What is your opinion on abortion? I think that, like LGBTQ+ rights, should be your choice.

My position on abortion is complicated because of overlapping principles. I personally believe abortion is wrong in any situation. Any at all. If someone's irresponsible enough to not take precautions and gets pregnant, that's a decision you live with. There shouldn't be an easy way out for that kind of negligence. Even in the cases that having the kid could be a threat to the mother or if it was the result of incest or rape, I don't believe it's our place to intervene. In fact, I would just assume redirect public funds to adoption programs as be for abortion, and that's from someone who hates taxes, public funding and government involvement.

On the other hand, those are strictly my personal values. I believe each state's communities should decide whether or not their state allows it and I wouldn't force my values on large groups of people who don't share them.


Also, maybe slightly off topic here, but we really have to qualify terms such as "right" when they're used by so many different people who have their own definitions of it. How do you define "rights"?

It should be the person who's pregnant to make that choice. It's their choice to abort the baby OR keep it. It's their body, and they get to do what they want with it.

Also, most abortions are done before the fetus can even be considered alive *shrug*

m0ssb3rg935 : I'm not looking to get into an argument try and change anyone's views (and I appreciate that you're also not trying to change anyone else's views. No, I really do :'3), I would like to point out that even with taking precautions before sex someone can still get pregnant. There's no 100% guarantee.

And a question for the thread creator- what do you mean by LGBTQ+ rights should be your choice? Might be getting a little off topic but ^^'

I should've been more clear, sorry. I was saying that they should be able to choose if they can get married or adopt, and that the state shouldn't choose.

Fancdew : Letting you know I took the liberty of removing your post layout as I wasn't able to see the content.


Sanspai : I realize there's no 100% guarantee, but is there really ever one for anything? When choices are made, even minor ones, said person's committed to it. There were actions and they can't be taken back.

That leads us back to the worn out discussion on when a person is considered a person. I personally try to look ahead and consider the consequences. For example, one already knows that, when you kill someone who's already been living for decades, you're not just killing them then and there, but killing anything he may have done or accomplished in the future. For me personally, the same thing applies to the unborn. I'm not well enough versed in biology or whatever to have a real scientific discussion on this, but as far as I see it, aborting a fetus, whether considered a person or not, does have immeasurable consequences because it was very likely to develop into a person without intervention. There's a very thin line between preventing life and killing and the results are very much alike.

Again, that's just my take on it.

m0ssb3rg935 : thx for removing the layout much appreciated m8

That's fair, just wanted to counter the argument about people getting pregnant who don't want the baby to be irresponsible . Or at least for some people .

That's also a fair point, but that's also just a chance, and the resulting baby will likely live in poverty and, well, you get the idea. The person who haves the baby will also likely be forced to live in poverty which could crush their dreams or hopes that they had before the pregnancy. Taking care of babies are expensive, and it's getting increasingly harder to get a good job to support both you and a baby, with college degrees being devalued and minimum wage not even being enough to support just one person, you.

Then again, that just my views on the matter.

It really must be your choice, but in some special circumstances I'd say that it should be mandatory.

Every time I read a story about a couple who wants to continue the pregnancy even after the fetus was diagnosed with health complications that will make it a dependant person for the rest of its long life, I wish abortion was mandatory to be applied. Not because of overpopulation or anything, just because what that fetus will go on to live it's not life, they will never be able to fly freely since even before seeing the light of day.

The cases were it's an unwanted pregnancy, then we must first clarify how it happened first. Sexual aggressions are out of the question, I doubt anybody would want to continue that pregnancy unless they didn't notice about it until it's too late. Besides that, the matter can get really complicated, but I guess that it's up to the person's choice since they are the ones bearing them, whether we like it or not.

And well, to those that think this is a "murder", I personally think that they're just like those vegans who say that they don't "kill" or hurt the plants and vegetables they eat. No life is ensured until it comes to this world, so before that happens is up to the parents to choose what will happen to that (potential) life form.

Sanspai : Right. I actually agree with everything you've said in your last post. But I still suspect that a large percentage of abortions, maybe even a majority, are the result of either poor or even a lack of judgment. I'll have to look up some statistics, though.

And, I mean... I'm pretty sure just having less sex is a lot cheaper than having an abortion done, too...

m0ssb3rg935 : Wait really? I didn't know my ramblings were that good tbh , and that's why I said some. Though to be fair, some is very vague.

...and good point, though even one time is enough to get pregnant >>

Sanspai : I'm with you on this one. I support abortions ( especially if it was a result of rape ), up to a certain point in the term. 

I may be seen as an A hole on this,but abortion should always be an option as well as embraced.

I am not going to say give it to everyone that wants it,but I think it should be given to them,based on certain reasons.

1. Rape (I am sorry,it is an unwanted pregnancy of the worst kind.)
2. There is serious risk to the mother or baby.
3. The baby may be born with a defect of some sort,like a physical or mental disability.
4. The mother can prove that she would be an unfit mother.
5. If the baby is from incest.

Look,let us be honest with ourselves here. There are over 7 BILLION people on Earth. I think that is at least 1 or 2 billion over ideal capacity. There are scores and scores of children in foster care that are either unadoptable or age out of the system. I do not support giving the mother an easy out because of a night of poor judgment.

I am a big pro choice advocate. I have 4 main reasons that contribute to this:

1. The Status of the Fetus

The main argument against Abortion is that it is equated with murder but I don't consider a fetus a legal human being. In the stage an abortion is done it has yet to develop the capacity to feel pain, or having a state of thought, essentially lacking what most consider as making us "human". This also means a fetus won't suffer physically or emotionally due to an abortion and therefore I consider it ending a human life before it has really begun. You could argue that life begins at conception because of religious principles, but that doesn't justify forcing it on those who choose to not practice said religions.

2. Women's Rights

In a world that is still male dominated in many areas, I think ensuring the right to abortion is an important step to achieving equality as the right to one's body is one of the most fundamental human rights. Completely disallowing abortion infringes on this right and makes it much harder for women to pursue a successful career as a result. There are also several other cases where it's not just about individual freedom such as in cases of rape or various health problems.

3. The Future of the Child

Banning abortions completely will lead to cases where babies are born to parents who don't want/are capable of taking care of them due to economical or mental health circumstances. These children will have a severe natural disadvantage, being more likely to pursue a criminal path and developing mental health problems among other things. For these reasons I don't consider the "potential to life" a very good argument as it's generally setting people up to fail (even if there would be exceptions).

4. Stem Cells

A benefit to abortion that many people seem to forget is that it is a method of extracting stem cells. These cells can be developed into a variety of different cells in the body depending on what is needed. As a result they can be used to treat/research various physical conditions like those of cancer patients or burn victims and in cases even save the lives of other people. The idea that Abortion is a completely selfish action is therefore a false one.

Zlinqx : Responding to the summon that was left out.


To point 1) As I've said in a prior post, I don't claim to be very well versed in biology so I can't really argue the scientific points. My values are based on certain ethics are principles but, like I said, I wouldn't force that on anyone. Quite the opposite. I don't believe either position should be forced on either side and that's why I believe it shouldn't be a national issue. Only a state issue.


To point 2) Like I said in a prior post, we have to qualify what we mean by right and why we believe they should be. Everyone has their idea of what a set of basic human rights are and that's usually dependent upon several other values. Not that I'm comparing the claims, but just for argument's sake, there are people who would say that internet service is a basic human right.

Which areas are still allegedly male dominated? Basically the entirety of the first world has legal abortion already, not to mention, at the very least, putting men and women on a level playing field in other areas, if not over compensating by playing favorites with the former underdog.


To point 3) Not that I advocate banning abortion in any state that has a majority population that supports abortion, banning it entirely does not mean the so-called parent is stuck with the kid. I'm right there with you in saying that is seems like an alarming amount of people just aren't fit to care for children. As I said in another post in this thread, I would start adoption programs and direct public funding to them. However, that wouldn't completely solve the problem. Assuming abortion is banned, you would still have a large amount of children being born to unfit for the role, almost certainly more than there are people looking to adopt. The reason there are both so many unfit parents and a need for abortion is because there's a lack of responsibility. No one's growing up and they think they can do whatever they want without there being repercussions. This isn't reality. Even in free society there are consequences for your actions.

If the potential to life isn't a valid argument, given the assumed poor chances of the would be kid, then I take it you're also in favor of euthanasia for those of us who are terminally ill?


To point 4) The idea that abortion can't be entirely selfish is also false. Regardless of the result, and I don't believe that results are the only thing that matter, whether or not an abortion is selfish comes down to the intentions of the person having one.

In 2011, 45% of pregnancies in the United States among women and girls aged 15 to 44 were unintended according to The New England Journal of Medicine.



Here's the article.


According the the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the abortion ratio per 1,000 live birth from girls and women from the same age range for the same year was more than 20%.

Here's the report


20% of pregnant women are not being raped.

m0ssb3rg935 :

1. That's fair enough however do note that I was talking about abortion more generally (not just in the US). I fail to see how leaving this up to each individual state would make it so it is not forced upon others, it's true that it could allow a loophole, by letting people go to other states to perform an abortion but generally speaking it would make the situation much harder for those without the economic resources to do so, which so happens to be many of those who may feel the need to have an abortion in the first place. If you are truly fine with leaving it up to the individual then I don't see why the legislation needs to be changed as no one is being forced to perform abortion.

2. I don't really think that comparison holds weight. When you're talking about providing free internet access, that means the state giving you something for free as a guarantee. The right to abortion, is on a certain plane the right of a woman to do as she wants with her OWN body. I am not debating the state subsidizing planned parenthood here but simply the ability to have an abortion regardless of who pays for it. By banning abortion completely barring special circumstances you are telling them that their own body is to some extent not their own to control, something which does not apply to men as they don't have to deal with pregnancy thus it inadvertently contributes to a gender gap.This is a highly relevant topic in many areas of the world where women's rights are a contested issue, India for example. Banning abortion also serves as an obstacle women must overcome as being forced into pregnancy makes you unfit to perform most jobs, something which is already a reason for men being hired above women and changing the legislation would likely worsen the situation.


3. That's not a viable solution, there's already problems with finding parents willing to adopt children like you acknowledged. Pouring in more funds isn't going to change anything in fact it will likely make the situation worse as people will adopt children for economic incentives and as a result neglect the child. I also feel you are overgeneralizing when saying the reason for needing to have an abortion solely comes down to a lack of responsibility. Sexual preventatives are not easily accessible everywhere and are quite often stigmatized in many parts of society, this is why most people performing abortions are on the younger end of the spectrum. Even if this would be the case though I fail to see how it makes a difference as I would consider it a question of individual freedom.

I am in favor of voluntary assisted suicide for those that are terminally ill if that's what you're referring to. I have seen people slowly whither away in hospital beds ultimately leading to physical and emotional pain both for that person and their loved ones in the long term. Providing an alternative only seems fair. This is very different to being for forced euthanasia. That would be equating fetuses to human beings and that's what the core of my argument is against. A fetus does not possess the characteristics that make humans "human" separating us from other organisms and thus I don't see how it would be any different to killing plants or animals for our own benefit which we often do. In fact I would argue killing animals would be far worse as animals are capable of both experiencing pain and thought to varying degrees and it is a much more one sided affair, but most people seem to agree that this is still an acceptable practice to some extent as it benefits our species.

4. You may perform an abortion for selfish reasons but I am referring to the consequences of the action. Through stem cells, abortion can contribute to medical science research and also directly save the lives of people in different circumstances, thus even if you feel that this does not fall under the discussion of individual freedom for women, the case can still be made that it inflicts a lot of good for various people (not just those involved in the process) while doing relatively little in terms of harm. In other words it is not a selfish action as it isn't just the woman who benefits from it.

Zlinqx :

Leaving it up to individual states would be the best compromise as I see it. I for one probably wouldn't be in favor of changing legislation, but my whole point is that it I shouldn't be able to prevent it in a state where the majority of people would. In other words, it shouldn't be a federal issue in the case of a union of smaller republics with some amount of autonomy.


I don't believe it holds water, either. But that's why I brought it up. I wasn't necessarily making the comparison, but there undoubtedly is someone would. When we talk about something like human rights, individual rights etc. we're going to get a lot of different responses from a lot of different viewpoints.


Lack of responsibility isn't the only reason some may want an abortion, but it most certainly is a major contributer. If we're talking about relatively poor young people here, that's basically my whole point... You know you're broke. You know you have the rest of your life ahead of you. If you engage in activity that can endanger your future and be too much of a financial burden, you've taken the risk. If I jump in my dad's car right now and go drag-racing down the highway, total the car and wind up in a wheelchair, that's on me and no one else. But hey, at least I had fun in the process, right? #YOLO

m0ssb3rg935 : Aside from creating a loophole in the law for those with the economic resources to travel out of state I don't really see how it changes anything. It gives more power to states maybe, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with the discussion of abortion.

Again though my point is that you can't hold this to the same standard as the right to education, healthcare etc because this is not about providing state subsidized services, but letting people control their own bodies as far as is possible, with all of the other examples you've brought up there is more room for debate since it is ultimately other citizens who have to pay for these rights through taxes. Another way of putting it, is that it's not just a human rights issue but a question of individual freedom.

The difference in the case of becoming handicapped is that there's no way to even partially reverse that which is not extremely expensive. Having an abortion is not a fun process, in fact it often involves a lot of physical discomfort and emotional stress for the woman. I'm sure most of those who are forced to go through one will be more careful with their sexual activities in the future. I don't think many people would want to be a regular at the abortion clinic.

Zlinqx : I'm only here for one question:

You ended one post talking about the argument of life beginning at conception vs. birth or the second trimester or whenever.  
It's simple: Life starts at conception.

Imagine this example: The Mars Rover is wandering around on the surface of that planet and it sees something.  Somehow, it managed to catch a few zygotes frozen in ice.

These zygotes are similar to ours.  They're eukaryotic cells formed from fertilization of an egg from a sperm and they feature DNA similar to life on earth but not exact.  There is no other evidence of animals living on the planet.

Would we say, "Well, that's technically not life because it wasn't born?" or would we say, "Look, here's proof of life on Mars?"  

Life starts at conception.  It's not religious or political; it's science.

Ghostbear1111 : I'm not literally arguing that life doesn't exist at conception, anyone that has taken a basic sex ed class would know that it does. What I'm arguing against is considering the fetus a legal human being (in the stage the abortion is done). The center of my argument all along has been that you can not hold a fetus to the same standard because it lacks the capacity to think and feel that a human baby or even other animals have. I don't consider the fetus much more alive than I would a plant at that stage as it has yet to develop, hence why I phrase it as "taking a life before it has really begun".

Zlinqx :

Perfect.  That answers my question.  I understand you better.
Thank you.