Poll: “Pro-Choice” - Yes or No?
-
“You should be in prison for killing your children. Disgusting.”
That being a reply posted at my forum topic and poll “Kids” - https://forum.gaytorrent.ru/index.php?topic=48272.0
I’m curious and interested to know the opinions of others when it comes to the matter of Pro-Choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-choice_movement
-
I'd bet if that guy got pregnant from a sexual encounter, his opinion would change REAL quick. :hehe:
“You should be in prison for killing your children. Disgusting.”
-
pro-choice is the one and only reasonable position to take. our entire concept of freedom is based on individuals being able to make choices, and that includes them making choices you might personally disagree with.
-
I agree, pro-choice here.
Although…the reason why many people advocate against abortion is because they view an unborn fetus, no matter what stage it's in, as alive and killing it as 'murder'. So they don't view this as an issue about individual's freedom because an unborn is involved.
-
As a member of earth, i look at the more general implications of "saving every life." Heteros are increasing the world population at a rate that guarantees a loss of quality of life over time. We are now living the golden years, but when you look at, for instance, India, you have a peek at what the future holds.
Altho i don't see it happening in my time, there will inevitably be a time when life on earth will become unbearable. All the things that Americans take for granted- clean air, water, good food and on and on- will become first, in short supply and then in no supply.
Abortion is but a tiny contribution to the prolonging of quality life on this planet, as is homosexuality. I have never been ashamed of what i do with my sperm, indeed, i've been proud to have fathered ZERO kids in my lifetime.
As far as that precious life formation in the womb, that's all a matter of philosophy. Why not cherish that wad of cum on your leg and lament that IT didn't get a chance to make a baby? Or that wad of blood on the Tampax?
The mere fact that two individuals fuck is not the Holy Grail of all existence. If it produces NOTHING but the enjoyment of lust and orgasm, do we lament that failure? Or do we say "wow, we dodged that bullet."
If a couple heteros WANT to make a baby, that's fine, but to cherish the product of lust as if it were wanted is both hypocritical and destructive- long range- of the planet.
-
I'm a political moderate. I'm all for vacuuming unwanted babies and frying criminals.
-
I'm completely pro-choice. A woman should be free to do with her body as she pleases. If she is against abortion or was family planning, she can have the baby. If not, she can have an abortion. It is not something that any woman takes lightly. Most of the pro-life proponents only care about the fetus and couldn't care less about the baby once it's born, regardless of how well the mother/parents can support the baby, financially and/or emotionally. Also, overpopulation is a real problem.
-
Liberals are all for abortion, but against the death penalty even when said criminal has committed atrocities… I'm ok with abortion within the first five weeks, after that, forget it. It's not YOUR body anymore, brain activity is beginning, and it's now a body inside your body and it has it's own mind and it's own body. If you disagree, you disagree. I don't like the question "pro-choice," "not pro-choice." It's the liberal way of asking the question and clearly indicates the questioner's bias, and if you really want an abortion, and weren't raped or discover the kid is going to have a severe condition, do it yourself, pay for it yourself, don't make me pay for it! I shouldn't have to pay for you being unable to shut your damn legs ya filthy whore!
-
pro-choice is the one and only reasonable position to take. our entire concept of freedom is based on individuals being able to make choices, and that includes them making choices you might personally disagree with.
Except that only women have the choice to kill the kid or not.
Even in the countries that propose (I think 2 countries actually have it in place) to allow men to have "parental abortions", limit the amount of time they have to decide. Women don't have to tell the father until after the time limit expired. That makes the law a joke.
-
Pro-choice.
-
Liberals are all for abortion, but against the death penalty even when said criminal has committed atrocities.
As usual, you have no clue what you are talking about.
I have never heard of anyone being "for abortion".
We are pro-CHOICE, that means we believe in the same concept of individual human rights that is behind LGBT rights- that other people do not get to tell us what to do just because they disagree.
As for the death penalty, it is LESS expensive to keep someone in prison for life than the constant appeals process for a death penalty case. Plus, there are too many cases where the person has been found innocent after the fact.If you disagree, you disagree. I don't like the question "pro-choice," "not pro-choice." It's the liberal way of asking the question and clearly indicates the questioner's bias,
LOL!! In your warped mind, absence of bias is called bias.
and if you really want an abortion, and weren't raped or discover the kid is going to have a severe condition, do it yourself, pay for it yourself, don't make me pay for it! I shouldn't have to pay for you being unable to shut your damn legs ya filthy whore!
Well, typical conservative reply. You claim to be pro-life, when realy it is all about money.
Money is something conservatives obsess about when they have no clue what it even IS.Here is a clue- people pay for their own abortions. For some lucky few, insurance pays for it.
Federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood has NEVER funded abortions. -
Conservatives see almost EVERYTHING in terms of finances & are unable to understand the life experiences others might go through. Their excuse for this is archaic religious doctrine from an age where most of the population was illiterate & superstitious.
-
Absolutely correct Blackwing- except their religious doctrines go against everything Conservatives stand for.
When asked about taxes, Jesus said render onto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. He wanted people to pay their taxes fully, without complaint.
Jesus said to give up all of your material possessions to help the poor and needy, and only keep what you need to survive.
Jesus said a rich man is as likely to go to Heaven as a camel is to fit through the eye of a needle.
The most religious people in the US are people Jesus would hate and call hypocrites.
-
I'm "pro-choice" (read: pro-abortion). I believe in the right of women to have an abortion. I don't, however, believe in tarting it up by substituting words like "choice" for the name of the actual procedure (I can't think of any example apart from abortion where this is done–purely for political reasons, I might add). Abortion is frankly a pretty benign issue for me. It doesn't even warrant such manipulative linguistic games.
It's only partial birth abortion that I have any reservations about. And even that I support under most circumstances, regardless of my lack of enthusiasm for the topic.
-
So the only time we as gay men should care about women's bodies is when we're attempting to control their bodies? The day men can biologically carry a baby for nine months and give birth, we'll have a say in this. Until then, leave women's bodies the hell alone. If not, then let's give women the power to vote whether or not men can be kicked in the nuts against our will without any legal ramifications :crazy2:
-
:true:
I support the right of women to choose what happens to their bodies. My sentiment is similar to what royalcrown89 has already stated.
What really galls me is the hypocrisy of the anti-abortion side when they fight so hard for the babies to be born, but seem to lose interest after that. No follow through on the living conditions the child and the mother face once the baby is born. In a sense, this is even more cruel- because a lot of times you're forcing a child onto someone who isn't ready or asking them to give the child to an overtaxed foster system which can't give them proper care.
Either way, the child is given a terrible start at life- but never mind, at least you stopped the mother from giving it up, right? -
I am not comfortable with either of the polarised options offered, though I will say that I am definitely uneasy with the idea of abortion. But it seems to me that there are a lot of tangential issues being raised here that are not really relevant to the main question. Yes, no doubt many conservatives are hypocritical. Yes, no doubt there is a certain irony in a 'pro-life' stance that nevertheless embraces the death penalty or war. Yes, opposing abortion raises imperatives about caring for young mothers and unwanted children. All of these are valid points, but they seem to me to be deflections from the raw force of the main argument.
The core questions - it seems to me - are these: Is an unborn child a person? Does it have rights? Does it have interests that should be protected? Can it be right to sacrifice its interests in favour of those of another person?
If an unborn child does have such rights, at what point in the pregnancy do they apply? At what point between conception and birth does it have a moral claim upon us? At what point is that moral claim so great that the interests of the mother should be regarded as secondary? And should any behaviour on the part of the mother that potentially endangers the foetus be seen as culpable?
If an unborn child does not have such rights, then does anybody? At what point in a person's life do they stop being a mere organism and become a person? If we can morally kill a foetus, then why not a newborn? Why not a severely brain-damaged child or disabled adult? Why not anyone at all if convenience dictates?
I think these are all profoundly challenging questions, and I don't pretend to have simple answers to any of them. But I think they are real questions, and they deserve to be discussed seriously. I am afraid that abortion has been largely removed from the domain of ethics and placed in the domain of political rhetoric. Which does us all a huge disservice, whichever side of the argument we may find ourselves on.
-
I am not comfortable with either of the polarised options offered, though I will say that I am definitely uneasy with the idea of abortion. But it seems to me that there are a lot of tangential issues being raised here that are not really relevant to the main question. Yes, no doubt many conservatives are hypocritical. Yes, no doubt there is a certain irony in a 'pro-life' stance that nevertheless embraces the death penalty or war. Yes, opposing abortion raises imperatives about caring for young mothers and unwanted children. All of these are valid points, but they seem to me to be deflections from the raw force of the main argument.
The core questions - it seems to me - are these: Is an unborn child a person? Does it have rights? Does it have interests that should be protected? Can it be right to sacrifice its interests in favour of those of another person?
If an unborn child does have such rights, at what point in the pregnancy do they apply? At what point between conception and birth does it have a moral claim upon us? At what point is that moral claim so great that the interests of the mother should be regarded as secondary? And should any behaviour on the part of the mother that potentially endangers the foetus be seen as culpable?
If an unborn child does not have such rights, then does anybody? At what point in a person's life do they stop being a mere organism and become a person? If we can morally kill a foetus, then why not a newborn? Why not a severely brain-damaged child or disabled adult? Why not anyone at all if convenience dictates?
I think these are all profoundly challenging questions, and I don't pretend to have simple answers to any of them. But I think they are real questions, and they deserve to be discussed seriously. I am afraid that abortion has been largely removed from the domain of ethics and placed in the domain of political rhetoric. Which does us all a huge disservice, whichever side of the argument we may find ourselves on.
In my opinion, it's a slippery slope the moment you label the unborn as a person with full rights. What happens when the woman has a miscarriage and no one believes her and charges her with murder? It is known fact at this point that American conservatives have zero respect for science; therefore, it can become very dangerous when science is the explanation for a spontaneous abortion, the medical term for a common miscarriage. If we change laws now, a woman can suffer a miscarriage and she's charged with murder because she can't prove without science that it was an actual miscarriage and not something she did to herself to cause the fetus to die. Are you willing to go down that route when history shows us what happens when we leave the very livelihood of each and every woman at the hands of men? History gives me no hope that if we do outlaw abortions and make them punishable with prison time or even death that men won't use actual accounts of miscarriages to mercilessly punish women. I would say let's just give it a go and try it out for a few years, but I have more respect for women than that and thousands if not millions of women would suffer. No woman should be told what to do with her body and until we get to a point where natural born men can give birth to children, this is not an issue where men should have much of a say. Women have the right to bring a child into this world if they want. They also have a right not to bring one into this world. It's sad that even today we still do not want women to hold any iota of power, not even when it comes to their own bodies.
-
I believe in responsibility. If you want to get an abortion, fine, I'm not going to lose sleep at night over it because it's none of my business. It IS up to the mother to decide, because she will ultimately influence the man anyway based on her instinct and do what she feels is best, however, I also believe that once the child starts brain activity after five weeks, it is a separate entity that she is now responsible for, although sometimes disastrous news occurs after the five week period. When a woman gets an abortion, it is usually because either A) she feels that she is incapable of being responsible for it, or B) the child will be incapable of living the life the mother thinks it should have. If it's both, then her instinct is the ultimate question, but if it's only one of the two, more consideration should be given. Some think the government should really have no say, but it does because A) every circumstance is different, and B) the people can't stop fighting about it or figure it out because our society has lost its way and we continue to ask the elected ones to make the right decisions for us. What we should do is come up with a system of acceptance or rejection based on the circumstances. If she was sleeping with all kinds of dudes and then just decides she doesn't want it, that's not good enough. If she was raped, ok, up to a certain point after finding out. The only solution is in the middle and to compromise with each other, because sometimes it is ok, and sometimes it's not.
-
No woman should be told what to do with her body and until we get to a point where natural born men can give birth to children, this is not an issue where men should have much of a say. Women have the right to bring a child into this world if they want. They also have a right not to bring one into this world. It's sad that even today we still do not want women to hold any iota of power, not even when it comes to their own bodies.
The reality, of course, is that we do live in a society where everybody is told what they can and cannot do with their own body. Leaving aside the problematic idea of 'the body' as separate from but intimate private property of the self, nobody has unrestricted sovereignty over their own flesh. I understand that this issue is made emotional because of the long history of male control over reproduction in Western societies, but it is a nonsense to say that women should have total control over their own bodies even if you deny the claim (made, I assume, by most opponents of abortion) that it is what abortion does to somebody else's body that matters. If we could all agree that there was only one body involved (and one person to whom that body belongs), I suspect abortion would not even be an issue.
I'm also dubious about the idea that men are not entitled to an opinion on abortion because they can't bear children. This seems like a really arbitrary limitation: should infertile women or women past the age of menopause be entitled to an opinion on abortion? Should those who are not of military age have an opinion on foreign policy? Should only the dying (or only doctors) have an opinion on euthanasia? Should only African American men be able to express an opinion on the Black Lives Matter movement? The reality of course is that abortion is an issue that affects all of us to varying degrees, and nobody's opinion is intrinsically better than anyone else's because of the group to which they happen to belong. Rather than trying to shut down the voices of half the population, I'd suggest that it would be better to foster debate which is respectful and compassionate. One can, after all, try to understand the perspective of a prospective mother without thinking that her decisions are necessarily the best or right ones. Unfortunately, the battle-lines are so firmly-drawn at present that it is very difficult to see much space for respect or compassion on either side towards people with whom we disagree.
