Abortion; Why?

I thought the nature of this argument is whether abortion can be justified,not if it's supposed to be legal.

Yes,please do because you keep arguing with me and questioning my opinion when I don't really know yours.I don't know what I am arguing against.


No one decides anything.


okay,you're male right? What if your wife is pregnant and it may be fatal for her to have a child?What would your position be in this?I mean during the birth,the doctor comes to you and says and it's either mother or the kid,you make the decision.I mean,doctors themselves tell you to choose.


well,rape is a more common thing than the world end.


I told you that I don't consider unborn human.


Yes,I would.I don't think that they have children because they want them.They just don't have protection and enough medical centres to do abortions.How can a woman want to see her child starving?


I hope you realize that you can't compare these things.


Well,if you could normally quote and answer my posts,it would be easier for me.

It's not about dying.It's about having a miserable childhood which leads to miserable life.

Again,it's not abut dying.Maybe in Africa it is.Let's go back to 1st world countries.You anti-abortion people only care about the unborn,not about the born babies.Did you help any of the struggling mothers?Do you feed a child on the street?Do you report when you see parents' hitting a kid?I think all of us has witneesed or at least heard about someone abusing their kids,yet no one talks.But you sure will encourage all of them to have babies.It's easy to talk pro-life.It's another thing to actually take action.
Don't swear at me.Am I swearing at you?

what does it even have in common?

you don't really understand what I mean by bad life.It's not only being hungry and poor.It's about being unloved.It's about growing in with careless parents(in your perfect pro-life planet they probably don't exist),feeling unsafe in your home,feeling lonely,isolated,having troubles to form a connection,never really having things like Christmas dinner,family trips.If you're poor but your parents love you,then it's great.But it's not that good when they neglect you.It may scar you for life and the worst thing is,you may not even know it.So yes,if mother was raped,if she just doesn't want to have the kid,if she thinks that she can't handle the responsibility,if she just doesn't care,then yes,I will base it on a guess that the child will be unloved and damaged.

I think you might be misinterpreting the situation. Access to abortion would be good for the poorer parts of Africa, though even more important would be better access to contraception (which would lessen the need for abortions) - this is because of the also very low access to other healthcare, including that which could aid the mother with giving birth, and also the lack of food - there are many families in Africa and the rest of the Third World which are unable to feed enough, partially because they have more children than they could possibly sustain (average family size is larger in the Third World than in the Western world).

Also: "we are guessing you are a terrorist so we will kill you" - don't they sometimes do that already in real life? :P

Also, that post is rather hard to read because of the... formatting. :/

what about baby's right to be free? Is he less entitled to be free?

I am more interested in the moral/real side of the abortion,not the legal/political one.

Nope. It's my position that this is one of things that make it easier for good people to rationalize an immoral act....

Whatever the exact breakdown, the basic takeaway is that this doesn't even come close to dividing along gender lines, so it's a misrepresentation whenever someone implies that they speak for women in general on it.

...okay? I think it's completely deniable. No, I'll go one better: I think this is an outrageous claim. And I think it's a distraction, too, as it almost always is when someone decides to talk about the motives of their opponents, rather than their actual arguments.

And just in general, I find it relatively useless when someone's arguments for something are largely based on assuming the other side has sinister motives. If you're willing to assume that pro-life people are pro-life because they want to control women, rather than all the reasons they actually give and argue for, then why engage with them at all? Obviously we can't be trusted.

Or it may simply be the case that women who get abortions don't view it as immoral or criminal.

Just because some men, even a majority, may be pro-choice doesn't mean advocates of criminalization aren't driven by a patriarchal bias--of which some may not be fully aware incidentally.

Religious groups have led the modern anti-abortion movement in the US. These groups have a subordinate view of women although they'd call it something other like family or traditional values. This is not to say they don't have every right to advocate their position or that they're the only groups that want to limit a woman's role in society. It is to say that their desire to criminalize abortion can be understood as part and parcel of their patriarchal bias and campaign to forge a patriarchal society.

If you contend that women know that abortion is immoral, murder or tantamount, but rationalize it, why dismiss the possibility that an advocate's true motives may be sublimated in order to maintain his standing or self-regard or hidden to make his position more palatable?

The abortion issue for me is simply about criminalization. My view is that it's application would not only be discriminatory to women of lesser means but that's it's driven by a patriarchal prejudice most often steeped in religiosity. With that, I bow out of this thread. I've found the abortion debate to be static and fruitless, where positions are well known and rarely, if ever, changed in any significant way.

It is to say that their desire to criminalize abortion can be understood as part and parcel of their patriarchal bias and campaign to forge a patriarchal society.

Since through a pregnancy cycle the mass of cells that will eventually lead to a baby passes through various processes, finding the defining point where that being is considered not only alive but actually, in some way equivalent to a baby, is difficult to me and has a point of arbitrariety.

It seems important to some that there be a distinction between a person and a "clump of cells." Why? Why is this so important?

I have always believed that a person comes into being at the moment of conception. The opposition must also believe this in some round-about way. Why else do they support abortion? How do they find a "clump of cells" to be a threat? If in some way they anticipate that this "clump of cells" might someday become a person and they destroy these cells, is this not anticipated murder?

It seems important to some that there be a distinction between a person and a "clump of cells." Why? Why is this so important?

I have always believed that a person comes into being at the moment of conception. The opposition must also believe this in some round-about way. Why else do they support abortion? How do they find a "clump of cells" to be a threat? If in some way they anticipate that this "clump of cells" might someday become a person and they destroy these cells, is this not anticipated murder?

This is the kind of ridiculous claim-making that makes reasonable debate difficult or impossible.

The fact that you didn't answer them tells us you have no defense for your pro-abortion position.