Another Pro Choice Vs Pro Life Thread

One other purely intellectual question...

Another topic thats brought up as often as this is equality. So if a woman should have the right to kill her baby, then shouldnt the man as well?

Crazy how things work out that way huh?

Because it shouldn't be considered double murder when the man kills the woman

As I was told... it's not my body and as a guy... guys do not have to carry it for 9 months and give birth and have their lives ruined...

I don't argue that it is more of a burden on the woman but I'm disheartened by the fact that the man has no say so in the matter.

If a man could get pregnant, sure. That's not the case.

The reason it's different for men and women is because the birthing process isn't the same for both men and women. If it were, I'd have no objections to it.

So whomever shoulders the greater burden gets to decide what happens then? Would you apply this to everything or just in the case of abortion?

What should or shouldn't be is irrelevant as this is what it is.

Other than the fact that it's your world too, and you have the power to shape it rather than just be like:

I apply it to the case of something leeching off of your body for 9 months and whether or not you want it to be.

My point w/ that post is that the problem is with the double murder, not the abortion

Those babiesfetuses are *** squatters

The question was not what should it be but why do we consider it a double murder when someone kills a pregnant woman and not when a pregnant woman has an abortion not what should it be.

So it is an unanswerable question

if you're not going to take tiger's answer then you shouldn't be taking answers that are like "Okay... abortion is murder"

I hate it when people use this line...

I think you're missing my point and what I took the question to mean. Whether Tiger thinks that way or not that's his call and that's cool. I'm asking why do we differentiate in the first place legally? What was the disconnect that in one way we see it as a life and another we see it as a lump of cells?

we shouldn't see it that way

the murder case should only be one case of murder

But I don't have that WS....

It really has nothing to do with "we" it has more to do with the people who (have the power to) created those laws.

nvm....

So is that what all laws are then? Nothing is shaped by us peons? Only the ones "who (have the power to)" decide all for us?

Name a law you created or had any realistic impact in creating.

When you say "we" it implies that I'm included, and I already gave my stance, saying I don't agree with the whole double murder thing, so as things are now, it doesn't certainly speak for the me part in "we"

People can and do play a part in the creation or destruction of laws or ones that would be. Firm example is the SOPA/PIPA business. People spoke out and it got shut down.

The "we" is we as a nation. What we accept to be right and wrong and where we place those values.

If you, as an individual did not sign a single petition, and everyone else did the w/e they were going to do, SOPA/PIPA would have had the exact same outcome, so as an individual peon, yes, you have no realistic impact.

Whether you did something or not, that law would have had the same impact.

Again w/e "we" as a nation values does not reflect what I value, so that has absolutely nothing to do with me or my views

I'm guessing neither of you has ever voted before. I know Tiger doesn't, he's said it before.

Never voted "No" or "Yes" on state proposition X before? Because citizens have direct say in those, not just their elected officials.

Usually, the only thing a citizen votes on on the national level is a proposition to an amendment Not the amendment itself. I have never seen an actual change to a law on a public ballot, and I never miss an election.

Desensitized? Clearly from your statement you think people in the past did a better job of handling these situations? How wrong you'd be.

Let's face it, women have been aborting children since the dawn of childbirth and the pregnancy process itself has ways of terminating children that wouldn't be viable. We've come a long way from the infanticide of the past (live children being abandoned, killed or slowly dying off) and have realized that if we're going to handle the process of abortion that it's best preformed when a child is nothing more than a mass of cells with the potential to become human.

Welcome to nature, a spiral of death.

Pro-choice implies a choice, a decision for a woman to take every child to term or to use abortions like they're going out of style. Proper education lowers the chances of abortions, creates a scenario where people are more informed (ignorance is often why unplanned pregnancies happen) and overall lowers reliance on the process.

The argument I hear from pro-lifers is that the process needs to be completely outlawed which imposes an opinion and ignores the fact that some couples simply cannot handle children. I guess the 'life' doesn't matter once it's born?

Here's another debatable question: Why the hell is it so hard to adopt. How many people do you think would carry the child to term if there was a family there to adopt this child.

I think abortion should be reformed, not abolished.

I would have had a sister if it wasn't for the crazy adoption process. They got like 18 months into the damn process and some stupid, nonsenseable reason made it not work out. It was also crazy expensive or something.

It's hard to adopt for a number of reasons:

1. There's always that 'feeling' in some people that though they've raised a child from infancy that the baby 'isn't theirs'. When the child grows up and starts asking questions there are uncomfortable situations that can arise many people simply rather avoid. The media has pushed these ideas leading many to equate abortions with awkward 'your not my real mother/father!' moments.

2. The system is rather inefficient and results in some adoptions being not out of love but to collect money from the state. As a parent putting your child up for adoption it isn't a comforting thought. It's very hard to judge if a child is in a good home and is benefiting from the foster parents. Other parents feel this invasion of privacy from ACS is obnoxious and puts them off from adopting.

3. Race does play a factor and many children are left in orphanages because some people are looking for a specific 'type' of child. What are we to do with the children that don't get picked? Not every foster parent is an Angelina Jolie trying to create a rainbow of colors in her family.

4. The 'abandonment' factor. Many people simply do not feel comfortable giving up a child into adoption because it can feel like a personal failing that follows you for years. Abortions can have the same feeling but at the least you aren't thinking about where that child is, what they are doing and if they'll ever come looking for you in a rage or attempt create a relationship you simply do not want.

5. People usually have children to see their own lineages continued. While you can gain all of the experiences of being a parent from raising an adopted child from infancy many people relish that moment your little son/daughter shows you glimpses of yourself - those tiny quirks that are passed from parent/offspring.

You can rub off some quirks on an adopted child but it's not quite the same as a biological offspring.