, the more readily they accept the obviously false... As we've seen consistently with every singe abortion debate ever made on this site.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
Teacher(71) Disputed
3 points

What did this guy just say? It's a simple choice...are you ok with killing a baby while it's growing in the mother. Sure..."stuff" happens. Move on...just admitt you're killing and say, "I'm pro-choice". You killed 1000 bugs on your way to work, you're a killer anyway...live with it. Let humans decide.

Side: PRO-LIFE
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
6 points

... so far I've seen like 5 of your arguments. I think you might be retarded. Did you bother reading any of what I typed? Your reply is completely off topic.

Side: PRO-CHOICE

Pro-aborts have a big problem. They celebrate abortion but don't want the label that goes with it. They don't want people to think they condone killing….

And your right…..they probably feel worse about killing those bugs with their cars…then they do living human beings.

Side: PRO-LIFE
churchmouse(328) Disputed
2 points

What is false about anything I have posted concerning abortion?

This issue is a piece of cake. Let science and medicine speak the truth. The truth is…from conception that which is in the womb is alive. Most abortions happen after the heart starts beating.

"In the third month, your baby is the size of a small apple and is fully formed. She has grown from 1 to 3 inches and weighs about 1 ½ ounces by month end. Her head now sits on her neck and you can even see the whorl of a hair pattern on the top of her head. Her head is still very large and makes up half the length of her body. Her eyes are moving closer together and her ears are continuing to form. She has taste buds and has developed the sucking reflex. She is beginning to practice her swallowing too. Teeth buds have also begun to form, as well as fingernails and toenails. Her major organs, as well as her sex organs have formed and are developing steadily. Your placenta has now developed and has taken over hormone production."

Most abortions happen around this gestational age. Wow a lot happening eh? It is not just a glob of tissue.

THIS IS FACT. Why can't you pro-aborts just admit it. However barbaric…abortion should be celebrated and should be allowed…however horrendous it is.

You are the ones who can't face the facts in the moral debate on abortions. You are blind to what the truth says.

Side: PRO-LIFE
2 points

Most abortions happen after the heart starts beating.

And so?

However barbaric…abortion should be celebrated and should be allowed…however horrendous it is.

Even if it may seem horrendous, it does not necessarily imply that it ought not to be allowed or done. All you have done here is simply appeal to emotion and given no logical arguments for your position.

You are the ones who can't face the facts in the moral debate on abortions.

Really? Let's think about it then. If a mother is definitely going to die very slowly and painfully if the baby is not aborted, is it more immoral to abort the baby or allow the mother to die a slow and agonising death?

Let me raise another scenario. What if a minor was impregnated by a violent rape and the rapist does not take responsibility for the child? Is it more immoral to leave a defenceless and helpless minor to care for a baby, a constant psychological reminder of rape, or for her to abort? I'm not talking about who you would have more sympathy for, but merely on what moral grounds do you have to say abortion is immoral.

By logic, you yourself have no good reason to be opposed to abortion.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

First of all, you further the previous point made about disinformation in how the quote you posted uses 'she' instead of 'they', attempting to personify the foetus further than it should be.

The truth is…from conception that which is in the womb is alive

Every single part of your body can be considered alive, except your nails and hair and a few others, I believe. Cutting off a piece of skin holds no moral issues for you, I would guess, it's a similar idea. Except a foetus will cost thousands of pounds/dollars/euros, will take thousands of hours of time, will restrict you throughout your entire life, cause you to be labelled because of it, and cause you to endure a huge amount of hardship from it. There are reasons for abortion as well, studies have shown that about three quarters of women choose them because of financial reasons, hardly their choice.

Why can't you pro-aborts just admit it

I think you'll have to look very hard to find someone who is actually pro abortion, I've definitely never met someone who openly admits to that. It's pro-choice.

You are the ones who can't face the facts in the moral debate on abortions. You are blind to what the truth says.

Actually, humans kill thousands of life forms every single second, just because it's seen as morally wrong there is a big issue with abortion. Why should it be morally wrong? Please give me a reason why it is so intrinsically bad to take a life with no emotion?

I would suggest that Pro-Lifer's are not necessarily blind to truth, they see it, they simply ignore the truth of what happens to those who are not allowed abortions. Abortion rates does not change massively when it is outlawed, all that happens is they do it illegally and unsafely. Further, the argument made by Republican candidates is that abortion should be outlawed to protect the 'nuclear family'. Hardly relevant, as typical, married, happy, nuclear families would not get abortions a significant amount of the time. Give me a convincing argument as to why abortion is so bad.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
2 points

I am actually pro-abortion but pro-choice will suffice. Human beings are moral agents, moral agents are moral because we are perceivers and valuers, the ability to perceive and value is only possible when we are conscious. it is therefore our being consciousnes that gives us moral agency.

Prior to and independent of our consciousness (and by consiousness, I mean both waking and sleeping levels), our bodies are only able to be classified as human insofar as moral agency is concerned. The term "human-being" really only applies to humans that embody all the distinctions which are sufficient for moral agency. It is only then that we are truly identifiable as human-beings. a hand that is detached is not a human being, an eye, an ear, a heart, leg, etc... these are all just part of the whole, and even when assembled we are not yet a person unless we have the conscious element.

Since consciousness only becomes possible at the onset of the third trimester ~ 26 weeks, it is immoral to kill, what I would then call a child. Prior to consciousness the fetus is a fetus, not having moral agency because it lacks the sufficient condition of personhood. Many people like to think about potentiality arguments with regard to a fetus, that it could become conscious. However, potential doesnt relate to the here and now and are therefore invalid insofar as the moral status of the action (abortion) is concerned.

Potentiality arguments actually are appropriate as justifications contrary to pro-life opinions because they are valid when speaking of a fetus that will not be aborted, this is because it will almost certainly gain consciouness. For females that are too young to be mothers due to their immaturity as humans - generally thought of as anything younger than the age of majority (18) but also could extend to any age since mental and emotional maturity are only related to age in childhood adolescence and young adulthood - the potential life of the child has a 98-99% chance of being very impoverished both developmentally and with regards to being a productive member of society. The potential life will likely suck a lot.

Thus...

If moral agency is not established and the life will likely suck, abortion is the ideal choice. Abortion is an a-moral action (not having moral status) prior to the onset of consciousness. So in light of this people should be having more abortions. I think it is more responsible to abort a child that is unwanted and who's life will probably suck, than it is to not. the notion of responsibility should always be predicated upon the quality of the potential child's life - if its life will likely be impoverished it is irresponsible to have it. "Taking responsibility for the mistake of not using protection" is a bad way to think of it.

So I say ...

- Be moral, have an abortion (not a joke)

Side: PRO-CHOICE
2 points

Well really, it's they're choice what they wanna do. Not saying it's the right thing to actually do, but it's not our choice. If they don't want the baby, then they don't have the baby. Simple as that. BUT you never know, that baby that was aborted could have been the next president or maybe the next singer everyone talks about.

Side: Pro-choice

BUT you never know, that baby that was aborted could have been the next president or maybe the next singer everyone talks about.

Then again, is that a good argument? I could easily flip that around and say, "Thank goodness person A aborted that baby because the baby that was aborted could have been the next Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin or maybe the next Captain Francesco Schettino that everyone talks about." The problem with such an argument is that we simply do not know what might or might not happen.

Side: Pro-choice
1 point

1. I've yet to see anyone ask a pro-lifer this question; what if a fifteen year old girl is raped, impregnated, and still in school and her parents are unable to support the baby, while the rapist is never caught?

2. Many abortions take place because a family cannot support the baby, or the baby will have some sort of mental disorder to prevent him/her from living life to the fullest. Tell me, would the baby be better off in a world where society discriminates against the mentally challenged, or better in Heaven where things will be perfect and the baby can be taken care of?

Side: PRO-CHOICE
canteenkenny(62) Disputed
2 points

You are ignoring the fact that most abortions are for convenience, not rape or any medical need. The most common reasons women consider abortion are:

Per webmd.com "The most common reasons women consider abortion are: 1. Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.2 Inability to support or care for a child. 3. To end an unwanted pregnancy. 4. To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.5. Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. 6. Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued.

If the pro-life community were to all agree today that all rape victims should be given abortions (if desired) and then loved without reservation until they are (somewhat) whole again, the pro-abortion industry would give not one inch on their opposition to any restrictions on unlimited abortions. The 'pregnant rape victim' is a red herring, meant only to emotionalize the issue in their favor.

Side: PRO-LIFE
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

I would be more than happy answering this question.

1. Rape is a violent crime, a violent act. The rapist should be caught and serve punishment. The woman is the victim for sure. And the child she might be carrying also is a victim. ESPECIALLY IF SHE THINKS TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT AND DECIDES TO KILL IT.

There is always adoption. In most communities there are Crisis Pregnancy Centers that help women in situations like this. Free medical care…etc.

2. What right do you have to presume you know how someone will life and what quality of life the person might have? You have no right. Oprah came from a household that was poor, she was also a victims of abuse. Look at her now. One of the most successful and rich women in the country, in the world.

There is no family…that does not suffer bad things. There are families with drug and alcohol users, families who are poor, divorced…no family skates through life with no trials. Support is an excuse…because there is adoption and there are services that help women who have no money.

How dare you imply that all mentally challenged people be aborted. Wow. Hitler had the same mentality and views as your imply here. My brother in law is mentally handicapped and he brings joy into our lives. ARe you perfect? Maybe you should have been aborted…????? ARE you good looking, a millionaire….problemless? I doubt it.

What you imply here is outrageous. If babies would be better off dead…because they will be in heaven…then lets kill all children…there would not be a population problem is we did this…we would go extinct.

Let me ask you this. Do you think if you went into a hospital nursery full of babies and the nurse told you to pick out the baby whose mother was raped…think you could do it?

Side: PRO-LIFE
1 point

1. Rape is a violent crime, a violent act. The rapist should be caught and serve punishment. The woman is the victim for sure. And the child she might be carrying also is a victim. ESPECIALLY IF SHE THINKS TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT AND DECIDES TO KILL IT.

You have made no argument to oppose abortion here. You have simply asserted without evidence that abortion is "wrong". Whether or not the rapist is caught has no bearing on whether abortion is moral or not.

What right do you have to presume you know how someone will life and what quality of life the person might have?

It seems to me that the scenario he/she gave was very specific and we do know that the baby would have a bad quality of life at birth, making the chances of survival and access to opportunities very slim. Thus, you have no reason to play the sceptic card here.

Oprah came from a household that was poor, she was also a victims of abuse. Look at her now. One of the most successful and rich women in the country, in the world.

This is a red herring.

There is no family…that does not suffer bad things.

Really? This is a hasty generalisation on your part. You have again asserted without evidence.

How dare you imply that all mentally challenged people be aborted

Mentally challenged people cannot be aborted because they have already been born.

My brother in law is mentally handicapped and he brings joy into our lives.

Another appeal to emotion.

Let me ask you this. Do you think if you went into a hospital nursery full of babies and the nurse told you to pick out the baby whose mother was raped…think you could do it?

Another red herring.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
1 point

I agree with you. I am now prochoice. :)

Side: Pro-choice
1 point

The picture isn't working for me. Could you give me a link to the picture? thanks!

Side: Pro-choice
1 point

Abortion is a medical procedure that should be between a woman and her doctor. Abortion has been practiced since the beginning of time, one way or another. It was only illegal in the USA for 70 years before it was made legal, again. Before it was made illegal, it was routinely done by doctors (if you were rich) or midwifes or sometimes, the pregnant woman, herself. Legal abortion makes it safe for the woman, who is oftentimes a mother several times over already. No one story is the same an being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion. I have never heard any woman say they wanted to have an abortion without much agony and thought beforehand. Also, I see none of the bible thumping do gooder prolifers adopting unwanted babies or even offering to give a overwhelmed woman a hand up. The poster of this question is correct in saying that the prolifers need an education and update about pregnancy. Besides, if you are religious and it's against your religion, don't have one. Leave everyone else alone. As for your tax dollars paying for abortion, you don't want them paying for housing, education and food for the families with too many kids, either. None of us get to say where our tax dollars go. That's why we elect officials to do that for us. It's called a republic, folks!

Side: Pro-choice
0 points

Per EHow.com..."The are five methods used when performing an abortion. The first is called Manual Vacuum Aspiration and can be used early in the pregnancy. The doctor inserts a thin tube into the woman's uterus and sucks the embryo out with the syringe attached at the end of the tube. The second, Suction Curettage, is the most common kind of abortion and can be performed later in the pregnancy. The doctor must stretch the cervix with rods, due to the size of the baby, and then inserts a plastic tube that is connected to a suction machine. Once inserted, the baby's body is and suctioned out in pieces. The third is called Dilation and Evacuation and is considered a second trimester abortion. At this stage, the baby is too big to be broken apart by only the use of suction. Seaweed rods are inserted into the woman a day or two before the procedure to stretch her cervix. The doctor will use forceps to pull the fetus out of the woman. A looped knife called a curette is used to scrape remaining fetal parts out of the woman's body. The fourth method is called a Dilation and Extraction, and can be through full term. This procedure takes three days, and during the first two, seaweed rods are used again to stretch the cervix. The doctor will then use an ultrasound to locate the baby's legs, taking them with forceps and pulling every part out with the exception of its head. He will then make a cut into the baby's skull, suctioning out its brains which, makes it easier to pull the baby out of the woman's body. Finally, there is the development of RU 486, an abortion pill. Early in her pregnancy, a woman is given a pill in the doctor's office to abort the embryo and is sent home with 2 to 3 pills to be inserted vaginally. This will induce stomach cramps and expel the embryo.

Read more: Types of Abortions | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_4673244_types-abortions.html#ixzz1l0BItPUD

This is a common method of abortion, however ugly it is.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
3 points

Abortion is a disgusting thing. That's a fact. Performing unnecessary surgical procedures on people is a waste of time and valuable resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.

I don't think unnecessary abortions would be so commonplace if the fact of how disgusting they are wasn't hidden. The sheer magnitude of unnecessary abortions performed these days reflects the gross irreverence for life that is so pervasive. I'm not pro-life in the sense that I think abortions should be outlawed, but I am pro-life in that I see nothing wrong with working to reduce public acceptance of abortion as a form of birth control. I think that someone who claims to be a medical professional who performs procedures that are clearly unnecessary should be ashamed of themselves, and shunned by their peers.

Side: PRO-LIFE
3 points

Pro-life is the way to go, but how are we going to pay for this baby is the main question. Check out my debate on whether or not we should then auction off the parents organs to pay for this unwanted baby if they can't afford they baby. They believe in pro-life, but will let it starve...lol..unless yo'ure going to pay for the baby?

Side: PRO-LIFE
zombee(1024) Disputed
1 point

Abortion is a disgusting thing. That's a fact.

No, it isn't. That is an opinion.

I see nothing wrong with working to reduce public acceptance of abortion as a form of birth control.

A little public shaming never hurt anyone, right?

I know we've been over this before and the conversation got to be too much for me to keep straight as much as it was interesting, so I'll try to keep this focused. You speak as if your definition of the 'unnecessary' is the one that matters. I'm sure you understand that many people actually getting abortions consider it absolutely necessary...and without understanding their circumstances, you're advocating public hostility towards their choice. What qualifies you to decide what is necessary and unnecessary for strangers, and what social punishment they should receive if they don't obey your standards?

Side: PRO-CHOICE
atypican(4874) Disputed
3 points

No, it isn't. That is an opinion.

Is it in dispute then that abortion causes disgust?

A little public shaming never hurt anyone, right?

Embarrassment and progress go hand and hand. Be my friend embarrass me. :)

You speak as if your definition of the 'unnecessary' is the one that matters.

How dare I speak as if what I think matters!?

I'm sure you understand that many people actually getting abortions consider it absolutely necessary...and without understanding their circumstances, you're advocating public hostility towards their choice.

If it's necessary it's not really a choice, is it?

What qualifies you to decide what is necessary and unnecessary for strangers

I can't decide what's necessary. Something is either necessary or it's a choice.

what social punishment they should receive if they don't obey your standards?

Well my standard, should I be able to persuade people to adopt it, is that a surgical procedure should not be undertaken unless there is a clearly established health benefit to be gained from it being carried out.

I'd like "doctors" who perform surgeries that don't play a role in maintaining or restoring health to be recategorized as hacks.

Side: PRO-LIFE
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

Your right here…..abortion is not a disgusting thing to people who have no compassion and have hard hearts. You obviously are one of them.

I can only imagine what other moral issues you find acceptable. I don't even want to know.

Side: PRO-LIFE
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

If its so disgusting then why do you want it legal so people can do it? You stand in the same line as they do if you want it legal. There is no moral difference. You simply do not want protection for the unborn. How is this pro-life?

You state abortion is disgusting and that its gross irreverence for life…

You can't' be both. You can't want abortion legal and then claim your pro-life .

Your position is morally baffling.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
atypican(4874) Disputed
2 points

IMO people have a right to receive treatment from whomever they choose, without restrictive legislature, or an invasion of privacy.

Since opinions like mine are a distinct minority, and I don't expect radical change any time soon, I am stuck arguing for the improvement of the quality or justness of laws that address issues beyond what I consider to be the proper domain of public legislature in the first place.

Take as an example marriage. I don't like paying taxes for judges to hear cases about marriage, child support etc..

I did NOT say that abortion is a gross irreverence for life. I said "The sheer magnitude of unnecessary abortions performed these days reflects the gross irreverence for life that is so pervasive."

I believe that there ARE cases where the decision to perform an abortion is made with the best interests of the mother in mind, and with fair consideration of her situation, and what can be accomplished with the doctors current skills. I believe abortion should be something a woman is..to paraphrase Zombee..."faced with", not something she seeks out.

On the other hand....

I really don't think it's the business of government to disturb the privacy of doctor/patient relationships, or to make restrictive laws concerning an individual's choices for medical treatment. Such laws ARE in place however, so I'll talk about how I'd like them to change, since it appears they won't just go away.

I am pro-life in that I think abortion is an ugly thing that shouldn't be encouraged when it's clearly avoidable. I don't have to agree with the approach of outlawing abortion to identify as pro-life. Wanna know something sure to baffle you? I'm also Pro-Choice..

I don't fit your stereotype :)

Side: PRO-LIFE

I only support abortion if the mothers life is in danger and if the fetus is young. And if the baby is deformed but if it is for no good reason then I don't support it.

Side: Pro-life
Saurbaby(5579) Disputed
2 points

So a child coming into an abusive family that can't take care of the baby isn't a good reason? It's okay for the child to suffer?

Side: Pro-choice
2 points

what? that is one of my reasons you thought I stated them all I only gave examples.

Side: Pro-life

There are many places in the world where there aren't any limitations on abortions at all. I think Canada has no restrictions on abortion.

Side: Pro-life

You know what puzzles me……?

Here we have a picture that the pro-abort side DOES NOT WANT SHOWN. It factually is true and this is how a later term abortion happens. It happens the same way however in earlier abortions…the baby is just smaller. But never the less body parts still are dissected and torn from the fetus alive…until it is dead. So this is the face of abortion…FACT.

What gets me is this. Most everyone here I presume is pro-choice. Why?

They believe that the woman should have the rights to her body and that its a personal decision that only she can make. She should not be burdened by carrying something she does not want…and she may do this for any reason. Abortion should be legal so that if she decides to kill her baby she can.

So why does this picture…upset pro-aborts/choicers? If they embrace abortion for all the right reasons….then what is so wrong with it?

Is killing a living human being bad? No says the pro-choice side. Why the emotion from this side for being called pro-abortion? Is there something your not telling us? Certainly you don't advocate something you find immoral..right?

If abortion should be legal…because its the woman body her decision. Then how many of you would agree that even late term abortions like this….are ok?

LOL

How many of you would want to enslave her in later terms just because you find late term abortions repulsive and wrong. The baby looks more like a baby….and gee, just tugs on your heartstrings doesn't it…..sigh.

Side: PRO-LIFE
Saurbaby(5579) Disputed
2 points

I don't want it shown because, unlike what you said, it's false. Abortion is NOT done like that anymore. Nor is it done this late unless the mother is in danger. Look it up.

And this picture is not gross to me, or disturbing. It's fake, and it's a ridiculous way to move people to be pro-life.

No pro-choice person has a problem with the picture itself, just that it's false.

Also, of course it would "tug on your heartstrings" the later a fetus is in term the more it is responsive. I don't have a problem with getting rid of a clump of cells in early abortion.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
canteenkenny(62) Disputed
2 points

Wrong, it is still done into the second trimester. Do some research.

Side: PRO-LIFE
churchmouse(328) Disputed
2 points

But you are wrong…it is you just don't hear about it. And if you are pro-choice then…what is the problem with it? Do you not want to be put on the spot during the Super bowl if someone in your group says wow…who could be for that? Then you would have to say well I condone it…I am pro-choice? Or you could sit there and hide your opinion and just agree so you don't look bad.

I don't have to look it up. Have you ever heard of Tiller…the doctor that was killed for doing late term abortions? He did them like this as do clinics all over the country. YOU DONT HEAR ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THEY HIDE IT…IT IS ILLEGAL. It is done. Last year alone two late term abortion clinics were shut down…one in LA and one in New Mexico. It is done and you are very naive if you think it isn't. And as I said…..is there something wrong with abortion Saurbaby? If you are pro-choice it should be legal because your position stands on the fact that no woman should have to carry something if she does not want to do it. That would enslave her. So if she wants an abortion say at eight months….it should be ok.

The picture is accurate and true. You yourself said in this post…."Abortion is not done like that ANYMORE." Which….LOL implies that you know it was done and the picture is accurate.

Did you know that in that tiny clump of cells…22 days after conception when most women don't even know they are pregnant…the heart starts beating. Yea…in that blob you think is nothing.

What is the abortionists goal?

Side: Pro-life
1 point

Abortion is still occasionally performed like this and it's not always purely for reasons of the mother's physical health. This isn't always what it looks like but sometimes it is. That it's hard to look at doesn't make it any less wrong or right.

Side: PRO-CHOICE

In the end, it is a choice. And unless you are going to chain her wrists and ankles, she will get an abortion if she truly wants to.

I am a little bit of both. Hence, I am Pro-Both. However, that phrase implies that i am a "little" for each individually. Kinda funny...Pro-Both. I AM PRO-BOTH!!!! lol :D

Well. Anyway. If a woman gets rape, i believe she has a right to get an abortion if she wants to get an abortion. However, at the same time, my nerves are hit because an abortion is the killing of an unborn child. I don't care if it is dead or alive, the "thing" will soon be a child. And i find that unfair for the child but FAIR for the woman.

If an adult woman had CONSENSUAL sex, regardless if the pregnancy was an accident or not, the woman is still responsible. Don't be stupid. It seems retarded to say "oh the pregnancy was an accident." I say, "who cares. You had sex. You should had known better."

But what if we are talking about children? Or what if the woman didn't really know that unprotected sex leads to pregnancy? Ultimate stupidity is possible. That is a different story. I think it is FAIR for them to get an abortion but not FAIR for the child.

Side: PRO-CHOICE
churchmouse(328) Disputed
2 points

It is a choice. And when abortion was illegal the majority of women had their babies. Less women got pregnant because they knew that abortion was really not an option…it was hard to find illegal abortion clinics and doctors that would perform them. So they thought twice about having sex. Now abortion is an option and many women use it as birth control.

You can't be both. You either want abortions legal…or you want protection for the unborn and want it illegal. One thing your not…Pro-life…not if you want abortion legal. Thats like child abuse. Looking away you know its wrong but its your neighbors right to do it. Do you help the children no.

Now rape is a serious violent act and it is wrong. But that which is created is still a child, innocent at that. It makes no difference to the child whether the mother was raped. So the rape is one violent act…and abortion is the next. The mother chooses to violently end her childs life.

I have known people who have used birth control but still got pregnant. Accidents happen…but, you still are taking the risk…because no birth control is 100% effective…..unless you get fixed. We live in a sexually active society. If more women are keeping their babies because they are not looked down on by society anymore. More couples live together today than get married. TV, radio, magazines, movies…..in general foster the idea that if it feels good it can't be that bad. We are a sexual society and we celebrate the deviant. Kids know about sex earlier than ever today. So I highly doubt that if women have sex they don't know what can happen. Accidents happen…and women know that.

It is sad that what you morally disagree with you don't have the guts to stand up for. So you help to paint a bullseye on every child who is conceived in its mothers womb.

Side: Pro-choice
2 points

You can't be both. You either want abortions legal…or you want protection for the unborn and want it illegal.

This reveals the simplicity of your thoughts. You can be both. There are good reasons to believe why abortion should only be legal within the first trimester only.

Thats like child abuse.

This is a textbook example of a false analogy. A fetus is not the equivalent of a child.

It makes no difference to the child whether the mother was raped.

Yes it does. There have been studies of how the children of rape victims are negatively affected in terms of their psychological development, especially if there is a missing parent.

We live in a sexually active society.

We have always lived in a sexually active society. If our society is sexually inactive, the human race would have been extinct by now.

More couples live together today than get married.

I don't see your point. Married couples live together. And you can choose to live together first and get married later. It has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong.

We are a sexual society and we celebrate the deviant.

And who is "the deviant"?

Kids know about sex earlier than ever today.

That's good! I'd rather have my kids know about sex earlier and learn how to protect themselves than to be ignorant and cause unwanted pregnancies due to a lack of knowledge.

It is sad that what you morally disagree with you don't have the guts to stand up for.

I can say the same about you. What you are positing here are feeble challenges. So feeble, in fact, I wonder if your heart is even in this debate.

Side: Pro-life
Th3ZViru5(149) Disputed
1 point

Firstly, just because abortion was illegal up until the early 70s does not mean women weren't having it done. It's an archaic procedure - the earliest recorded abortion was in Egypt, 1550 BCE. And they'll continue to do it in the future. You just need to get over it. Secondly, you can be both. You can believe in abortion under the right circumstances.

"It makes no difference to the child whether the mother was raped. So the rape is one violent act... and abortion is the next."

Could you be anymore heartless? The mother never asked to be victimized, so if she chooses abortion, it's more of an act she was forced into, not one she decided upon of her own volition. Why wouldn't you call the man who raped her a murderer, in essence? And let's consider for a moment the victim decided to keep her child - what do you think she may one day tell him/her when they continually ask where their father is? "Honey, you were a mistake and your father brutally raped me in a dark alley somewhere?" Yeah, kudos for Father of the Year! In this case, he would have victimized two people instead of just one.

"No birth control is 100% effective... unless you get fixed."

Are you honestly suggesting people not have sex from fear they might get pregnant? Go shout that in the town square, see how many agree. I agree, people should practice safe sex, but if they take all necessary precautions and get pregnant anyway, and decided for whatever reason the time isn't right, they're entitled to an abortion.

Side: Pro-life
1 point

I am prolife. I believe that everyone has the right to live unless they are endangering someone else.

Side: Pro-life
1 point

I am prochoice. I support a woman's right to choose. I would abort if I was pregnant.

Side: Pro-life
sauh(1107) Disputed
1 point

I thought you were busy getting ready for prison. How do you have time to post anyt opinion about anything?

Side: Pro-choice
Sitara(11088) Disputed
1 point

I was threatened with jail. I still do not know what will happen.

Side: Pro-life