Do you agree with abortion? Discuss

Post Reply New Topic

I wholeheartedly agree.
Pro-lifers would have you think that human rights should begin upon conception. Next they will be advocating for sperm rights.....
The worst ones are the ones who think it should be illegal for a raped woman to have an abortion.
And the ones who are like, "Just put them up for adoption!"
You do know how many kids there are who are orphans or in care, right? There are more of them than there are willing adoptees, and just inflating that number drastically will result in millions of children living in disgusting conditions, being neglected, living in poverty, or left to die (especially in non-western countries e.g. in Africa and Asia primarily).

I think the ones who are against it all together are the most logically consistent. If you believe abortion is the same as murdering a child you wouldn't allow a rape victim to kill a new born baby.

Personally as an Antinatalist I am in favour of abortion as children do not consent to being born and are de facto slaves.

As I don't have a uterus, it's none of my goddamned business. If you don't either, or if it's not your uterus in question, it's none of your goddamned business as well.
I wholeheartedly support a woman's right to unfettered access to abortion services without explanation or apology.

So far, this this thread has been a classic case of MANSPLAINING on what is clearly a women-only issue.

For the most part, I agree with the pro-lifers. The issue is about individual responsibility; if one chooses to CONCEIVE a child, it is one's responsibility to deal with the consequences of that act. Contraception is freely available and has been for the best part of a hundred years and so there is no excuse for the conception of unwanted children.


The two exceptions would be:


1. In the case of rape, the above obviously does not apply. Though even in this case, the woman has no moral right to abort beyond the point where she could have given birth to a viable child.


This is a very important point and one that is missed by both pro-life and "pro-choice" (an obscurantism euphemism for "pro-death") campaigners. If a "foetus", subsequent to a hypothetical induced pregnancy, could have survived, then the act of abortion is literal murder - to deny this is tantamount to saying that it's okay to murder a living child, provided that it's located within somebody's body, which is absurd. And yet most pseudo-progressive countries have laws permitting abortion well beyond the stage where viable children have been born. This is state-sanctioned murder. The logical conclusion of the pro-abortion attitude outlined in this paragraph is that it's a mother's "right" to kill a living baby after birth, if she "feels" she doesn't want it. Indeed, I have actually read about medical professionals and academics, some of them in prominent positions, who are advocating this position. God help us (not that I believe in him).


2. Where there is a danger to the mother's life resulting from the process of birth.


I can't help thinking that, in virtue of the irrational position of the more extreme "pro-choicers" as outlined above, their attitude, rather than being one of principle, is an outcome of what Freud would have called an oral fixation - a failure of a child to outgrow the emotional level where one feels implacable rage at a care-giver - and in consequence, society more broadly - perceived as not catering adequately for its needs, and a consequent sadistic desire to take revenge on that society, through tearing apart the institutions that make it work - the family, the Church, custom, and so forth. This is the -repressed - psychological motivation behind much of the more bizarre elements of the pseudo-progressive movements. Christopher Lasch argued something similar quite convincingly.

In the case of the anti-life movement - under whose heading I only include the more ridiculous supporters of abortion, not all of them - the oral, sadistic and narcissistic aspects of their personalities seem to cause them to want to carry out the act of murder itself, while excusing their evil with the clichéd and outdated slogans of the genuinely progressive movements of the pre post-modern world.

Very few babies put up for adoption are put into foster care of all things, private adoption is called for when discussing adoption of infants unless it is because of abuse or neglect. Also, the birth mother has all the power in choosing a parent if she wants to use it, and the level of openness.

Any harm that comes to someone out of rape should be placed on the shoulders of the rapist, the kid didn't choose to be conceived, nor have any responsibility for the rape of it's mother. There is no reason to give it so much a harsher punishment than even the rapist currently gets.

there is actually a huge waiting line to adopt a baby, and it is very easy to get adopted young, the older you get the harder, and it gets hard enough to be an issue once you hit five years of age. I personally if I could right now, would be willing to adopt a child as old as seven.

Development is the major point, a sperm cannot develop into a human child without an egg, on it's own doesn't have it's own set of dna and is rather like any other random cell in the body. An embryo on the other hand, clearly will, and has it's own dna, it is just another developmental stage in a human's life.

@ARGANGER: Thank you for providing a woman's perspective.

So you pro-lifers are fine with all the kids born in Africa and Asia who end up living in the most dirty, cramped and disgusting conditions on the planet? Approximately 1 billion children already live in these conditions. And you are advocating to adding to that figure.
In the case of adoption, there are approximately 153 million children who are orphaned. There is absolutely no shortage of orphaned children already. Why not focus on having the already orphaned ones re-homed, rather than adding to that already substantial figure?
In the case of rape, the woman did not ask to spend 9 months carrying another human life, especially one that has come about due to the violation of her body and is a serious crime. Instead of blaming the woman for getting an abortion, the blame should solely be place on the rapist. If the rapist had not raped, there would have been no conception, therefore no foetus to abort. If I chain a door so people cannot leave whilst there is a fire which I did not start, I would still be charged with the crime of manslaughter. It's the same principle.

I'm curious as to what your position is on incest as well. Guess that's perfectly fine too, even though incest is linked to insanity as well as the fact the child will be the subject of ridicule its entire life, and more than likely will end up being brought up in care or by other family members, where they are more likely to be subjected to neglect and abuse.