• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Life or Choice? The Abortion Discussion

Life or choice?


  • Total voters
    36

misskitten

Hello Sweetie!
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Location
Norway
what I was saying was, people shouldn't be having sex if they don't understand and are not prepared for the consequences. so increasing the availability and access to these products will only encourage people to have sex casually and from that, comes the increased possibility of an accidental pregnancy. thats why we shouldn't go staring to just producing more easily accessible contraceptives and such because it encourage people to think before engaging in sexual activity. you see what im saying?
If this was remotely true, sexual transmittable diseases and teen pregnancies wouldn't be rampant in areas where contraceptives were hard to obtain and abstinence was preached. The idea of denying access to contraceptives might dissuade a couple of people from engaging in sex, but it's much more likely to cause a lot more people to experience the negative consequences of sex. At sixteen, my entire class were taught how to roll a condom properly on styrofoam phalluses, there were bowls of condoms at the youth clinic we were sent to that we could grab if we wanted, and we were told that if we needed to we could always come back. And it did not result in everyone jumping into bed with each other. Those who were already going to have sex had sex safely and the rest continued not having sex.
 

Spiritual Mask Salesman

~ Deus' Pug Smuggler ~
ZD Legend
Site Staff
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Location
The astral plane
If this was remotely true, sexual transmittable diseases and teen pregnancies wouldn't be rampant in areas where contraceptives were hard to obtain and abstinence was preached. The idea of denying access to contraceptives might dissuade a couple of people from engaging in sex, but it's much more likely to cause a lot more people to experience the negative consequences of sex. At sixteen, my entire class were taught how to roll a condom properly on styrofoam phalluses, there were bowls of condoms at the youth clinic we were sent to that we could grab if we wanted, and we were told that if we needed to we could always come back. And it did not result in everyone jumping into bed with each other. Those who were already going to have sex had sex safely and the rest continued not having sex.
And the reality is, at that age, people probably aren't having sex often anyway. But they boast about having sex to appear cool.
 

misskitten

Hello Sweetie!
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Location
Norway
And the reality is, at that age, people probably aren't having sex often anyway. But they boast about having sex to appear cool.
Exactly, and not only that. If kids are educated properly on all aspects of sex, not only about contraception and risks, but also the matter of consent, understanding your own boundaries and enforcing them, I actually think fewer teens would have sex that young. If everything is hush-hush and taboo, and nobody talks about it, then all a kid has to go on is their assumption of how things are, and they might make choices they later regret because it seems like they are the only one who isn't going at it.
 

Beauts

Rock and roll will never die
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Location
London, United Kingdom
It will surprise nobody here, to know I am 100% pro choice. I think the reasons that women should be in charge of their own bodies, and why children growing up unwanted or ending up in the foster care system, *hopefully* but not definitely being adopted by a loving family, is a bad idea and a risk to take... I think those are self-explanatory. I do think that abortion is being allowed too late into pregnancy now (It's 24 weeks here in the UK, I think that's too late and it should be reduced to 12 or 16 unless under extenuating circumstances (for example if the mother's life would be at risk). I don't think abortion is an alternative to contraception. I also don't think that if a woman decides that she doesn't want the baby she's become pregnant with, for example just by accident (split condom for example), she's in a bad relationship where bringing a child into it would put herself or the child at risk, she cannot afford to support a child or she was raped, that aborting the foetus is somehow 'murder'. We should value existing life above possible life.
 

Misty

Ronin
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Location
The Sea
I think talk of health insurance or sex education (while stimulating) is a distraction from the core topic. And I'm not saying that because I'm anti-affordable care or anti-sex education. I just think they're muddying the waters a bit more than is necessary. I think the same is true of bringing up rape or risk to the mother's health as those are statistically rare and no one on the pro-life side yet has come out against abortion in those hard gray areas. (I would argue against rape, but even I'm willing to settle for cutting the abortions by 90 odd percent).

The facts of the matter seem to be that no matter how well you educate the population and give them affordable care and allow abortions in the cases of health risks or rape, at some point you're going to have an awful lot of women who want an abortion because they don't want to be pregnant for 9 months and/or they don't want a baby.

I think if we're talking about any other scenario, it's not where the conversation is or should be.

And this is where I go back into that conversation.

I, and this is just me, say sex is unnecessary. And when I say necessary I mean it in the most literal sense - we need it or we will die or be maimed.

The argument from how natural it is or how we're mammals is simply fallacious. We won't die or be maimed. Many many people go without it. We have higher willpower. We choose not to have sex with people way more often than we choose to have sex with them if you think about it. If I just run through the list today of people I've chosen not to have sex with (and i've been awake for three hours) it includes: my mother, my little brother, everyone in this thread, and a few coworkers. I walk around basically all day seeing people and going "nope". And it wasn't cuz all of those people weren't attractive or wouldn't have wanted to have sex with me. It's because I'm an active agent and able to make decisions based on brain and not the princess parts going "well that guy looks like a juicy hot wing and I just wanna pour his frank's red hot all over (redacted)."

I'm saying this because once you see it as not necessary, then it becomes something with consequences just like anything else. And yes, I think we should mitigate consequences where we can (contraception). It isn't like food where you can't opt out without opting out of life. Or sleep. Or like, breathing. And we hold 2/3 of those to much higher standards where people are told to accept the consequences of their actions all the time. Babies are a consequence of sex some of the time. And people need to be prepared to deal with those consequences or they shouldn't be having it. And they should be considering ahead of time the fact that they might be the one in 100 where the contraception doesn't work and have a plan. And abortion shouldn't be that plan because murder isn't a plan it's a cop out.
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
We choose not to have sex with people way more often than we choose to have sex with them if you think about it. If I just run through the list today of people I've chosen not to have sex with (and i've been awake for three hours) it includes: my mother, my little brother, everyone in this thread, and a few coworkers. I walk around basically all day seeing people and going "nope". And it wasn't cuz all of those people weren't attractive or wouldn't have wanted to have sex with me.
Choosing to have sex with someone would mean you'd actually have to be given a choice. Unless you're mom wanted to have sex with you, then you didn't 'chose' not to have sex with her (If she gave you a choice though I ain't judging). I mean if there two pitchers labeled tea and coffee but the coffee pitcher was empty (or that particular flight attendant was being an ass) then you can't say you 'chose' not to drink coffee.



Coincidentally, this falls under something called bodily autonomy which means a person has control of what and whom uses their body. It's why you can't be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you'd save or improve 15 or 20 people. Even if you're dead. It's why someone can't touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in anyway without your continuous consent.

A fetus is using someone's body parts. Therefore it falls under bodily autonomy. It's there by permission and not a right. The fetus needs the pregnant person's continuous consent; If they at some point withdraw that consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I needed someone else's body part(s) to live then they'd have every right to deny me their use.

By saying a fetus has a right to someone else's body parts until it's born, despite the pregnant person's wishes, you're stating two things.

1. A pregnant person has less rights than any born persons

and...
Some people believe their personhood ends with death. That from there they are just a meat sack pile of resources. To me, that's a very strange disrespect for the body. I certainly believe in a soul and an animating force, but was I not also my body? This container that was me as much as my life force.
2. A pregnant person is awarded less rights than a corpse
 

Misty

Ronin
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Location
The Sea
A fetus is using someone's body parts. Therefore it falls under bodily autonomy. It's there by permission and not a right. The fetus needs the pregnant person's continuous consent; If they at some point withdraw that consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I needed someone else's body part(s) to live then they'd have every right to deny me their use.
Unless you're mom wanted to have sex with you, then you didn't 'chose' not to have sex with her (If she gave you a choice though I ain't judging).
I'm wondering if you're just arguing to argue. Yes, obviously my mother isn't offering it. The joke in this case had a point: I am clearly capable of choice and controlling my urges (not that my mother is among them). Otherwise, and no, this doesn't apply to my mother, but it likely applies to people I met the other 13 hours I was awake and in the world, rape is on the table. And no, I'm not saying that's a good thing or a thing I would ever do, but if you think about it and don't just dogmatically argue with me, all of us are on the daily choosing to ignore the majority of the population to have sex with and the urges that tell us to do that. And we do have the option to whether they give the dialogue option or not. People choose to have sex with people that don't want them all the time. We even have a word for it.

I mean if there two pitchers labeled tea and coffee but the coffee pitcher was empty (or that particular flight attendant was being an ass) then you can't say you 'chose' not to drink coffee.
I would never choose to drink coffee, but unless there is no coffee on that plane, I did choose not to drink it. Her being an ass or not. I had a lot of recourse left to me other than accepting the zero coffee world. However, because I am a thinking human in charge of my lusts and actions, I likely wouldn't crow bar her until she gave me what I wanted.


Coincidentally, this falls under something called bodily autonomy which means a person has control of what and whom uses their body. It's why you can't be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you'd save or improve 15 or 20 people. Even if you're dead. It's why someone can't touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in anyway without your continuous consent.
I am aware what bodily autonomy is.


A fetus is using someone's body parts. Therefore it falls under bodily autonomy. It's there by permission and not a right. The fetus needs the pregnant person's continuous consent; If they at some point withdraw that consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I needed someone else's body part(s) to live then they'd have every right to deny me their use.
She gave her consent when she had sex. Now she's just murdering. If you agree to donate your liver to someone and it gets put in them, you don't get to ask for it back when you decide you don't like them very much. That's murdering. And that's what this is. It's not your liver anymore, and this isn't her body entirely anymore. She gave it up. People have rights when renting as well and you can't evict. The people who are outside of your body are not people you chose to enter into an arrangement with or knew you could end up in an arrangement with. Thus it not being murder.

I see the comparison you're making, it just doesn't add up.
 

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Not really sure. I'm not a scientist, so I don't even know what the baby is alive. I wish the right would consider that scientifically it might not be considered life at certain stages and that the left would stop trivializing it and acting like abortion isn't a big frikkin' deal. And at least consider the idea that, if the baby is alive, it isn't just the mother's body anymore. Not to say that legitimizes abortion, of course. Who knows what the baby would choose? Do they want to live in a world where their mother--for whatever reason--doesn't want them?
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Location
Hyrule Castle
Personally I am pro-life, if I were to conceive a child during a time I didn't want to, I would still give birth to that child. Abortion is not good/moral in any way, it's murder against a baby. The reason I voted Pro-Choice is because ultimately, I am. I believe that there are circumstances (most prevalent in rape) where the child is doomed from day one, or the mother is. Let's say hypothetically a young woman is raped, she's pregnant, and if she doesn't want those physical changes to happen to her body or to have to give birth to her rapist's child, she has the right to abort the child. If she doesn't want to abort, that's her decision. I'm very pro-freedom and I'm against banning/making things illegal. If we completely ban abortion, people will find a way, which is so much worse (same logic with banning guns). I don't understand people like Lena Dunham who comes out in support of abortion like it's positive. I've known women who have gotten abortions and it changes their lives negatively and comes with so much mental anguish.

TL;DR, Personally I would never abort, but if someone else wants to, not my business. People will abort even it it becomes illegal.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom