"we should give the unborn the chance to live"

[xGLxAnubis]

Not only does the government give funds towards abortions in my country

Do you live in the United States? Because then this is mostly false. The only situations where the United States Government allows for public funds to be used for abortions are rape, incest, and when the mothers life is endangered by the pregnancy.

[Total Crica]

It seems to be you who is operating on a misconception, it's almost like I said I'm not against all abortions or something. I also don't think you understand what pragmatic means, there's nothing sensible about killing your child out of convenience(oops sorry meant fetus, wouldn't want things to get too real for you). If all you have are rationalizations, I'm not interested.

All you have are desires that are not based on you supporting the life that you don't want to die.

If you are not going to support a life that you don't want to die, your desire for it to not die doesn't matter.

[Steve French]

Do you live in the United States? Because then this is mostly false. The only situations where the United States Government allows for public funds to be used for abortions are rape, incest, and when the mothers life is endangered by the pregnancy.

Wrong. I'm not going to do you're work for you either, you can look it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Abortion is most certainly a pragmatic undertaking in any situation where carrying the fetus to term, whether to raise it or put it up for adoption, would inconvenience you or otherwise undermine your goals, regardless of how you ended up in that situation in the first place.

It really doesn't surprise me you would take this stance. In the end, that's your opinion, and mine is that if the only reason you abort is because a child "would inconvenience you or otherwise undermine your goals" is downright cold-blooded. That's what having children is, its sacrifice, no one EVER has been able to raise a child without being inconvenienced, it's a ridiculous argument.

Just so I don't have to repeat myself like i have with every other poster that quotes me, I'm not against all abortion, and theres many times abortion is the sensible thing to do, because it might end up inconveniencing you isn't one of those times, if that's your reason for aborting you should be sterilized after senselessly killing your child.

[xGLxAnubis]

Wrong. I'm not going to do you're work for you either, you can look it up.

Hard argument to beat... However, I'll raise you: Hyde Amendment. Look it up. No Public funding can go towards abortions outside of the aforementioned circumstances. You are unequivocally wrong. Feel free to provide an example of where they do provide funding though, you know, so that you have an actual argument outside of "Nuh uh!".

[Mistame]

there's nothing sensible about killing your child out of convenience(oops sorry meant fetus, wouldn't want things to get too real for you).

You keep mentioning "convenience" even though it's entirely based on your own subjective principles. What you may consider "convenience" to others may be practical. And since it's, you know, their life and therefore their decision, your principles are irrelevant.

If all you have are rationalizations, I'm not interested.

And when you have an objective, rational argument against abortions, I'd be more than happy to hear it. As it stands, it's irrational to have a child you neither want nor have the capabilities of providing for. Yes, having children is a sacrifice. You know what else it is? A choice.

[schwarzkopf]

Search Results
ar·bi·trar·y
adjective: arbitrary

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Exactly .... there are a number of possibilities, but the choice between those is arbitrary.

Each of the possibilities has reason/science etc behind it - but the final choice between them does not..... yet (science may at some point define the exact start and end of A: Life, and B: Human life)

[xGLxAnubis]

Exactly .... there are a number of possibilities, but the choice between those is arbitrary.

Each of the possibilities has reason/science etc behind it - but the final choice between them does not..... yet (science may at some point define the exact start and end of A: Life, and B: Human life)

... Choosing between multiple options is not arbitrary. You're completely misunderstanding what that word means.

"Lets just go with option 2, it's good enough and we have to pick something" is arbitrary.
"Let's go with option 2, because it resonates more with the voter base" is not arbitrary.

[schwarzkopf]

... Choosing between multiple options is not arbitrary.

Not by definition, I was referring to the fact that the current choice between multiple options of when human lives begin and end is arbitrary.

Never said that all choices are arbitrary.

e.g. Your choice between the 26 letters as you type on the keyboard is not arbitrary.

[kail]

Where do you live? Not only does the government give funds towards abortions in my country, they also spend hundreds of millions paying for abortions in other countries, until trump cut it off.

The U.S., and Medicaid (the free healthcare) does not cover abortions unless it's life threatening or a rape case. Other than that, the patient has to pay or go in debt. Maybe some private health insurance companies cover it, idk and I don't consider that free.

Maybe, maybe not, either way, you seem to think its disgusting yourself, right? Why would you be okay with funding it then? I'm sure it would be worse if you were religious and thought of killing as a sin, that you're being forced to fund.(I'm not religious btw)

Sigh, you have trouble reading or something. I am against having the government pay for abortions. That bill should go to the mother, having a baby is not life threatening or considered a sickness. Abortions being a completely optional surgery, no reason why tax payers should pay into it.

No one's forcing them to do anything, it's a consequence of their own actions, stop making excuses for them it's time to take some responsibility for their actions.(once again, with obvious exceptions).

Banning abortions is forcing them to carry a baby to term inside their uterus. The only thing they should be responsible for is the cost, otherwise it's their body to do as they choose.

[May90]

Countries where abortions are banned still have a lot of abortions conducted, they are just done in the darkness. People have to look for unqualified "specialists" on the black market that perform the operation, using questionable techniques and equipment. Or, even worse, they sometimes give birth to a child on the same black market, and then get rid of it.

This is like marijuana or prostitution: banning it only will bring more crime in the society due to it moving into the criminal area. Even if you don't like it morally, legalize it, and then carry out the awareness campaigns to get less people to resort to abortion. Outright banning it, no matter for what reasons, isn't going to work well, and is likely to harm a lot of people in the end.

As always with Trump's ideas, whenever he says that doing something will lead to smaller crime rates, the reality is the exact opposite.

[Deleted]

I am not blaming men for getting pregnant. I am stating a fact.

Women can't have an unwanted pregnancy if men refuse to have sex with women who do not wish to bear children.

This is why my idea works as long as men refuse to have sex with women who do not wish to bear children.

Woman also do not get pregnant when they themselves refuse to have sex, i do think that my "idea" works infinitely better.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Show of hands, who's against abortion? Okay.

Show of hands, who's going to adopt and pay for the funerals of mothers forced to birth a child that posed a risk to their health? Mm. Didn't think so. Easypeasy to push for something when it doesn't affect you.

*Raises hand*
Against abortion.
For it if birth poses a risk to the mother's health (would depend on severity, case-by-case).

- - - Updated - - -

No one is entitled to live.

The right to life is a pretty widely agreed upon thing in the western world. It's even in our Declaration of Independence...

- - - Updated - - -

A woman who is unwilling to become pregnant can't get pregnant if she doesn't have sex.

Fixed that for you. Try not acting as if every unwanted pregnancy is the result of rape.

[Faenskap]

Wait, who appeals to emotion? Is it the people with the logical view or the people who "Don't want a girl to ruin her body because materialistic reasons". That's what I thought.

It isn't an appeal to emotion to allow for women to have abortions when they don't want to ruin their bodies, it is appealing to fact. Indeed, birth is very dangerous - just look at the girls and women giving birth the old-fashioned natural way in shithole countries with no modern medical support. They risk severe injury or death.

Pregnancy-related problems: hyperemesis (be hospitalised because everything you eat, you puke), pelvic issues that prevent walking comfortably, or at all (some women require crutches or a wheelchair) and edema for which I hope you have money to buy bigger shoes. These issues make it impossible to work a working class job (clerk, cleaner) and with USA's workers' right, I guess you'll be unemployed. Pregnancy diabetes, depression and pre-eclampsia too, the latter kills even in modern countries.

Then there's the birth itself, with tearing. Some women experience a grade 3 rupture which is a tear from the vagina to the rectum, and will have the rectal muscle destroyed. This means - quite clearly - anal incontinence. Sadly, some will have it for the rest of their lives as surgery doesn't always help. For shithole countries there is also urine and rectal incontinence because the birth is too long and girls too young, so the tissue dies. Then they are expelled from the community. Post-birth there is prolapse of the bladder, the uterus and intestine. And if you think surgery for birth-related life-debilitating issues are priotities, think again. Women suffer from pain, shame, no confidence, involuntary celibacy till their dying day

If men were the ones carrying fetuses, artificial wombs would have been invented 5 000 BC. Or fixing injuries resulting from birth would be more prestigious to the medical community than being a thorax surgeon.

Then, I fear, were abortion to be outlawed in case of birth control failure, we'd go back to back alley abortions and the line between "right" and "wrong" abortions would be blurred out, we'd approach the Catholic view. Three examples of the Catholic view:
You have cancer and accidentally become pregnant. Chemo therapy will save you, but is a risk to the fetus. Guess what? You will die
Fetus has Trisomy 13 (not Down's Syndrome). When they are born, they die. Can't have an abortion regardless, you have to carry to term a child that will die anyway so it can be baptised and have a proper funeral (because healthy feutues that suddenly die in the womb aren't born and have a funeral
)
You have pre-eclampsia and dying. Fetus is dying too. Only its abortion will save you but the doctors won't abort while there is still a heartbeat, however faint. You die

tl;dr Abortion should be an option for those who do not want to be pregnant with the potentially devastating issues that occur. Catholics are insane and I'm disgusted by how the fetus is more sacred than an already existing and established woman

[SirBeef]

It's real simple, the people that are against abortion need to put up or shut up. They need to adopt these unwanted kids and/or help pay to raise them and support their families so they can become functioning members of society. It's easy to say abortion is murder and give life a chance at same time wanting to refuse to teach safe sex practices in schools, voting down social welfare programs and other ways to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and encourage the cycle of dependency.

[wheresmywoft]

It really doesn't surprise me you would take this stance. In the end, that's your opinion, and mine is that if the only reason you abort is because a child "would inconvenience you or otherwise undermine your goals" is downright cold-blooded. That's what having children is, its sacrifice, no one EVER has been able to raise a child without being inconvenienced, it's a ridiculous argument.

Just so I don't have to repeat myself like i have with every other poster that quotes me, I'm not against all abortion, and theres many times abortion is the sensible thing to do, because it might end up inconveniencing you isn't one of those times, if that's your reason for aborting you should be sterilized after senselessly killing your child.

And sacrifices would be up to the person, you can't just force someone to make a sacrifice.

No one has claimed to want to raise a child without being inconvenienced... you're just fighting your own demons there.