Zone1 The abortion debate - Understanding Both Sides

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If sex is voluntary, how is the gestation "forced"?

Wow.

I think I will just let this steaming pile of stupid sit there and embarrass itself.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Actually, many atheist are prolife. Fish are alive without ever breathing air.

In the spirit of trying to understand other people's positions, some say life of a person begin with a heartbeat and end when the heart stops beating.

wonderfully stated.

unfortunately, however, this debate is always controlled by the extremes.

my own position is that women cannot argue that they are doing with their body as they please since they are dealing with a very DIFFERENT body.

Stuill, I support the morning after pill and early term abortions in the case of rape or incest. Once a heartbeat is detected, though, I oppose it.

 

[TNHarley]

I wouldn't support birth control bans, and what birth control bans are being proposed?

Even idiots can figure out how to use a condom, or the pill, or go the old "map of Hawaii" pull out method.

Louisiana will be voting on a bill that will make IUDs a MURDER WEAPON. That will include morning after pills etc. I believe the same is going on in texas.
And guess what? It will probably pass.
These reactionary bills are fucking insane!
Some D in Ohio is wanting to make an accidental pregnancy a CIVIL SUIT against the male in reaction to ohio wanting to go to a full abortion ban when they come back in session. Does that open up civil suits from the male to sue contraceptive or condom makers if he gets a woman pregnant?
How far is this rabbit hole going to go?

 

[martybegan]

Wow.

I think I will just let this steaming pile of stupid sit there and embarrass itself.

Can't answer the question?

 

[martybegan]

Louisiana will be voting on a bill that will make IUDs a MURDER WEAPON.
And guess what? It will probably pass.
These reactionary bills are fucking insane!
Some D in Ohio is wanting to make an accidental pregnancy a CIVIL SUIT against the male in reaction to ohio wanting to go to a full abortion ban when they come back in session. Does that open up civil suits from the male to sue contraceptive or condom makers if he gets a woman pregnant?
How far is this rabbit hole going to go?

IUD's are a method that some say prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg instead of preventing conception, thus making it an abortion method and not a birth control method.

 

[TNHarley]

IUD's are a method that some say prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg instead of preventing conception, thus making it an abortion method and not a birth control method.

And its about the best mode of contraceptive. Because the woman doesnt have to remember to take a pill every day.

 

[Canon Shooter]

What about the "shout your abortion" extreme abortion rights crowd?

"Shout your abortion"?

I'm not familiar with that...

 

[martybegan]

And its about the best mode of contraceptive. Because the woman doesnt have to remember to take a pill every day.

I have to remember to take 4 pills every day. THE HORROR.

 

[martybegan]

"Shout your abortion"?

I'm not familiar with that...

Shout Your Abortion — Normalizing abortion and elevating safe paths to access, regardless of legality.

 

[TNHarley]

I have to remember to take 4 pills every day. THE HORROR.

Of course, thats not the point in any way, shape or form.
I mean my gawd man. Basically defending calling an IUD a murder weapon?
FFS man. Im ready for people like you to want to start banning jerking off.

 

[martybegan]

Of course, thats not the point in any way, shape or form.
I mean my gawd man. Basically defending calling an IUD a murder weapon?
FFS man. Im ready for people like you to want to start banning jerking off.

One method, that may actually do very early abortions.

That being said I wouldn't ban them but I can understand the "life begins at conception" people wanting to ban them.

The pill prevents ovulation, no ovulation no conception. condoms are a barrier method, no sperm in the uterus, no conception.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

American women are so lucky to have such a benevolent instructor on what they can and can't do. ^^

They should really be thanking him.

 

[TNHarley]

One method, that may actually do very early abortions.

That being said I wouldn't ban them but I can understand the "life begins at conception" people wanting to ban them.

The pill prevents ovulation, no ovulation no conception. condoms are a barrier method, no sperm in the uterus, no conception.

BC pills arent 100% effective.
Condoms break.
Then what?

 

[martybegan]

BC pills arent 100% effective.
Condoms break.
Then what?

Use both if you really really don't want to get pregnant.

Pull out while using both if you really really really don't want to get pregnant.

Eat her out/get a blowjob if you really really really really don't want to get pregnant.

There is also the pooper if you really really really really really don't want to get pregnant.

 

[TNHarley]

Use both if you really really don't want to get pregnant.

Pull out while using both if you really really really don't want to get pregnant.

Eat her out/get a blowjob if you really really really really don't want to get pregnant.

There is also the pooper if you really really really really really don't want to get pregnant.

What happens if both fails?
Pre-cum can impregnate a woman.
So if you live in an insane red state, just stop having sex?

 

[night_son]

Abortion is a very controversial topic which has been debated extensively on USMB. Usually the battle lines are drawn and the two sides are argued without one side giving any empathy (for lack of a better word) to the other. It quickly becomes a "I'm Right and Your Wrong" debate.

So I am attempting a different approach in this thread. I will state strengths and weaknesses to both sides of the issue. (Actually it might be a little nearsighted to say there are only two sides,but the two main sides are either pro-life and pro-choice.)

Okay, the main axiom where the battle lines are drawn is about when a person starts being a person, or better said, at what point should a person's life be protected by law.

The pro-life position is that an individual's life starts at conception, when the sperm and the egg unite and form a zygote. Biologically speaking, the is the first stage of an individuals life cycle. Many (not all) prochoice try to deny this fact. However, on the prochoice side, it is true that a zygote has no brain, has no heart, has no awareness of it's self...it doesn't know of it's own existence; and that begs the question "Does that single cell" have rights?" Does that single cell have the right to it's mother's body for 9 months? Those that are extreme pro-life side say "Yes" to both questions, and of course the pro-choice say "No". The extreme pro-choice side would say that the mother's rights trumps the rights of the preborn until birth and that a woman has the right to terminate "the clump of cells" in her body until right before it is born. Many, many people fall between the extreme pro-choice side and the extreme pro-life side. The Inbetweeners (I just made that word up) believe that abortion should be allowed under some conditions, and those conditions can very greatly.

My own position: Conceptually I am with the extreme pro-life. A human life begins at conception and that is the beginning of a "person" and that person should have the right to life. However, to be practical, I realize that this position would be a nightmare to enforce and does not have the political support to be legally in place. So from a practical position I am for women having access to the day after pill or the abortion pill which cause a miscarriage up to 10 weeks after sex (if I understand correctly). 10 weeks should be plenty of time, no pregnancy test needed, jut take a pill if unplanned sex happens.

Of course there should be exceptions when the mother's life is in danger.

That said, I don't necessary agree with those that don't hold my view on abortion, but I am trying to understand where they are coming from.

What a shame. There can be no compromise with child murderers. One either supports the murder of any/all unborn/born children or opposes it with all he or she is worth. No middle ground exists.

 

[night_son]

You die after you take your last breath just like you're born when you take your first one. Anything else is religious law, which isn't something we should be doing in the US.

Abortion is a religion; most smart people realize that.

 

[Canon Shooter]

If sex is voluntary, how is the gestation "forced"?

I can see in a rape case the gestation being forced, but in other cases, the gestation can be avoided by 1) avoiding sex or 2)taking steps to avoid conception.

Are you a Christian?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Shout Your Abortion — Normalizing abortion and elevating safe paths to access, regardless of legality.

Well, the obvious difference is that I'm pretty sure that the SYA crowd is perfectly fine with a woman deciding to carry a pregnancy to term, whereas the extreme pro-life crowd thinks that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a baby killer, which is so monumentally stupid it's silly...

 

[See50]

Abortion is a very controversial topic which has been debated extensively on USMB. Usually the battle lines are drawn and the two sides are argued without one side giving any empathy (for lack of a better word) to the other. It quickly becomes a "I'm Right and Your Wrong" debate.

So I am attempting a different approach in this thread. I will state strengths and weaknesses to both sides of the issue. (Actually it might be a little nearsighted to say there are only two sides,but the two main sides are either pro-life and pro-choice.)

Okay, the main axiom where the battle lines are drawn is about when a person starts being a person, or better said, at what point should a person's life be protected by law.

The pro-life position is that an individual's life starts at conception, when the sperm and the egg unite and form a zygote. Biologically speaking, the is the first stage of an individuals life cycle. Many (not all) prochoice try to deny this fact. However, on the prochoice side, it is true that a zygote has no brain, has no heart, has no awareness of it's self...it doesn't know of it's own existence; and that begs the question "Does that single cell" have rights?" Does that single cell have the right to it's mother's body for 9 months? Those that are extreme pro-life side say "Yes" to both questions, and of course the pro-choice say "No". The extreme pro-choice side would say that the mother's rights trumps the rights of the preborn until birth and that a woman has the right to terminate "the clump of cells" in her body until right before it is born. Many, many people fall between the extreme pro-choice side and the extreme pro-life side. The Inbetweeners (I just made that word up) believe that abortion should be allowed under some conditions, and those conditions can very greatly.

My own position: Conceptually I am with the extreme pro-life. A human life begins at conception and that is the beginning of a "person" and that person should have the right to life. However, to be practical, I realize that this position would be a nightmare to enforce and does not have the political support to be legally in place. So from a practical position I am for women having access to the day after pill or the abortion pill which cause a miscarriage up to 10 weeks after sex (if I understand correctly). 10 weeks should be plenty of time, no pregnancy test needed, jut take a pill if unplanned sex happens.

Of course there should be exceptions when the mother's life is in danger.

That said, I don't necessary agree with those that don't hold my view on abortion, but I am trying to understand where they are coming from.

I'm sorry ,but, there's nothing controversial about legal abortion. Whether reproductive conservatives like it or not a women has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy ,Including rape or incest.