Abortion - An age old issue

  • 🇵🇦 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
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.



That is the problem with "leftist circles". In fact, that is the problem with any circles on either side. They are either all-in or completely against, when reality and experience illustrates how things are hardly ever that simple. In my experience, the most intelligent, rational, and well-adjusted individuals typically fall somewhere in the middle.
 
Very late term abortions should only be done if the baby is going to die soon after being born, or if the woman has a very high chance of dying while giving birth. Even I, one of the more pro-choice people on here, admit this.

I don't see many people advocating for this to be common at least, most of them are crazy anti-baby people.
 
Very late term abortions should only be done if the baby is going to die soon after being born, or if the woman has a very high chance of dying while giving birth. Even I, one of the more pro-choice people on here, admit this.

I don't see many people advocating for this to be common at least, most of them are crazy anti-baby people.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3504
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr3134-3504r_20150916.pdf

Obama promised he'd veto a bill protecting babies who were accidentally born alive and well during late term abortions, essentially approving of post-natal abortions. Obama is a crazy anti-baby person.
 
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.

tumblr_lu52kjGebb1qbcq69.jpg


Look, an abortion at 5-7 weeks! Oh the humanity!
I really don't give a shit about what it looks like as it's still a developing life.
 

I don't know I have too admid that embryo picture has kind of a serene beauty. But they all do - so nothing special here. A person is more than his body and mind; its connections and experiences make up a huge part of it's identity. It's a tragic loss, when a baby dies when their parents were looking forward to it and were emotionally invested. But the death of a bunch of cells that no one wanted? Who is gonna miss them?

Showing this kind of picture is kind of an emotional manipulation (like the picture with just some tissue was) and I think that's the big problem here; if both sides would stop to be so emotionally than they could use their energy for the better. Instead of pestering each other about abortion, both together could try to change the conditions that lead to "unessescary" abortions. So better contraception availability (particulary reversible longterm one for males!) and bettering the conditions for parents, so that keeping the child is an actual viable or even - gasp - attractive option that does not lead into financial ruin.
Health and rape-related abortions should of course always stay possible - although the latter type could be eliminated, too, but that's a whole nother can of worms.
 
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.
Not trying to debunk either side's argument, but is it really ethical to abort a fetus just because some teenage kid made a dumb decision? I understand aborting a fetus due to rape, but if some teenagers decide to be retards and have sex without protection even after all of the warnings they've been given, why should the growing life form have to suffer? Whether you think it's a human or not, it's still a living thing...
 
Not trying to debunk either side's argument, but is it really ethical to abort a fetus just because some teenage kid made a dumb decision? I understand aborting a fetus due to rape, but if some teenagers decide to be exceptional individuals and have sex without protection even after all of the warnings they've been given, why should the growing life form have to suffer? Whether you think it's a human or not, it's still a living thing...

It wouldn't happen if we had better sex education in the US. Like, yes their dumb but at the same time adults in charge should teach teenagers about safe sex.

Teenagers are often horrible parents, obviously there's exceptions but when I went to high school teenage girls who had babies left their kids in their parents hands. They wanted nothing to do with their kids, it's really sad.

It's the teenagers choice though, I'll say this. They are old enough to make the decision to have a kid or not.
 
It wouldn't happen if we had better sex education in the US. Like, yes their dumb but at the same time adults in charge should teach teenagers about safe sex.

Teenagers are often horrible parents, obviously there's exceptions but when I went to high school teenage girls who had babies left their kids in their parents hands. They wanted nothing to do with their kids, it's really sad.

It's the teenagers choice though, I'll say this. They are old enough to make the decision to have a kid or not.
But from what I know the United States does have good sex education, does it not? I don't personally live there, but where I live I was taught about all the different types of contraceptives and how to properly use them.

And tbh, I think it's better if somebody has a rough life than no life at all. I've met people who've went through adoption, and even though a lot of them wish they weren't adopted, I have yet to hear one of them tell me that they wish they weren't born. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but it seems so wrong to rob someone of a life.
 
Not trying to debunk either side's argument, but is it really ethical to abort a fetus just because some teenage kid made a dumb decision? I understand aborting a fetus due to rape, but if some teenagers decide to be exceptional individuals and have sex without protection even after all of the warnings they've been given, why should the growing life form have to suffer? Whether you think it's a human or not, it's still a living thing...
Numerically, almost no living things are capable of suffering. That is, the number of bacteria, fungi, plants, and other living things that are incapable of suffering vastly outnumber the number of living things that are actually capable of suffering.
 
But from what I know the United States does have good sex education, does it not? I don't personally live there, but where I live I was taught about all the different types of contraceptives and how to properly use them.

And tbh, I think it's better if somebody has a rough life than no life at all. I've met people who've went through adoption, and even though a lot of them wish they weren't adopted, I have yet to hear one of them tell me that they wish they weren't born. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but it seems so wrong to rob someone of a life.

Not all states do, Texas has some of the worst from what I hear. It's mainly in the south rather than the north, big surprise there. But again, their parents should teach them about safe sex too. Schools shouldn't have all the responsibility, a lot of them down there get little to no funding.

The foster care system is such a mess in the US, its overrun with unwanted children. It's impossible to adopt unless your rich or upper middle class. I get not giving kids to shady people but middle and lower class families should be able to adopt kids without all the bullshit that goes along with it.
 
It wouldn't happen if we had better sex education in the US. Like, yes their dumb but at the same time adults in charge should teach teenagers about safe sex.

Teenagers are often horrible parents, obviously there's exceptions but when I went to high school teenage girls who had babies left their kids in their parents hands. They wanted nothing to do with their kids, it's really sad.

It's the teenagers choice though, I'll say this. They are old enough to make the decision to have a kid or not.


Regardless of how I feel about the Pro-life vs Choice issue, the sex education in the United States isn't as bad as you're making it out. I'm probably older than you and I went to Catholic schools from 3rd grade-12th grade, so my access to good sexual education was probably more limited than yours. I'm not calling you out or saying you're an asshole, I'm just bringing up this point because I hear that a lot about lack of sex ed in the USA and I don't think its that bad. Room for improvement, sure, but its lacking is a bad excuse for an unwanted teenage pregnancy imo.

Though the education they gave us was largely clinical, it spent a lot of time dealing with the social issues as well. Being a Roman Catholic institution, naturally they pointed out that the only 100% successful way to avoid pregnancy was abstinence. They brought up condoms, birth control pills, nuva rings, tiny rods surgically implanted into a woman's arm, morning after pills, basically all of the various methods of birth control, and the effectiveness of them. They also told us that no matter how effective they are people still get pregnant when using birth control.

We started sex ed in 5th grade, so around 10-11 years old, which I personally think is just about the right age. Prepubescent but old enough and smart enough at that age to be able to understand this stuff. We would do it every year throughout middle school at a certain point in the year, in science class. When I got to high school, we did it again but spread out over more classes. In Biology, naturally, they taught about the physical and clinical aspects of sexuality. In Health, we had a chubby yet ripped coach tell us about STD's and joke about who in the class probably had them (I'm serious, the coaches did this, they were fucking nuts lol). Finally, in Religion class, we talked about the social and moral implications of the subject.

It turned out that we had a lot of sex education, now that this has me thinking about it, which is all fine and good. I don't think we need to teach 4 year old's about sex as some proponents think, and I don't think having much more sexual education is really going to stop unwanted youth pregnancies. All the education in the world isn't going to change a hormonal teenager's mind when it comes right down to it. That being said, I still think there's room for improvement, but I have to stand up for the U.S.A.'s standard of Sex Ed. If I got a pretty good education at a Roman Catholic school, I know you guys got an even more comprehensive education at the public schools.

Plus, just about everybody has internet access in some capacity now. Everything you need to know about birth control and sexual health you can find there if a young person is thinking about having sex but doesn't have a lot of information on the subject. I do believe that the structure and organization that a teacher in a classroom provides is better than just going at it all haphazardly on your own using Google though.


. It's impossible to adopt unless your rich or upper middle class. I get not giving kids to shady people but middle and lower class families should be able to adopt kids without all the bullshit that goes along with it.



This is just blatantly untrue. I worked with a guy who had adopted 2 kids and he was definitely lower class, maybe dipped into very low middle class on his best years. Another family that I lived next door to a few years back were again, lower middle class, and they adopted a little boy and had two kids of their own. It isn't easy to just adopt a child, nor should it be. This is a person's life that you are going to control and have complete responsibility for until they are 18 years of age and possibly beyond that. They make it an involved process for this very reason, but it isn't limited to the rich, it is limited to the parents who actually have a deep desire to have a child.
 
Última edición:
Not trying to debunk either side's argument, but is it really ethical to abort a fetus just because some teenage kid made a dumb decision? I understand aborting a fetus due to rape, but if some teenagers decide to be exceptional individuals and have sex without protection even after all of the warnings they've been given, why should the growing life form have to suffer? Whether you think it's a human or not, it's still a living thing...
i see your point, but oftentimes a teenage kid having a child would be unable to provide a fulfilling life for it. is it ethical to bring an often unwanted child into the world? adoption is an option but it's not the catch-all solution that always works.
if the woman doesn't want a child, then there's no reason she should be forced to have one. it's a different situation if the woman DOES want the baby, but that's a huge responsibility, especially if the woman still has to go through school, has college plans, or is in a poor financial situation.
besides, contraception does fail at times. and it was mentioned earlier, but the sex education in america often teaches about abstinence rather than contraception. i wouldn't be surprised if a pregnant teen got pregnant because the father of the child didn't put the condom on correctly.
a teenage KID making a dumb decision isn't a rare thing. teens are stupid about sex and don't want to face the potential consequences. so why force them to? if you care about the baby, that's fine....but would the parents care about it? that's what it all comes down to. it's a punishment that would also likely be a punishment for the child. it's forcing a child into a potentially turbulent and dangerous life.
now there are exceptions, there are teen pregnancies that resulted in a healthy baby growing up in a good environment, but it's not a super common thing. the mother should, in every situation, have the ultimate say. abortion is ethical. forcing an unwanted child on a mother just because she should "deal with the consequences" is selfish. it's projecting your beliefs onto someone else's life, someone you know nothing about, someone who is likely an unfit parent.
But from what I know the United States does have good sex education, does it not? I don't personally live there, but where I live I was taught about all the different types of contraceptives and how to properly use them.

And tbh, I think it's better if somebody has a rough life than no life at all. I've met people who've went through adoption, and even though a lot of them wish they weren't adopted, I have yet to hear one of them tell me that they wish they weren't born. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but it seems so wrong to rob someone of a life.
but is it ethical to force someone to bear the burden of an unwanted child?
 
The most effective solution would be to change things, so that parents would not ruin their life forever with not aborting. Why not establishing special programms to help teenage mothers, like special living facilities or easy and free of charge access to daycare?

But no, condeming people for imaginary murder is a much better and effective solution. Because why helping the people who do what you want (not abort) when you simply can punish the ones who don't? Like everybody knows - punishment is the best incentive there is in the world, that's why teachers are still allowed to hit their students... oh wait, silly me, most people actually found out that this is a horrendous idea.
 
I've self induced an abortion; the pain I put myself through wasn't fucking worth it. If you need one and live in Canada, just go to the clinic to get it done properly- the staff there aren't allowed to reveal the fact that you were there at all.

Anyways, I think it should be legal.
 
has anyone here seen badselfeater.com yet? I was on twitch when I saw it. If you haven't seen it, you might be wondering what this id doing on here. But if you've seen it, then you know exactly why this post is here. Here's the video.
The video makes me want to get an abortion right in front of this guy and I'm a man.
 
has anyone here seen badselfeater.com yet? I was on twitch when I saw it. If you haven't seen it, you might be wondering what this id doing on here. But if you've seen it, then you know exactly why this post is here. Here's the video.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=FpiPqjRSQtIThe video makes me want to get an abortion right in front of this guy and I'm a man.
Good god he's cringed as fuck
 
Atrás
Top Abajo