- Registrado
- 24 de Jun, 2015
Yes.
Abortion - An age old issue
- Iniciador del tema autisticdragonkin
- Fecha de inicio
-
🔧 Site instability resolved. You can report double-posts and broken attachments. For bigger issues, use the Technical Grievances thread.
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa. -
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Kikomi
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 10 de Jul, 2016
i think that a mid to late third trimester abortion is questionable, but should be allowed, (and only suggested if the woman is at risk or if the baby is super fucked up.) any abortions before that are okay in my book.
abortions in cases of incest should be the law. there is no place for products of incest.
eugenics come into play at some points. i'm not talking about downs babies or superficial/minor to moderate deformities. i mean babies with huge deformities like severe microcephaly should be aborted because they are basically meat puppets without coherent thought or feeling, and are a waste of resources when it comes to other disabled babies that actually have a chance of living a somewhat fulfilling life if they are given proper help. this sounds heartless, but it all comes down to the mother(and father, for that matter) projecting their feelings and paternal instincts on something that is barely human.
but that's my personal opinion. i don't think forcing abortion should be the law in any cases besides incest.
basically i believe that abortions should be legal because there is no "special soul" within a baby and bringing religion into abortion issues is stupid as fuck, and the family(particularly the mother) has the final say because it's their choice, period. just stay out of people's business.
once again, the only regulation i'd want enforced by law is for incest babies to be aborted. this is edgy but it's just what i believe.
abortions in cases of incest should be the law. there is no place for products of incest.
eugenics come into play at some points. i'm not talking about downs babies or superficial/minor to moderate deformities. i mean babies with huge deformities like severe microcephaly should be aborted because they are basically meat puppets without coherent thought or feeling, and are a waste of resources when it comes to other disabled babies that actually have a chance of living a somewhat fulfilling life if they are given proper help. this sounds heartless, but it all comes down to the mother(and father, for that matter) projecting their feelings and paternal instincts on something that is barely human.
but that's my personal opinion. i don't think forcing abortion should be the law in any cases besides incest.
basically i believe that abortions should be legal because there is no "special soul" within a baby and bringing religion into abortion issues is stupid as fuck, and the family(particularly the mother) has the final say because it's their choice, period. just stay out of people's business.
once again, the only regulation i'd want enforced by law is for incest babies to be aborted. this is edgy but it's just what i believe.
- Registrado
- 6 de Oct, 2014
I don't know if it's different where you're from, but in America children put up for adoption generally find themselves stuck in the foster system until they turn 18. Unfortunately, there probably won't be others that will want the kid, and the chances of it being adopted become slimmer and slimmer the older it gets.
Don't get me wrong, it's depressing that abortion is the best option in some cases, but sometimes it really is necessary.
What if the baby was going to born with a really horrible defect that would render its life short and painful like Trisomy 18/Edwards Syndrome: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_syndrome#Signs_and_symptoms) The child won't live for long, and that time will be spent in pain. If the parents were aware of this defect prior to birth, would you still consider it wrong to abort?
- Registrado
- 24 de Jun, 2015
I think special consideration should be given to these types of cases, And I have to concede that aborting unfortunately would be more humane for both.
But I shall never support aborting a child simply because it's a "mistake" or has something like downs.
- Registrado
- 15 de Jul, 2016
Okay. Well would you, as someone who is prolife, be comfortable with a child growing up in a household where they were, at best a mistake, or at worst unwanted by their parents?
- Registrado
- 1 de Oct, 2014
- Registrado
- 6 de Oct, 2014
I stepped on an acorn today. I am a murderous monster.Let me stop you there.
- Registrado
- 1 de Oct, 2014
Bitch please. My uterus is a lean, mean killing machine. I kill 12 babies a year!
- Registrado
- 19 de Nov, 2015
Anyway, birth control fails a lot you know. Not really a woman's fault if they're practicing safe sex and it fails on them.
A lot of anti-abortion people think that birth control should be outlawed too. Come on dude.
Kikomi
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 10 de Jul, 2016
they don't understand cause and effect. it's actually insane. there's no excuse for being prolife and anti-contraception at the same time(both of those stances individually are already stupid imo, particularly the latter)
- Registrado
- 17 de Abr, 2016
I love that whole Catch22 they strive for. And by love I mean it makes me want to Alog myself off of this planet.
Anyway, birth control fails a lot you know. Not really a woman's fault if they're practicing safe sex and it fails on them.
A lot of anti-abortion people think that birth control should be outlawed too. Come on dude.
The especially crazy ones have religious leanings that add "You can't touch yourself" into that cesspool of an opinion.
- Registrado
- 11 de Nov, 2013
Okay being anti contraception is too retarded even for me.
- Registrado
- 24 de Jun, 2015
Kikomi
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 10 de Jul, 2016
implying that a majority of abortions aren't performed early on?
also, a fetus shouldn't have more rights than a woman.
why do prolifers always talk about how the baby is a human too, but fail to acknowlege that abortion is usually for the best. if someone is getting an abortion in the first place, it's because they would be an unfit parent for one reason or another. do you WANT a child to grow up in a poor environment where its needs arent met? why are you so intent on protecting an emotionless and unconscious cluster of cells? i'm not trying to be condescending, i'm genuinely curious.
prolifers tend to project their developed human feelings onto unthinking, unfeeling fetuses. that's my main issue here.
Kartoffel
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 6 de Sep, 2016
I'm pro choice - and that the woman alone has the last say in terminating the pregnancy.
Because its the woman's body which creates the child (and more!) - the father biologically only contributes a half set of chromosomes. The matter the child is made from comes exclusively from the mother. Hell, the father doesn't even contribute mitochondria!
The woman not only has to deal with all the physical and psychological (baby blues is a severe problem!) consequences of pregnancy and abortion (and both can be shitty) she also has to take more responsibility for contraception, exspecially for long term one. You either have to day every day hormones that mess up your body and libido oder stuck a foreign object into your body - but the second option is only adviseable for woman that have already given birth.
As long as the costs for a men are so much cheaper than the woman's one for pregnancy/abortion and contraception I'll say that its the woman's choice.
(When the technology is far enough, that men can use stuff like Vasalgel or the Bimek SLV and actually many do it, then they would deserve a bit more of a veto right.)
It isn't like abortion itself has no toll on a woman; not only is it a surgical procedure with its associated risks, but it can also take an enormous psycological and social toll from her. Don't punish her twice!
The ability to bring a child to term is a miracle and something wonderful and woman have to already suffer enough for it. (Because let's face it, I think everything that differantiates biologically a woman from a man is solely because she is build to produce babys and nurse them. And every discrimination a woman suffers is in the end because of these differences.)
A man can run away if he does not want this child, a woman can't, because that thing is inside her, leeching of her metabolism like a parasite. And even if there is the option to give it away for adoption, forcing the woman to carry it to term against her will is nothing short of psychological and physical torture. Something that should be fulfilling experience turns into a nightmare.
And last but not least, when there is the exclusive choice between mother and baby (and the mother herself doesn't prefer the baby), the mother is the one who should be saved.
Morality aside, its kind of an economic choice:
- a newborn needs constant care and nursing, even a Snorlax of a mother needs less
- the partner would have to deal with the emotional trauma of losing their significant other alone, because the newborn will not be able to give the same sort of consolation
- there will also be a financial loss, because the mother would at least be able to contribute in a way (and if it was by scaring thieves away by mere presence), but a newborn can't. Not at all.
- there could be also prior children. Even if you argument, that the unborn child has the same rigth to live as the mother, does this cancel out the right of its siblings to keep their mother? They would have a good reason to hate the new baby forever...
- the mother has already proven, that she is to a certain degree capable to produce a child (or there would be nothing to abort), so after abortion, latr in live, she could have another child, or several, (or at least adopt some) while the baby has not even a guarantee to survive into adulthood
Because its the woman's body which creates the child (and more!) - the father biologically only contributes a half set of chromosomes. The matter the child is made from comes exclusively from the mother. Hell, the father doesn't even contribute mitochondria!
The woman not only has to deal with all the physical and psychological (baby blues is a severe problem!) consequences of pregnancy and abortion (and both can be shitty) she also has to take more responsibility for contraception, exspecially for long term one. You either have to day every day hormones that mess up your body and libido oder stuck a foreign object into your body - but the second option is only adviseable for woman that have already given birth.
As long as the costs for a men are so much cheaper than the woman's one for pregnancy/abortion and contraception I'll say that its the woman's choice.
(When the technology is far enough, that men can use stuff like Vasalgel or the Bimek SLV and actually many do it, then they would deserve a bit more of a veto right.)
It isn't like abortion itself has no toll on a woman; not only is it a surgical procedure with its associated risks, but it can also take an enormous psycological and social toll from her. Don't punish her twice!
The ability to bring a child to term is a miracle and something wonderful and woman have to already suffer enough for it. (Because let's face it, I think everything that differantiates biologically a woman from a man is solely because she is build to produce babys and nurse them. And every discrimination a woman suffers is in the end because of these differences.)
A man can run away if he does not want this child, a woman can't, because that thing is inside her, leeching of her metabolism like a parasite. And even if there is the option to give it away for adoption, forcing the woman to carry it to term against her will is nothing short of psychological and physical torture. Something that should be fulfilling experience turns into a nightmare.
And last but not least, when there is the exclusive choice between mother and baby (and the mother herself doesn't prefer the baby), the mother is the one who should be saved.
Morality aside, its kind of an economic choice:
- a newborn needs constant care and nursing, even a Snorlax of a mother needs less
- the partner would have to deal with the emotional trauma of losing their significant other alone, because the newborn will not be able to give the same sort of consolation
- there will also be a financial loss, because the mother would at least be able to contribute in a way (and if it was by scaring thieves away by mere presence), but a newborn can't. Not at all.
- there could be also prior children. Even if you argument, that the unborn child has the same rigth to live as the mother, does this cancel out the right of its siblings to keep their mother? They would have a good reason to hate the new baby forever...
- the mother has already proven, that she is to a certain degree capable to produce a child (or there would be nothing to abort), so after abortion, latr in live, she could have another child, or several, (or at least adopt some) while the baby has not even a guarantee to survive into adulthood
- Registrado
- 5 de Jun, 2016
From reading this thread and looking at the arguments of pro-lifers, it seems that many have the idea that parenthood should be the consequence of sex. I personally think this is quite illogical. Firstly, birth control may not work 100% of the time. So, people that have used birth control and got pregnant anyway should face the consequence of...what, exactly? The consequence of having sex when you don't want a child? Should we go back in time and only have sex for the sole purpose of recreation? Yeah right as if that's going to work. Times have changed and even if you think that people shouldn't have sex before marriage or whatever, it's going to happen anyway, and there's nothing you can do about it, not even restricting abortion.
Second, most people that get abortions are not at a time where they can raise a child properly. For example, do you think a 15 year old, who is in highschool and legally still a child, can be a good parent and raise their own child properly? That is absurd, and it's simply going to ruin two lives at once; the teenager who is bogged down with a child when they should be pursuing education/thinking about work, and the child, who is going to get shitty parents that don't love them, and probably also end up being teenage mums/dads themselves. It's not just age either. Do you think a homeless person living on food stamps who may or may not be addicted to some kind of drug can raise a healthy, well-adjusted child, especially if they didn't want one in the first place? And before the issue of adoption is brought up, the whole process of pregnancy can potentially severely and permanently damage/harm a teenager's body, not to mention restricting abortion will almost definitely overload any kind of adoption facility—you'd just end up with a bunch of parentless children that will probably grow up to commit crime due to the circumstances that they're in.
Third, restricting abortion doesn't mean it's not going to happen. In a large number of countries where abortion is restricted, many unwilling mothers don't go "welp, I can't abort the child, I guess I have to pay the consequences of my actions and raise another human being now", they abort illegally (and often dangerously), often at a much later stage of pregnancy compared to abortions in a country where it's legalized. So restricting it often makes it worse.
Also, I find the argument of a fetus being "life" and having the "potential" to be a human being quite out of touch with reality. It may be technically true, but it's only semantics and does not affect anything in practice. Who says that just because it has the "potential" to be a human being that abortion is somehow the equivalent of killing an actual, sentient human being? Unless you believe souls/life essences exist (which I don't), that doesn't make sense. It can develop into a human being, but it doesn't change the fact that at the instant in time in which it is removed, it is non-sentient and cannot feel pain, suffer, or otherwise be fearful of death. Not to mention that fetuses inhabit their mother's body and is completely dependent on it, and so the right to possess bodily autonomy as a fully grown adult should override the rights of some non-sentient cells with the "potential" to be a human being. After all, that's why you can't just remove someone's kidney to save another person's life without their permission, even though removing one kidney would not severely damage the health of the person involved. And this is about saving someone that is sentient and very clearly a human being.
Second, most people that get abortions are not at a time where they can raise a child properly. For example, do you think a 15 year old, who is in highschool and legally still a child, can be a good parent and raise their own child properly? That is absurd, and it's simply going to ruin two lives at once; the teenager who is bogged down with a child when they should be pursuing education/thinking about work, and the child, who is going to get shitty parents that don't love them, and probably also end up being teenage mums/dads themselves. It's not just age either. Do you think a homeless person living on food stamps who may or may not be addicted to some kind of drug can raise a healthy, well-adjusted child, especially if they didn't want one in the first place? And before the issue of adoption is brought up, the whole process of pregnancy can potentially severely and permanently damage/harm a teenager's body, not to mention restricting abortion will almost definitely overload any kind of adoption facility—you'd just end up with a bunch of parentless children that will probably grow up to commit crime due to the circumstances that they're in.
Third, restricting abortion doesn't mean it's not going to happen. In a large number of countries where abortion is restricted, many unwilling mothers don't go "welp, I can't abort the child, I guess I have to pay the consequences of my actions and raise another human being now", they abort illegally (and often dangerously), often at a much later stage of pregnancy compared to abortions in a country where it's legalized. So restricting it often makes it worse.
Also, I find the argument of a fetus being "life" and having the "potential" to be a human being quite out of touch with reality. It may be technically true, but it's only semantics and does not affect anything in practice. Who says that just because it has the "potential" to be a human being that abortion is somehow the equivalent of killing an actual, sentient human being? Unless you believe souls/life essences exist (which I don't), that doesn't make sense. It can develop into a human being, but it doesn't change the fact that at the instant in time in which it is removed, it is non-sentient and cannot feel pain, suffer, or otherwise be fearful of death. Not to mention that fetuses inhabit their mother's body and is completely dependent on it, and so the right to possess bodily autonomy as a fully grown adult should override the rights of some non-sentient cells with the "potential" to be a human being. After all, that's why you can't just remove someone's kidney to save another person's life without their permission, even though removing one kidney would not severely damage the health of the person involved. And this is about saving someone that is sentient and very clearly a human being.
- Registrado
- 23 de Jul, 2016
I don't like it but I still think it should stay legal and those who do decide to go through with it should be protected. There is nothing more annoying to me than those fundamentalists who protest outside of the clinics. These broads have it bad enough, they don't need someone who they don't even know telling them that they are making a big mistake.
I think partial birth abortion is savage and should be illegal though. If you can't make up your mind by then, why not just go the adoption route? Don't they give the mother a shot that forces premature birth, deliver the baby, then kill it? That's fucking murder any way you look at it. We're not talking about a "mass of cellular tissue" anymore, that's a living human that exists outside the mother.
At the end of it though I'm not a chick and I don't try and tell them what they can do with that kind of stuff. More contraception is the answer, I think, with that option as a legal last resort.
The problem is that if its illegal, its not going to stop. It's just going to go underground and exist beyond federal oversight. That is a much, much worse situation imo.
Remember that black doctor on the East Coast somewhere that was running his clinic like Dr. Frankenstein? He had jars and bodies of fetuses all over the clinic, and there was a chart that listed all the pain meds that you would get while they were performing the procedure? The more you spent the more dope they would give you to knock you out. He even had one of his employee's fifteen year old daughter working there. That story would give anyone the creeps, no matter what your opinion on the matter was.
That would be a good argument against abortion, the fact that a "legal" clinic was allowed to operate in those conditions for as long as it did.
I think partial birth abortion is savage and should be illegal though. If you can't make up your mind by then, why not just go the adoption route? Don't they give the mother a shot that forces premature birth, deliver the baby, then kill it? That's fucking murder any way you look at it. We're not talking about a "mass of cellular tissue" anymore, that's a living human that exists outside the mother.
At the end of it though I'm not a chick and I don't try and tell them what they can do with that kind of stuff. More contraception is the answer, I think, with that option as a legal last resort.
The problem is that if its illegal, its not going to stop. It's just going to go underground and exist beyond federal oversight. That is a much, much worse situation imo.
Remember that black doctor on the East Coast somewhere that was running his clinic like Dr. Frankenstein? He had jars and bodies of fetuses all over the clinic, and there was a chart that listed all the pain meds that you would get while they were performing the procedure? The more you spent the more dope they would give you to knock you out. He even had one of his employee's fifteen year old daughter working there. That story would give anyone the creeps, no matter what your opinion on the matter was.
That would be a good argument against abortion, the fact that a "legal" clinic was allowed to operate in those conditions for as long as it did.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 1 de Oct, 2014
The cutoff time for abortions is almost always at 3 months. This is an unfeeling, unthinking fetus at 3 months.
https://sneed-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/81/8f/5b/818f5b738dee238988dd04130b7c1dca.jpg
But you were also trying to argue that those "dumb cunts" are trying to abort babies when that simply isn't true. A huge majority of the time an abortion doesn't contain anything that looks even vaguely human. It's just a bunch of tissue.
Look, an abortion at 5-7 weeks! Oh the humanity!
- Registrado
- 28 de Dic, 2014
I actually agree on that but it's completely impossible to say it in leftist circles without being treated like you're a full fundy.
At that stage, the fetus is entirely capable of feeling pain and almost a human. It could actually live outside the womb and is basically a baby at that point.
Why the fuck would Republicans torpedo their own law against this by refusing to acknowledge the rare situation where it would save the mother's life to abort? They would actually rather kill more near-babies than even make that minor concession.