Is anyone really pro abortion as opposed to pro choice?

Page 1 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Gallia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2018
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,063

16 Dec 2018, 8:15 pm

I'm pro choice.

I am also anti natalist for myself - I believe it's immoral to force someone into existence but I accept that people have different views on the matter and are not inherently bad people for wanting to have kids. I also understand why it's not a popular point of view. Seeing the overpopulation problem and number or orphaned children I also think adoption is a much more compassionate course of action. The desire to reproduce is perfectly natural though and I applaud people who are fully focused on being great, attentive parents.


_________________
Diagnosed with ADHD
Online Autism/ Asperger's Screening = 38 (Autism likely)


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

25 Dec 2018, 5:27 pm

Claradoon wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
I'm an Antinatalist so yeah I am pro abortion I believe you don't have the moral right to bring an innocent person into the world without their consent.

How do you get consent?

Let me tell you about my birds. They had 2 hatchlings. But during that time, in my research, I discovered that the cockatiel hen cannot become fertile unless she has a good mate, a good nest, plenty of food, and good climate.

Repeat! cannot become fertile without good mate, home, food, climate.

Why did not the Creator extend this favour to humans????

And before you ask, yes, they have a sex life anyway. Just no fertility.


You cannot get consent and that is why it is always immoral.



Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

25 Dec 2018, 5:31 pm

The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
I'm an Antinatalist so yeah I am pro abortion I believe you don't have the moral right to bring an innocent person into the world without their consent.

There's no way of getting their consent, so that's just silly. The logical conclusion of your perspective is wiping out the entire human race just because some people may have preferred not being born. And if those people think their life is really that bad, it's not like they can't end it. Not that I'd encourage that, but you're not stuck on this earth forever. You can pretty much exit at any time.


Human extinction would mean an end to Human suffering, no poverty, no slavery and no rape. Its not as easy to kill yourself as you think and can be painful and risky.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia

26 Dec 2018, 12:17 am

Daniel89 wrote:
Claradoon wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
I'm an Antinatalist so yeah I am pro abortion I believe you don't have the moral right to bring an innocent person into the world without their consent.

How do you get consent?

Let me tell you about my birds. They had 2 hatchlings. But during that time, in my research, I discovered that the cockatiel hen cannot become fertile unless she has a good mate, a good nest, plenty of food, and good climate.

Repeat! cannot become fertile without good mate, home, food, climate.

Why did not the Creator extend this favour to humans????

And before you ask, yes, they have a sex life anyway. Just no fertility.


You cannot get consent and that is why it is always immoral.


Do you mean the Creator can't get consent to make us fertile only when we have suitable conditions for raising children?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Daniel89
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2017
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,592

26 Dec 2018, 3:08 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Claradoon wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
I'm an Antinatalist so yeah I am pro abortion I believe you don't have the moral right to bring an innocent person into the world without their consent.

How do you get consent?

Let me tell you about my birds. They had 2 hatchlings. But during that time, in my research, I discovered that the cockatiel hen cannot become fertile unless she has a good mate, a good nest, plenty of food, and good climate.

Repeat! cannot become fertile without good mate, home, food, climate.

Why did not the Creator extend this favour to humans????

And before you ask, yes, they have a sex life anyway. Just no fertility.


You cannot get consent and that is why it is always immoral.


Do you mean the Creator can't get consent to make us fertile only when we have suitable conditions for raising children?


Creator? No I mean its immoral to bring an innocent person into a cruel universe without their consent.



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

26 Dec 2018, 3:23 pm

NewTime wrote:
What someone who was truly pro-abortion would say:

"Forget condoms. Forget birth control. If you get (someone) pregnant just get an abortion/encourage the person you got pregnant to get an abortion."

Never known someone who truly said they were pro-abortion.

I think you don't go far enough. Pro-abortion would mean someone liking abortions, and getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant just to have one. Never heard of that happening.

As for how to reduce the number of abortions, here is someone who gets it right: https://medium.com/s/can-we-talk/men-cause-100-of-unwanted-pregnancies-eb0e8288a7e5. It is a lot of text, but it is fun to read because the argument is uncommon, so might be new to you, yet it is obviously true. A copy is also below:

Gabrielle Blair wrote:
Our conversation about abortion places the burden of responsibility on women. I argue men are the root cause.

A s a mother of six and a Mormon, I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. When I hear men discussing women’s reproductive rights, I’m often left with the thought that they have zero interest in stopping abortion.

If you want to prevent abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Men seem unable (or unwilling) to admit that they cause 100% of them.

I realize that’s a bold statement. You’re likely thinking, “Wait. It takes two to tango!” While I fully agree with you in the case of intentional pregnancies, I argue that all unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. All of them.

Don’t believe me?

Let’s start with this: A woman’s egg is only fertile for about two days each month. Yes, there are exceptions, because nature. But one egg which is fertile two days each month is the baseline. And those fertile eggs are produced for a limited number of years. This means, on average, women are fertile for about 24 days per year.

But men are fertile 365 days a year. In fact, if you’re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory, a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year. While it’s true that sperm gets crappier as men age, it doesn’t have a fertility expiration date; men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty until death. So, starting with basic fertility stats and the calendar, it’s easy to see that men are the issue here.

As a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.
“But what about birth control?” you might ask. “ If a woman can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can use birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy, right?”

Great question. Modern birth control for women is possibly the most important invention of the last century, and I’m very grateful for it. It’s also brutal. The side effects for many women include migraines, mood swings, decreased libido, depression, severe cramps, heavy bleeding, aneurysm — and that’s just a small fraction of them.

Discouragingly, a promising study on a new male contraceptive was canceled in large part due to… (wait for it)… side effects. To be clear, this list of side effects was about one-third as long as the known side effects for commonly used women’s contraception. There’s a lot to unpack in that story alone. I’ll simply point out that, as a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

But, men, I’ve got good news. Even with the horrible side effects, women are (amazingly!) very willing to use birth control. Unfortunately, it’s harder to get than it should be, but that doesn’t keep women from trying. Birth control options for women require a doctor’s appointment — sometimes multiple doctor’s appointments — and a prescription. They’re not always free, and often not cheap. Some are actually trying to make female birth control options more expensive by allowing insurance companies to refuse to cover them. In addition, contraceptive options for women can’t be easily acquired at the last minute. In most cases, they don’t work instantly.

The pill requires consistent daily use and doesn’t leave much room for mistakes, forgetfulness, or unexpected disruptions to daily schedules. Again, the side effects can be brutal — and not just in rare cases. Despite the hassle and side effects, I’m still grateful for birth control. (Please don’t take it away.) But it’s critical to understand that women’s birth control isn’t simple or easy.

In contrast, let’s look at birth control for men — i.e., condoms. They’re readily available at all hours, inexpensive, convenient, and don’t require a prescription. They’re effective and work on demand, instantly. They don’t cause aneurysms, mood swings, or debilitating cramps. Men can keep them stocked up just in case, so they’re always prepared. They can be easily used at the last minute. I mean, condoms are magic! So much easier than birth control options for women.

As a bonus, most women are totally on board with condoms. They keep us from getting STDs. They don’t lessen our pleasure during sex or prevent us from climaxing. The best part? Cleanup is so much easier — no waddling to the toilet as jizz drips down our legs.

So why would there ever be unwanted pregnancies? Why don’t men just use condoms every time they have sex? Seems so simple, right?

Oh. I remember. Men don’t love condoms. In fact, it’s very, very common for men to pressure women to have sex without a condom. It’s also not unheard of for men to remove the condom during sex without the women’s permission or knowledge. (Pro tip: That’s assault.)

Why would men want to have sex without a condom? Because, for the precious minutes when they’re penetrating their partner, not wearing a condom gives them more pleasure. So… that would mean some men are willing to risk getting a woman pregnant — which means literally risking her life, her health, her social status, her relationships, and her career — so they can experience a few minutes of slightly increased pleasure. Is this for real?

Yes. Yes, it is.

Pregnancies happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.
Imagine a pleasure scale, with pain beginning at zero and going down into the negatives. A good back-scratch falls at 5, and an orgasm without a condom is a 10. Where would sex with a condom fall? A 7 or 8? So, it’s not that sex with a condom is not pleasurable, it’s just not as pleasurable. An 8 instead of a 10.

Let me emphasize that again: Men regularly choose to put women at massive risk in order to experience a few minutes of slightly increased pleasure.

For the truly condom-averse, men also have a non-condom, always-ready birth control option built right in: the pull-out. It doesn’t protect against STDs, it’s an easy joke, and it’s far from perfect. However, it’s 96% effective if done correctly, and 78% effective in practice (because it’s often not done correctly).

Still, many men who resist wearing condoms never learn how to pull out correctly. Apparently, it’s slightly more pleasurable to climax inside a vagina than, say, on their partner’s stomach. Once again, men are willing to risk the life, health, and well-being of women in order to experience a tiny bit more pleasure for roughly five seconds during orgasm.

Think of the choice men are making here. Honestly, I’m not as mad as I should be about this, because we’ve trained men from birth to disassociate sex and pregnancy. We’ve taught them that their pleasure is of utmost importance.

As a general rule, men get women pregnant by having an orgasm. Yes, there are exceptions — it’s possible for sperm to show up in pre-ejaculate — but in most cases, getting a woman pregnant is a pleasurable act for men. But men can get a woman pregnant without her feeling any pleasure at all. It’s even possible for a man to impregnate a woman while causing her excruciating pain, trauma, or horror.

In contrast, a woman can have nonstop orgasms with or without a partner and never once get herself pregnant. A woman’s orgasm has literally nothing to do with pregnancy or fertility — her clitoris exists simply for pleasure, not for creating new humans. No matter how many orgasms she has, they won’t make her pregnant.

Pregnancies happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.

A woman can be the sluttiest slut in the entire world, she can love having orgasms all day and all night long, and she will never find herself with an unwanted pregnancy unless a man shows up and ejaculates irresponsibly. Though our society tends to villainize female pleasure, women’s enjoyment of sex does not equal unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Men’s enjoyment of sex and irresponsible ejaculations do.

Let’s move to the topic of responsibility. Often, men don’t know, don’t ask, and don’t think to ask if they’ve caused a pregnancy. There are often zero consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.

If the woman decides to have an abortion, the man may never even know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation. If the woman decides to have the baby, or put the baby up for adoption, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation either. He may never know there’s now a child walking around with 50% of his DNA.

If the woman does tell him he caused an unwanted pregnancy and that she’s having the baby, the closest thing to a consequence for him is child support. Our current child support system is a well-known joke. Only about 61 percent of required payments by men are actually made, and there are little to no repercussions for skipping out. In some states, failing to pay child support doesn’t even affect your credit.

If a man does pay child support, it doesn’t come close to what is required by a woman in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

Let’s talk about abortion. When the topic comes up, men might think: Abortion is horrible; women should not have abortions. Never once do they consider the man who caused the unwanted pregnancy.

If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply hold men accountable for their actions.
If we’re discussing abortion law — and not how to hold men accountable for irresponsible ejaculations, and the unwanted pregnancies caused by them — we’re wasting our time. Shift the conversation. Stop protesting at clinics. Stop shaming women. Stop debating whether or not to overturn abortion laws. If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply hold men accountable for their actions.

What would that look like? A real and immediate consequence for men who cause an unwanted pregnancy. What kind of consequence would make sense? Should it be as harsh, painful, nauseating, scarring, expensive, risky, and life-altering…

… as forcing a woman to go through a nine-month unwanted pregnancy?

If you consider abortion to be murder, consider this thought experiment: Would you be on board with having a handful of men castrated to prevent 600,000 murders each year? If this argument sounds too provocative, could it be that many of us have a hard time wrapping our heads around a physical punishment for men? We seem to be more than fine with physical punishments for women. Perhaps we care more about policing women’s bodies, morality, and sexuality than we do about reducing or eliminating abortions.

Here’s another prevention idea: All males in the U.S. could get a vasectomy when they are ready to be sexually active. Vasectomies are very safe, highly reversible, and about as invasive as a woman getting an IUD implanted. In most cases, there’s some soreness afterwards for about 24 hours, but that’s pretty much it for side effects. (Take a moment to remember that female contraception options, used by millions of women in our country and billions across the world, have well-known side effects which can be brutal and severe — and yes, also include soreness.) If and when a man becomes a responsible adult, finds a mate, and wants to have a baby, the vasectomy can be reversed and then redone once the childbearing stage is over. Each man can bank their sperm before the vasectomy, just in case.

Don’t like my ideas? That’s fine. I’m sure there are better ideas, and I challenge you to suggest your own. My point is we need to stop focusing on women if we’re trying to get rid of abortions. Think of abortion as the “cure” for an unwanted pregnancy. To stop abortions, we need to prevent the “disease” — meaning, the unwanted pregnancy itself. And the only way to do that is by focusing on men, because irresponsible ejaculations by men cause 100% of unwanted pregnancy.

Ask yourselves: What would it take for you to value the life of your sexual partner more than your own temporary pleasure or convenience?
If you’re a man, what would it take for you to never again ejaculate irresponsibly? A loss of money, rights, or freedoms? Physical pain? Ask yourselves: What would it take for you to value the life of your sexual partner more than your own temporary pleasure or convenience?

Men mostly run our government, and men mostly make our laws. In theory, men could eliminate — or drastically reduce — abortions within months without ever touching an abortion law or even mentioning women. They’d simply need to hold men accountable for irresponsible ejaculations, and legislate accordingly.

To reduce or eliminate abortions, stop attempting to control women’s bodies and sexuality. Because unwanted pregnancies are caused by men.


Anyone who goes on about opposing abortion but who is unwilling to address the root cause, irresponsible ejaculations, is a hypocrite who is more interested in controlling people's sex lifes than in reducing abortions.



TUF
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,464

31 Dec 2018, 8:33 am

Some people (not usually in the 21st century west) are pro abortion without being pro choice. I mean they're pro forcing someone to have an abortion.

For eg, the one child policy in China and eugenics policies which sought to eradicate disabled people (and sometimes other races, homosexuals etc). Usually eugenics relates not only to the forced sterilisation of people or forcing people to get abortions but also murdering people who have already been born. :(

I'm pro choice and this sort of stuff disgusts me.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,886
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

31 Dec 2018, 9:19 am

Claradoon wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
I'm an Antinatalist so yeah I am pro abortion I believe you don't have the moral right to bring an innocent person into the world without their consent.

How do you get consent?

Let me tell you about my birds. They had 2 hatchlings. But during that time, in my research, I discovered that the cockatiel hen cannot become fertile unless she has a good mate, a good nest, plenty of food, and good climate.

Repeat! cannot become fertile without good mate, home, food, climate.

Why did not the Creator extend this favour to humans????

And before you ask, yes, they have a sex life anyway. Just no fertility.



Because evolution, probably there was an evolutionary advantage in the wild for the female ancestors of this species to have a conditional fertility.



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

31 Dec 2018, 11:34 pm

TUF wrote:
Some people (not usually in the 21st century west) are pro abortion without being pro choice. I mean they're pro forcing someone to have an abortion.

For eg, the one child policy in China and eugenics policies which sought to eradicate disabled people (and sometimes other races, homosexuals etc). Usually eugenics relates not only to the forced sterilisation of people or forcing people to get abortions but also murdering people who have already been born. :(

I'm pro choice and this sort of stuff disgusts me.

You have a point there, though one could still argue that in these cases the abortions are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end, that goal being control of society and economy (one child policy),eugenics, or genocide. (Forced sterilisations and abortions targeted at groups considered undesirable is included in the UN definition of genocide.)



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,521
Location: Houston, Texas

18 Jan 2019, 3:04 am

The reason I say "pro-abortion" rather than "pro-choice", and "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life" is this:

Some people who declare themselves "pro-life" oppose abortion, but not the death penalty or war, nor do they have a plan for the child once it's born.

Some who call themselves "pro-choice" decry parents or parents-to-be as "selfish breeders".


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,183
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

18 Jan 2019, 7:14 am

Gromit wrote:
As for how to reduce the number of abortions, here is someone who gets it right: https://medium.com/s/can-we-talk/men-cause-100-of-unwanted-pregnancies-eb0e8288a7e5. It is a lot of text, but it is fun to read because the argument is uncommon, so might be new to you, yet it is obviously true. A copy is also below:

Anyone who goes on about opposing abortion but who is unwilling to address the root cause, irresponsible ejaculations, is a hypocrite who is more interested in controlling people's sex lifes than in reducing abortions.

This is where I actually think sex AI/robots, VR, and ever-improved toys could be a major corrective - ie. you'd have fewer of people trying to, essentially, masturbate off of each other but rather it could be left more often to instances with procreation deliberately in mind. Expanding not just alternatives but the pool of ever closer approximations to sex between two people seems like a sensible way to go.

The other thing, and this is something where I think women have to give something up to get something - we have to stop controlling each other through sex. I would increasingly think fewer women are doing this anyway, our culture is drifting apart and it seems like there are fewer relationships and less sex being had in many places in the western world, but still - the more high-similarity alternatives men have the fewer unwanted pregnancies and on that note there has to be more open-mindedness to letting the sex AI revolution happen, letting the social research be done, and track the results/consequences rather than trying to forecast them in advance.


_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin