Pro-life or Pro-CHoice

Are you pro-life or pro-choice. And why have you taken this stance. Personally I am pro-life. Many people argue that what about people who got raped. Well it's not the little child's fault the mother was raped. But it still deserves a chance to experience life. If you don't want the child there are plenty of people out there who can't have children who would gladly take the child.

I'm with you wilkerson. I'm pro-life. It's true, It's not the child's fault that the mother got raped. Usually that isn't the case though. Usually the guy and the girl is just to damn stupid to wear a condom. If you take the responsibility of having sex and risking having a child, then you should also take the responsibility of having the child. And your other statement was legit ofcourse. There are so many couple that can't have children that would gladly take a child.

A woman has every right to do whatever they want. It isn't a baby yet, no brain, eyes, mouth, teeth, nothing. They have every right to do so under the Human Rights Act, and I think woman should use their power to whatever extent they so choose.

Brandon wrote:

A woman has every right to do whatever they want. It isn't a baby yet, no brain, eyes, mouth, teeth, nothing. They have every right to do so under the Human Rights Act, and I think woman should use their power to whatever extent they so choose.

Human Rights Act, for the Yanks, is a pretty Canadian piece of legislation that grants equal rights to those of differing religions, races and ability and helps protect them from discrimination.

There is more to this post than a recap of Canadian Parliamentary legislature and I'll state my opinion here: The State should has no business in what human beings do with their own bodies, so long as it does not cause suffering to the majority. While this seems vague, and I'll admit it is partially, it makes sense when I elaborate on what I consider to cause suffering to the majority. The things that cause suffering to the majority includes:

Being overweight -- puts unnecessary stress on our health care system; over 95% of all people who are obese are so because they either eat too much, eat unhealthy, lack exercise or all of the above.

Smoking -- disgusting and causes pollution, as well as the single biggest cause for hospital visits.

Excessive drinking/drug abuse -- leads to a reckless style of life in a high number of cases, as well as the cost of overdoses on the tax payer.

Of course, things such as abortion and mild drinking/drug use really do not affect the majority. I'd be interested in seeing a science based argument on how abortions cause suffering, because I've seen enough "moral" based arguments that just don't hold up, especially when they come from the mouths of those who believe in capitol punishment as well as higher military funding and more wars. The argument I enjoy the most to hear though is when someone says "abortions cause suffering to the majority because it shows society we allow sins and we murder unborn children, which will obviously lead to a more barbaric, anarchic world, where all will suffer!" There's usually more spelling mistakes and a lot more exclamation marks though; I don't find conservatives to be all that intelligent.

I'm pro-situation. If the mother was raped of if her and the father are both so economically down that the child would become a burden of the state, if not for those two situations then I go by "You do the crime, you do the time."

both very good points. To be honest, I'm borderline pro-life pro-situation myself.

Wilkerson wrote:

Personally I am pro-life.

I quite agree with MichaelUsed. I am pro-life.
A woman should not get an abortion regardless of the circumstances.
There are other options.
Hmm shall we say adoption.
There are people who can't have children who would be happy to take the child in.

InsomniaticKandi wrote:

I quite agree with MichaelUsed. I am pro-life.
A woman should not get an abortion regardless of the circumstances.
There are other options.
Hmm shall we say adoption.
There are people who can't have children who would be happy to take the child in.

America has Central Park for a reason. Bitch can go get raped 20 times a day if she pleases. Odds are she'll get a baby out of it.

Brandon wrote:

America has Central Park for a reason. Bitch can go get raped 20 times a day if she pleases. Odds are she'll get a baby out of it.

Lmao I'm pretty sure a woman would not be pleased by getting raped.

What is the point that you are trying to get across?
I mean seriously.
ABORTION is the most ignorant and cold hearted thing a person could do.
And seriously...
Kinda with MichaelUsed here. Why would she be pleased to be raped.
Because if she is pleased, it sure isn't rape.

haha calm down kandi
this is a debate forum after all
everyone has the right to there own opinion =]

and the only way i could see rape fun is if it was like 4-play or something bahaha XD

No. I am not like mad.
I was just stating mine lol.
We do have freedom of speech correct?
lmao

Haha yes every american is entitled to freedom of speech.

I believe what brandon is trying to say[in his rough edged way] is that if they want a kid, they can go get raped at central park. But what he is not understanding about the other side of the point is that the women we are talking about who want kids, Cannot HAVE kids. They were either born with the inability or by some twist of fate lost the ability. For example: My uncle, as a young child, was kicked brutally between the legs. As a result he lost the ability to produce sperm.

Yeah like wilkson said some people are unable to have an offspring.
So they adopt.
Which is a great thing I think.

If a woman does not have the ability to have kids, why do the Christians say that she can adopt the babies that are not aborted? Should the Christians not be saying that it is God's will for her to not have a kid and therefore should not be able to get one at all? The hypocrisy, of the hypocrisy.

In any case, I can't understand how abortion is the "worst thing ever", considering the fetus is still an extension of the woman's body. To argue that it has rights because it is a living being only leads to the same logic being applied to all living beings. What gives a fetus, which cannot do anything but grow and swallow up nutrients, more rights than say a family pet that has been alive for decades? What gives a fetus more rights than sperm? Sperm are living beings and they lead to children, so shouldn't they be ever more important? That's what that strain of misguided logic leads to. The mother and, I believe in a lot of ways, father should be the only people to determine the fate of that soon-to-be child.

As for that "pro-situation" type thing, I find it far too flawed. Someone said something about "if you do the crime, do the time", if I'm not mistaken. Has anyone ever told you that rehabilitation serves as a much cheaper, more efficient form of personality realignment than incarceration? Look up the statistics and you'll see that those who are educated, do community service, go through drug or alcohol rehab and work while serving their time are much more likely to turn around than those thrown into solitary confinement. To assume that women take the decision of having an abortion lightly is pure ignorance. A very small percentage of women don't think twice about aborting their child and while you may feel the need to treat all women like those in the very tiny minority, I don't.

Quite true Quite true indeed. But again, like I said. I STILL think that they should not have the abortion unless it's absolutely necessary. It's ridiculous in my opinion. Most of the people who get abortions are either too young or too lazy to take care of a child.
Today I heard that a 15 year old girl who was impregnated by a 16 year old boy was told by her mother that she needed to have surgery on her kidneys[she had bad kidney problems that was true]. When she came out of surgery and woke up her mother told her the baby was gone. The mother had lied to her and tricked her into getting an abortion. Tell me that isn't wrong sir, 15 years old or not.

mhm that is definately wrong my good sir

Well.
You say that the christians should say that god says it is not meant to be if the woman cannot have children?
Well.
What if maybe it was meant for them to adopt a kid?

InsomniaticKandi wrote:

Well.
You say that the christians should say that god says it is not meant to be if the woman cannot have children?
Well.
What if maybe it was meant for them to adopt a kid?

Pardon my blasphemy, but how the hell can you tell that? There's no way of knowing whether they were meant to allow their husband to have a kid with a surrogate or if they weren't meant to have kids or if they were meant to become a Nun or if they were meant to adopt. There's absolutely no way of ever knowing which is the right answer. Fact: The woman can't have kids on her own. Commonsense says that she is not meant to "have" kids, regardless of what context "have" is in.

Common Sense says that once a woman is 18 years of age she can do whatever she wants as well.(except drinking legally)
Oh wait that's not common sense.. That is law.
So if someone wants to go adopt a kid. Let them.
Their business.
Simple as that.

InsomniaticKandi wrote:

Common Sense says that once a woman is 18 years of age she can do whatever she wants as well.(except drinking legally)
Oh wait that's not common sense.. That is law.
So if someone wants to go adopt a kid. Let them.
Their business.
Simple as that.

Commonsense would say that whenever a woman is mature enough, she can do whatever she wants. There should be no law prohibiting you from drinking until you're 19 or 20 or 21. I know people who at the age of 25 shouldn't be allowed to drink because they're still not "mature" enough to handle it, and I know kids that are 16 that should be allowed. Also, don't use a strawman argument against me because they never work; case and point, your logic in that post: Once women hit 18 they can do whatever they want; it's their business, let them. Thank you for agreeing with me. Once a woman turns 18, what she does is her business, including abortion. It's their business. Let them.

Frank, I would kiss your feet if that wouldn't be weird. That is what I've been saying about government taking too much action in the every day persons life. Common sense should be a major factor in law making, not this bullshit they pull these days. It's also a bit ridiculous that you can't vote on anything until you're 18. What is that shit. I was digging into all that well before I was 16. Why the hell can my parents[who know shit about politics or anything at all really] be allowed to vote while people who DO know things cannot simply because they are "underage."

The problem that you get into with "kids" voting is that they end up voting what their parents would vote. As Richard Dawkins puts brilliantly in The God Delusion, "There are no such things as a 'Christian Child', only a child that was told to be Christian by his or her parents." Exactly. I would argue that at the age of 16, most kids are just starting to think differently than their parents and are starting to form their own opinions, so allowing "kids" to vote would just add more ignorance to the already ignorant general voting population.

I had an argument with a kid in one of my classes earlier this year who was in that "ignorant general voting population." He scoffed when I threw out who I was supporting and I immediately shot back with, "Why is that funny?" He responded with the atypical, ignorant, "Because liberals suck." I simply asked him what made his views superior to mine and why liberals are worse than conservatives. He struggled for a few minutes and before he could get even half an answer out, I shrugged it off and said "Yup, just vote the sign that Mommy and Daddy put on the front lawn," and sat down. He turned bright red and didn't say anything for the rest of the hour left in class. I can't imagine him being the only one in that class that just voted what their family does, so 18 is perfect. Having a "commonsense" (yes it's one word) approach for half the population of America would be almost impossible. There are people who are over 40 who are more ignorant than you or I, and we're less than half their age. It's all relevant to how much you want to know.