Can We Have A Serious, Mature Discussion on Abortion?

[nonnative]

These dudes really out here arguing anti-choice because there's a chance these kids could become Oprah or Nat Turner??? Religion is a hell of a drug.

So when these kids don't end up being Oprah, are they going to be the ones out there feeding these kids? Taking them to the doctor? Reading to them? Playing with them? Hell naw. They'll be sitting back patting themselves on their backs with their fake morality.

 

[aepps20]

There was a second poster on NT with a near identical SN.

They spelled it Rustyshackelford. The small difference allowed them to make it.

It was frustrating for a while, but they eventually changed the name.

They were my favorite poster.

 

[sneeker]

These dudes really out here arguing anti-choice because there's a chance these kids could become Oprah or Nat Turner??? Religion is a hell of a drug.

So when these kids don't end up being Oprah, are they going to be the ones out there feeding these kids? Taking them to the doctor? Reading to them? Playing with them? Hell naw. They'll be sitting back patting themselves on their backs with their fake morality.

I'll be taking them to the doctor, play with them and I'll be surely adopting them. so don't accuse people of fake morality and get personal if you have a different opinion on the matter. if you are going to take this on a personal level, you have already lost your argument. so do yourself a favor since it's easy to speak words but not action. and no, I don't pat myself in the back for mere statements but I do feel bad for the kids knowing that people like you have that kind of a sick mindset. considering your statement, you are not worth the time nor have the capacity to feel.

 

[Mark Antony]

... Actually nvm, good luck NT.

 

[gry60]

Also, looking at the number of individuals that have come from unforgiving circumstances should make any of us unqualified in predicting the future for any child.

The problem with this statement is this: these outcomes can be predicted fairly well, despite being the result of fairly complex sets of circumstances.

Like, you can't be in a thread bashing single mothers, and talk about "we can't predict the outcome of less than ideal upbringing conditions" in another. That's not consistent. Oprah and Nat Turner are EXCEPTIONS to the rule that children born in poverty are more likely to remain poor throughout their life.

In addition, this point would merit consideration IF this country invested in all the aspects that give children the best start, regardless of their parents' income. We don't do that.

The "pro-life" position has absolutely nothing to do supporting life. It's about all the forms of control that are baked in what we call "Tradition."

 

[nonnative]

I'll be taking them to the doctor, play with them and I'll be surely adopting them. so don't accuse people of fake morality and get personal if you have a different opinion on the matter. if you are going to take this on a personal level, you have already lost your argument. so do yourself a favor since it's easy to speak words but not action. and no, I don't pat myself in the back for mere statements but I do feel bad for the kids knowing that people like you have that kind of a sick mindset. considering your statement, you are not worth the time nor have the capacity to feel.

Come talk to me when the foster system and orphanages are no longer a thing since you're so sure that there are so many people that want to take all these kids in. Until then, your fake empathy for these unwanted kids doesn't mean anything.

By the way, how many kids have you actually adopted? Not that it matters cause until you and your kind actually put up the money, time, and commitment that these kids require after theyre born into unwanted and unprepared homes, none of it matters. And you admitted your own damn self that you haven't taken any action cause you'll "surely adopt them". Now tell that to the other 500,000 kids in foster care with no parents that it's ok cause you'll "surely adopt them". I'm sure that'll help them sleep at night And you're the one taking about words with no action. Jesus.

The only people that get a say in this are the people that are going to bring the kids into the world and raise them. No one else. The fact that you think you get to make the decision for millions of people out there is vile.

 

[sneeker]

The "pro-life" position has absolutely nothing to do supporting life. It's about all the forms of control that are baked in what we call "Tradition."

are you referring to the pro-life movement or just the ideology or ideology behind the movement? I don't doubt that the so-called pro-choice movement is authentically about choice either. for the most part, it has some underlying reasoning but mainly it's all about the person given the option of an easy out for what is deemed "illegal" for most certain irresponsible actions of their own doing. of course there are circumstances that is not the case but for the most part it is. however, the dilemma is that the life of another human being is involved in this matter. that is why there were some debate of de-humanizing or trying to change the definition of what is a living person. some even go to the point of categorizing a fetus as non-living or not human just to get what they went.

on the part of pro-life movement, I believe it could do better than to only speak out about it. one of the biggest hurdles for example of adoption is the qualification and the difficulty of getting a child. this is also the reason why childless parents opt to adopt overseas. and even that, is now getting quite difficult as well.

I see the reason why some people feel this as a form of control or adhering to the tradition. on the otherhand, it is advocacy for someone who doesn't have a voice or someone vulnerable.

 

[KOTA's Friend]

So... how long before the Emancipation Proclamation is overturned?

 

[moderndarwin]

I have no idea what’s going on the US anymore. China and Russia have won by delivering the seeds that’ll grow into this insidious destruction from the inside.

We legit can’t even have conversations anymore. This is the problem with wealth - it gives the openings for mental disease and made up problems to a level that’s outstanding when u step back and look at it objectively.

We as a society are tearing ourselves apart because we can’t agree on stuff that makes up less than 1% of most peoples lives (abortion, guns, immigration).

 

[sneeker]

I have no idea what’s going on the US anymore. China and Russia have won by delivering the seeds that’ll grow into this insidious destruction from the inside.

We legit can’t even have conversations anymore. This is the problem with wealth - it gives the openings for mental disease and made up problems to a level that’s outstanding when u step back and look at it objectively.

We as a society are tearing ourselves apart because we can’t agree on stuff that makes up less than 1% of most peoples lives (abortion, guns, immigration).

the U.S. is getting ripe for a strong man option. that's the only way to get things in place. abolish the government thru military action. it needs a fresh start and form a new constitution and system of government.

 

[DCAllAfrican]

The problem with this statement is this: these outcomes can be predicted fairly well, despite being the result of fairly complex sets of circumstances.

Like, you can't be in a thread bashing single mothers, and talk about "we can't predict the outcome of less than ideal upbringing conditions" in another. That's not consistent. Oprah and Nat Turner are EXCEPTIONS to the rule that children born in poverty are more likely to remain poor throughout their life.

In addition, this point would merit consideration IF this country invested in all the aspects that give children the best start, regardless of their parents' income. We don't do that.

The "pro-life" position has absolutely nothing to do supporting life. It's about all the forms of control that are baked in what we call "Tradition."

I wasn't even really discussing Pro-Life vs. Pro Choice when I said EYE wouldn't make the statement, "We did that child a favor by aborting them."

Just fundamentally, I think it's a foul thing to say.

I also acknowledged that the stats suggest certain folks on paper don't stand a chance in this world. So yea, I get IT.

And where did I bash single mothers?

 

[gry60]

mainly it's all about the person given the option of an easy out for what is deemed "illegal" for most certain irresponsible actions of their own doing. of course there are circumstances that is not the case but for the most part it is. however, the dilemma is that the life of another human being

The first thing I want to point out is that characterizing the fetus as a human being is a bit disingenuous. The question of "When does life begin" is still largely driven by belief, and science hasn't provided a clear cut answer yet.

And it is no secret that most abortions are due to unwanted pregnancies. Considering that there aren't contraceptives that are 100% effective, it's quite rich to talk about lack of responsibility; furthermore, pregnancy is rough on women, and they should have the freedom to not want to go through that.

the dilemma is that the life of another human being is involved in this matter. that is why there were some debate of de-humanizing or trying to change the definition of what is a living person. some even go to the point of categorizing a fetus as non-living or not human just to get what they went.

This take ignores the mechanics of pregnancy and the fact that the fetus behaves pretty much like a parasite until much later in the pregnancy: upon conception, it has to be attached to the uterus or it dies. Is it death? Is it murder? Is it manslaughter?

If it gets attached to the fallopian tubes, it pretty much kills the mother if it isn't aborted. Who's responsible for the mother's death, since she doesn't get to decide where the fetus gets attached? Are we putting the fetus on trial? We can't.

This is a caterpillar. We know what its final form will be (a butterfly), but it is not a butterfly right now. It has no wings, and it can't fly. Are we still supposed to call it a butterfly?

From a legal standpoint, pro-life people want it both ways: they want to claim that fetuses are full blown humans, but they wont allow them to be claimed on our taxes; they won't allow a pregnant woman to ride in the carpool lane. They have no citizenship, no name, no duties.

None of this makes sense unless it is understood as one group of people has declared that their understanding of pregnancy and all the issues surrounding it is the only one that matters, and that everyone else will live according to that particular view.

 

[chao7]

And it is no secret that most abortions are due to unwanted pregnancies. Considering that there aren't contraceptives that are 100% effective, it's quite rich to talk about lack of responsibility; furthermore, pregnancy is rough on women, and they should have the freedom to not want to go through that.

I have...sort of a side question that I'm kind of hesitant to even ask. Do you think men who end up being involved in an unwanted pregnancy should have the option to disassociate from it entirely and not be forced to pay for the child's wellbeing until they turn 18? Let's say in an instance where two young people have sex before discussing this type of thing.

I'm well aware people will say to not have sex with someone before those talks, but we are also talking about the real world. There's no medical issue in this example. But this woman is pregnant, and solely for religious/personal reasons she is going to have the baby despite her male partner's wishes otherwise. Should they be forced to pay for a decision they no longer have any say in?

Because I'm not arguing dudes should be able to tell them what to do with their bodies. Given that, they then...still need to pay untold amounts of money to raise a child they had basically no final say in being born?

 

[WASHED KING]

I have...sort of a side question that I'm kind of hesitant to even ask. Do you think men who end up being involved in an unwanted pregnancy should have the option to disassociate from it entirely and not be forced to pay for the child's wellbeing until they turn 18? Let's say in an instance where two young people have sex before discussing this type of thing.

I'm well aware people will say to not have sex with someone before those talks, but we are also talking about the real world. There's no medical issue in this example. But this woman is pregnant, and solely for religious/personal reasons she is going to have the baby despite her male partner's wishes otherwise. Should they be forced to pay for a decision they no longer have any say in?

Because I'm not arguing dudes should be able to tell them what to do with their bodies. Given that, they then...still need to pay untold amounts of money to raise a child they had basically no final say in being born?

I believe men involved in an unwanted pregnancy should still be held completely responsible for that child financially.

Even more now than before.

 

[TURBO UNO]

I’ve heard big name companies have offered to pay for travel expenses to employees if they require an abortion out of state.

 

[frankmatthews]

Funny how " do the child a favor" also coincides with the most convenient route for the parent(s). No one wants to "do the child a favor" by allowing it to live. Its kinda not a favor if you're benefiting from the action.

 

[chao7]

I believe men involved in an unwanted pregnancy should still be held completely responsible for that child financially.

Even more now than before.

Making this kind of mistake is costly, agreed. It's why I personally get kind of weirded out when do many people casually hook up like there's no consequences.

We agree that the person who biologically is going to have to carry a child (a woman) has 100% say on whether they have the child or not and deserve that bodily autonomy as a human right.

My issue, if you want to call it that, is that this woman is also a grown up with their own agency to make a decision about whether to engage in potentially risky casual, consensual sex. And if we're granting them 100% final say on whether a child is born (before this ridiculous Supreme Court action, anyway) I believe men should have the right to not be forced into supporting this decision for 18 or more years.

Feels like a pretty big power imbalance otherwise.

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

Abortions are still gonna happen, ppl who are middle class and below just won’t be able to have safe abortions.

But all them rich, faux religious white republicans, oh they daughters still getting them if they get knocked up at 17. This whole thing is bull****.

 

[WASHED KING]

Making this kind of mistake is costly, agreed. It's why I personally get kind of weirded out when do many people casually hook up like there's no consequences.

We agree that the person who biologically is going to have to carry a child (a woman) has 100% say on whether they have the child or not and deserve that bodily autonomy as a human right.

My issue, if you want to call it that, is that this woman is also a grown up with their own agency to make a decision about whether to engage in potentially risky casual, consensual sex. And if we're granting them 100% final say on whether a child is born (before this ridiculous Supreme Court action, anyway) I believe men should have the right to not be forced into supporting this decision for 18 or more years.

Feels like a pretty big power imbalance otherwise.

I understand what you're saying but it's a two way street. As a man you shouldn't have unprotected sex with a woman you wouldn't be ok with getting pregnant. Us here all know how sex works it takes two. That's just what I personally believe. I've had my scares but at the end of the day whatever happened I was ready to take care of what I had to do because I made that decision.

Yes the woman did have a few choices she could've made to prevent the pregnancy but so did the man which included not sleeping with her or wearing a condom.

Funny how " do the child a favor" also coincides with the most convenient route for the parent(s). No one wants to "do the child a favor" by allowing it to live. Its kinda not a favor if you're benefiting from the action.

This post makes zero sense.

 

[thenewjs23]

the U.S. is getting ripe for a strong man option. that's the only way to get things in place. abolish the government thru military action. it needs a fresh start and form a new constitution and system of government.

I'm not a fan of this line of thinking. Burn it all down because I'm not getting my way. We start and it would never stop. Our country would become even more divided.

They tried to burn it down on Jan 6 2021, because they didn't like the outcome.

Also, Roe v Wade was decided in the 70's and there were multiple chances to codify it since then. We have an opportunity to codify it right now, but it won't happen.

 

[freeze]

usa so trash. and overrated

 

[sneeker]

I'm not a fan of this line of thinking. Burn it all down because I'm not getting my way. We start and it would never stop. Our country would become even more divided.

They tried to burn it down on Jan 6 2021, because they didn't like the outcome.

Also, Roe v Wade was decided in the 70's and there were multiple chances to codify it since then. We have an opportunity to codify it right now, but it won't happen.

like it or not, the U.S. could really be heading now in that direction. Trump winning in 2016 and the incident on Jan 6, 2021 just shows how corrupted the system is. that formerly elected criminal that sat on the whitehouse pretty much poisoned the well of what is left of the republican party. it's is not about getting one party wants but bringing in righteousness, patriotism and justice first. I don't believe the U.S. can accomplish that with crook politicians or sheep voters. isn't it mortifying to see that the perpetrators of the Jan 6 insurrection are still roaming free? if this happened in other countries, those criminals would have been hanged already for treason.

 

[3900stabler]

Pro choice is rooted in sexism. If a man can't tell a woman what to do with her body (even tho she needed his participation to get pregnant) why is acceptable for that same woman (when she wants to have the child and he doesn't) to force him to pay child support? My body my choice should go both ways.

 

[shoefreakbaby]

Well what will the repub offer now, this was the only reason why some people voted for them.

 

[sneeker]

Pro choice is rooted in sexism. If a man can't tell a woman what to do with her body (even tho she needed his participation to get pregnant) why is acceptable for that same woman (when she wants to have the child and he doesn't) to force him to pay child support? My body my choice should go both ways.

good point.