Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice

Which side seems more reasonable?

Anti-Life.

Doesn't matter how you feel about the subject.

If you want a free society you need to allow pro-choice.

Does not matter about terminology, it's not the same as conventional murder, as people claim it is.

If you want choice, abortion is a side effect of a free society.

Pro life.

If you support abortion AKA the systematic genocide of black children you are racist and need to go back to Sup Forums.

Yeah slavery is an awful comparison. A more accurate one (in the same context) would be forcing the slave master to give his kidney to the black man, because he has a "right to life."

Personally I'm inbetween

Abortion should be permitted in cases where the child was conceived through rape or incest, the mother is too young to safely give birth, or if the fetus is discovered to have defects within the womb

Otherwise, it should be forbidden.
Birth rates are low enough as it is and abortion should not be treated as a form of birth control.

A foetus is not a person, it should not have rights

Again, it doesn't matter how YOU feel about this option.

You have no right to say what others can and cannot do. You cannot term something to be what it is not, unborn babies are not born human beings. They cannot be viewed as the same.

Saying it's okay for them to abort but it's not okay for them to abort is literally retarded.

Simply can be summed up as saying not all those who are pro-choice would abort an 'unwanted' baby. Like, I'm all for choice, if I were to ever have an unplanned child though I wouldn't get it aborted, wouldn't even cross my mind.

It's about the fact that you want to live in a 'free society' you need to have the choice to do what ever you want, within reason, and this IS within reason. Aborting babies affects literally no one but the person aborting the babies.

Hell, if you live in a town with little jobs, an abortion clinic creates work. It has it's bonuses, albeit a tiny bonus in this respect.

Pro choice only if both parents agree.
"My body my choice" tagline is pure garbage.

>Individualism
Not even once

>aborting is bad because babies are so fucking cute!!!!!!
Your mother should have aborted.

There are plenty of good arguments for abortion that don't have anything to do with individual liberties, but are "taboo" for other, non-political reasons.

Apart from an instance where the mother's life is in jeopardy it shouldn't be allowed.

Maybe in cases of rape or incest it should be allowed during the first trimester, I'm still divided on that.

But if some bitch just HAD to fuck and gets pregnant, under no circumstances can she kill the kid just cause she don wanna take care of it.

I really love how pro-abortion people try to frame the right to kill a living thing that you created as a personal choice issue.

I don't care if you legitimately believe that people should have the right to kill fetuses, but please don't paint it as a "don't tell THEM how to live THEIR lives". Even though you somehow think a human isn't a person, it's still definitely alive.

>Aborting babies affects literally no one but the person aborting the babies
Really? You can't think of anyone else that decision might affect?

>and this IS within reason
You haven't demonstrated that. Your whole fucking argument is that people should be able to do whatever they want within reason, you cannot simply state that abortion qualifies, make an argument as to why abortion is reasonable.

Actually, I just realized you replied to a thread asking which position on abortion is more reasonable, and your "answer" is held up by the blanket assertion that it is. If that's all you were going to say, you could have just said "it IS within reason", and saved yourself a lot of time.

Deontologically, I kind of favor pro-choice. It has all sorts of obvious utilitarian benefits, and I'm unconvinced that it's unethical. After all, we don't condemn the killing of animals or disease-causing bacteria for the material benefits that those give us, so this should tell us that we don't really value -lie- proper. Instead, i think, it seems obvious that we value person-hood, that is, a being with the status of sentience and identity. Certain animals, like elephants or dolphins, it's become common to condemn killiing, because they qualify as "persons." in contrast, the vast majority of unborn children do not qualify as people. they have sapience, no identity discursively tethered together by memory or continuity of any kind. It seems that killing an unborn fetus is no different than killing a chicken.

Pro-life and pro-choice are both unreasonable. I tend towards pro-choice, but Buck v. Bell still applies and we should be preventing imbeciles from breeding regardless of what their "choice" is if society and government are required to pay to keep their crotchspawn from dying after they are, in fact, born.

MULTI
AMENDMENT
DRIFTING

Here is the abortion paradox.

Either God sends aborted babies to heaven or to hell.

If he sends them to heaven then it means, that in order to save as many souls as possible as God commanded you have to abort as many babies as possible.

Because if those babies grow up there is a chance they will become degenerate and go to hell.

So if you have to choose 100% change the child will go to heaven or a less than perfect chance they will, would not the logical choice be to abort every time?

Sure it makes you a murderer, but you can ask for God's forgiveness on your deathbed.

Now if God just sends all the aborted babies to hell, then he is an asshole.

PS. Twins only have one soul since life begins at conception.

>You haven't demonstrated that..........

Well, why is it unreasonable? If you cannot effectively prove it's unreasonable, you cannot, then it's safe to assume it is in fact reasonable. All you can do is supply these grand romantic statements as to why unborn babies shouldn't be aborted, yeah sure, you cannot argue against ideologies though, without another ideology. That's what this is, a battle of ideologies, but you want a free society no? If you want a free society this is an after effect, if you don't want a free society (which is fine) then you can argue abortion cannot be allowed, but in a free society you literally, literally have no right to tell others what they can and cannot do so long as it's not impacting you. And you have no right to say abortion affects you, it fucking doesn't. I don't see you arguing against veal, I don't see you arguing against slaughtering animals. They are living, no? But you now see how it's unreasonable to get so angry about those points, they are needed.

>I really love how pro-abortion people try to frame the right to kill a living thing that you created as a personal choice issue.

I really love how you say this broad statement without providing any reasoning to back it up. You can't, it's simply a romantic idea, it's not effective reasoning.

>Really? You can't think of anyone else that decision might affect?
No? Keep in mind, as you've projected, the mother and father is obviously included in this choice. Again, obviously both cannot always make this choice.

>"answer" is held up by the blanket assertion that it is.
If that's what helps you sleep at night.

>abortion is wrong.....
>BECAUSE

I don't see you giving any actual reasons apart from subjective ones as to why it's wrong. Just admit you can't and let's fucking move on. Abortion is sickening, taking away a person's choice because you don't like it in regards to a 'free' society is even more sickening.

>PS. Twins only have one soul since life begins at conception.
fucking kek

>Yeah slavery is an awful comparison.

No it's not. Neither have any responsibilities, neither have any rights.

>Pro-Choice

This, the only reasonable option. If you believe in Individual Rights you must be Pro-Choice. Getting pregnant cannot deprive you of individual rights. If the baby is truly "someone else's body" than is should be removed and live on its own.

The forever contrarian will say Pro-Life ofc, just disregard their opinion.

Yet one is a concious human being and the other a humanoid lump of cells.

And?

Well in the case of slavery there are 2 conscious human beings

Yes "consciousness"....a totally well defined scientific concept that we can easily circumscribe and measure and are assured the unborn do not possess. Yes. Sure my friend.

Yessss, 'humanoid' my friend. Are humans 'humanoid'? Or just the humans you don't care for?

I still don't see what your point is.

Some folks here need to read a little of basic embriology. Just grab a Moore's, it is probably 20 bucks somewhere. Studying embriology made me completly pro-life.

Mainstream pro-lifers* don't actually think a fetus is a full human. They say they do but they don't. They'll want to ban abortion, but if you really believe that it's a human then everybody involved should be charged with murder.

*I don't read crazy pro-life corners of the internet but I assume there are people out there who do want women who abort to get the death penalty

It wasnt my point and I dont see what it was either

Odd it was the precise opposite for me. Embryology really hammered home just how much a foetus is not a person

>You have no right to say what others can and cannot do

wait a sec are you trying to spook me again?

I think abortion should be legal but all the people arguing about how fetuses aren't human beings or whatever is ridiculous. It's not really murder but is still definitely the killing of human in my eyes.

>It's not really murder but is still definitely the killing of human in my eyes.
If they are people then its murder, not really any way around that, unless you go to extreme lengths to remove the feotus while still alive and then leave it to die of natural causes

Abortion is the logical one. Not neccesarily the moral choice, but the one that's most beneficial to society.

I think abortion should be banned, allowed but discouraged, or outright encouraged on the basis of ethnicity and class. Eugenics is a fundamentally good idea.

well, if you can't tell the difference I can't help you

you're an idiot. leave /sci/ forever

>Are humans 'humanoid'?
Well humanoid just means shaped like a human, so yes

Of course there's a difference, but what's yer fuckin point blowhard?

abortion is infanticide, parents killing their offspring as soon as they can because instead of being a benefit, they are a cost.
Infanticide has been extremely common through human history.
Abortion is simply the Infanticide technique with the least emotional trauma for the killer.

I oppose abortion because I consider it an anthropological defeat (mankind advanced when infanticide disappeared, abortion isnt progressive, it is ancestral), and because I have less sympathy for women who kill their offspring because they want to be young adults with no problems (first I get my degree, then a good job, and I will get married in my thirties, so I will have to "get rid" of this mistake that would derail my ideal life plan) than some tribal woman who killed her offspring because of food scarcity.

Pro-Life

Original sin m80

>mankind advanced when infanticide disappeared

Advanced right into a dysgenic toilet.

And? I literally do not care what you think, no one does in this subject. That's the fucking point, literally the point of the post you are quoting. When you can only argue subjectively there is something flawed in your argument.

>than some tribal woman who killed her offspring because of food scarcity.
Kek, because you've witnessed countless children die due to starvation, right? You've lived in a time where parents had many many children because most didn't make it to adult hood, right?


tl;dr, you're a fucking moron.

>it's bad because I think it's bad
>here are my reasons for why I think it's bad
That's all you did. Good job.

Personally this could all be avoided with permanent birth control.

We should incentivize degenerates getting sterilized.

Problem solved.

Why isn't it a person?

No mind

Neither case went far enough.

this is kind of true
you will often see on Sup Forums or Sup Forums world maps of birth defects rate.

They show the Islamic world very high, because they dont abort and are highly inbred (generally because of women marrying the son of their uncle), the first world as the lowest, and Latin America, and some very catholic countries like Poland in the middle.

The only real difference is between the Islamic world (perhaps, without South East Asia), and the rest of the world.
If France has far less people with birth deffects than Chile, that is because in France parents get their fetus screened, and abort it if they discover they will have a child with Downs Syndrome, while in Latin America, that same kid would be born.

Abortion is defended by feminists all over the world, but the first countries that legalized abortion did it for right wing reasons, for eugenics.
I suspect that for every leftist who loudly defends abortion, there are many right wingers who silently are glad it exists because it prevents black and brown people from having numerous families.
When Bill Gates donates money for abortion in El Salvador or Honduras, I dont think he loves women, I think he wants less spics.

Also, worldwide one of the main uses of abortion is killing women. In China, in which until recently people could only have one child, families would repeatedly get abortions until they were able to produce a male heir, and even in India, which doesnt have those legal restrictions, getting abortions because you want a son and not a daughter is also common.

abortion isnt subjective. It is a surgical procedure. It is biology.
The fetus is a member of the homo sapiens species.

extract baby from womb.
grow externally.
????
huge loss to the state as it must now find a method to care for the child unless a tombwomb will take it.

>The fetus is a member of the homo sapiens species.
True, but thats not the same thing as being a person. Anencephalics shouldnt have rights either

>abortion isnt subjective
Kek.

>The fetus is a member of the homo sapiens species.
Right.

You have literally no points past subjective reasoning. Capitol punishment is legal murder, people kill people in wars - killing humans has never, ever been the issue.

The fact that it's human is literally retarded. You've simply convinced yourself it's not right, although when you really think about it there is no actual reasoning to come to that conclusion.

You're whole argument is now literally based on what it means to be a 'human being' - you're argument is literally based on semantics. Not weather nor not abortion is wrong, but weather or not unborn babies are humans.

You are not arguing abortion (because you can't) you are arguing murder.

Why do people use the rape or incest exception when it's still an abortion?

As if having a baby was a punishment spared to girls who didn't have control over getting pregnant?

As if that were different than getting pregnant by accident?

There are no other circumstances where a woman is obliged to use her body as lifesupport for her children. Why should we make an exception for this one?

>legal murder
Contradiction in terms there mate

99% of Sup Forums users should've been aborted.

In the end, the mother should decide, no one else should have a say in this.

Yes, that's the point.

Is this an ad hominem criticism?

Well clearly the issue of whether it's right or wrong for this guy depends on if a fetus is a person; that's the qualifier for his opinion so he must resolve it first.

If it's not okay to abort babies, why is okay to kill in wars, why is okay for capitol punishment?

Killing people is never the issue but a simple subjective reasoning you use to hold firm.

It's wishy washy at best.

>it's okay to kill these
>it's okay to kill that
>not this
>or that

What if the government in power was to term, for arguments sake, Chinese as not humans. Would you be fine in exterminating them? This has nothing to do with me, you can swap Chinese to be what ever group of humans you want.

You have to refute the point.
>inb4 they won't do that
It's a thought experiment.

No autonomy
t. Kant baby

They DO believe everyone should be charged with murder.

>wars and execution are ok
I didn't say that

Again, I don't care for your reasoning. The government says it's okay, that's all that matters.

>didn't answer the question
Nice.

I'm willing to bet that there's a significant overlap between pro-lifers and death penalty supporters, after all they are both conservative stances.
Which means that this has nothing to do with the value of a human life (even though a featus has none) but with a hypocritical and entirely ideological aversion.
So everyone can drop their false pretenses now.

>because instead of being a benefit, they are a cost.
Looks like we need COMMUNISM
Get to it pro lifers

This is a terrible argument. A fetus is incapable of doing anything. Those on Death Row are there because they chose to go out raping and murdering

>Those on Death Row are there because they chose to go out raping and murdering
Unless they were framed or falsely accused

Ya everyone in prison has that spiel. With DNA evidence most of the retards on Death Row are there because they went out and earned it

Pro-choice. This is because the life is not conscious, and if the baby were born, it would be among the many flooding orphanages. It's best to eliminate the cost. We should knock down the numbers of abortions by giving sex education (especially in low income areas) and by giving desperate teens better counseling. Abortions are hard to do, but are sometimes needed.

>most

I personally support abortions wholeheartedly. Pro-Lifers are just ignorant and easily led. I mean just go into any hospital is any city in the world and you will find babies galore! Despite the best efforts of viruses, weather, and big tobacco we are currently bringing more people into the world then are going out. Just go to a Walmart and in five minutes you will find a genetic disaster that will make you start to think abortions should be mandatory. Think about how crowded everyplace is anymore. We have too many people and not enough room. So the next time you are stuck in a traffic jam, in a long checkout line, or having blows rained down on you for wearing the wrong jersey to the wrong sports bar just think, if more people had abortions this might not be happening.

Every rule has exceptions

While I'm against abortion, it's in-enforceable in this day and age. Every miscarriage would make the womb a crime scene. Plenty of women would get them illegally in more dangerous ways because "my body, my choice" shit. Single moms flip out cuz they need more financial help.

It's shitty but it's something I'm okay with living with it. If my child is ever aborted because the mom doesn't want it, then she better get a fucking restraining order on me.

Except unborn babies are not people, I mean should people be punished for wasting their sperm?

A person has free will. Babies are completely reliant on their parents so therefore no free will. Personally I wouldn't mind parents killing babies, I mean what's the difference?

Filthy communist.

I'm willing to bet that there's a significant overlap between pro-choicers and those against the death penalty, after all they are both liberal stances.
Which means that this has nothing to do with the value of a human life (even though scientifically speaking life begins at the moment of conception) but with a hypocritical and entirely ideological aversion.

It's really easy to make shitty strawmen.

Haha, nice try. No where is abortion prohibited in the bible. Just jargon about how life is important and shit. And even that has exceptions.

Weather a fetus is a person I think depends highly on how it was conseaved and who is caring for it. Some girl who spreads her legs for fun or cash isn't really going to raise a child properly. But if two people or even just a woman with a willing doner decide to create a life then from the moment of conception it is a person. Context is very important to this. A child intended to be brought into the world is a person, a child created by accident and not wanted is just a waste anyway. If the abortion doesn't finish them then it will be drugs, alcohol, or general bad choices because they were not raised properly. Abortions should be legal by all means but parents should also be able to register once an egg is fertilized to give the proto human full protection under the law. This may not be a perfect system but at the very least it seems like a solid groundwork for finding a solution.

actually somewhere in the old testament there is a part about how a temple priest was to give an adulteress a potion that would kill her unborn child.

Yeah, and God told the temple priest to do it.

So God isn't even pro choice, he is pro abortion.

based god.

>If you cannot effectively prove it's unreasonable, you cannot, then it's safe to assume it is in fact reasonable

>makes claim
>"please demonstrate the truth of your claim"
>w-well, if you can't disprove it, surely it must be true!"
I literally can't disprove your blanket assertion, simply because it is in fact a blanket assertion.

>grand romantic statements as to why unborn babies shouldn't be aborted
"It's wrong to kill a human being to avoid responsibility" is a grand, romantic idea?

>literally have no right to tell others what they can and cannot do so long as it's not impacting you
*as long as it's not impacting others. If you're robbing someone, me stopping you doesn't make our society less free just because I told you what to do when it didn't affect me personally. Plus, it could have affected me, isn't it even a bit of a shitty idea to openly say that you would've been fine with your mother choosing to kill you just cause?

>I don't see you arguing against veal, I don't see you arguing against slaughtering animals
Probably because I don't think those things are wrong.

>They are living, no?
Yes... when did I say that killing anything living is wrong? If you're referring to "Even though you somehow think a human isn't a person, it's still definitely alive", I was more referring to how you thought only one entity was affected by an abortion, as if somehow you went from "the fetus is not a person" to "the fetus is an inanimate object".

>without providing any reasoning to back it up
It's literally what you're doing right now, what further evidence do I need that a thing occurs that having the thing occur in front of us?

>as you've projected
What?

And the other party affected by the choice is the fetus itself, dumbass. I see we've moved from "the fetus is an inanimate object" to "the fetus does not exist".

"I don't see you giving any actual reasons apart from subjective ones as to why it's wrong"
It's wrong to kill another human being.

Call this an edgy opinion, but I really dont care if a baby dies.

...

Not only is your refutation a convoluted adhom, you write like a retard. Capitol punishment? Weather or not? KYS

Abortion is objectively killing an infant, you are stopping an already forming fetus/baby from being formed and thus killing a human being

It's necessary though, 1. Are you going to make the irresponsible cunts raise the child they tried to murder to get out of responsability? Putting it up for adoption would equal a lot of fucking orphans, and most women would just half assedly raise their accident causing a shitton more Jamals who dindu nuffin with no father figure
2. If it was rape, incest, life threatening to the mother or a failed contraceptive, it should be allowed OBJECTIVELY. You cannot sort out this shit in a reasonable fashion, how do you judge if the woman was raped? Do you take her word? If that's the case, then any woman could say they were raped. Do you have to rely on a court case? Will take months, the infant could start forming enough to MOVE by then, and late stage abortions are the most despicable of all.
How do you judge if the child is of incest? Or if it was a failed contraceptive?
Absurd.

tl;dr It's objectively murder but it's objectively necessary no matter how ya stretch it, both as a woman's right and to prevent child abuse.

Literally this. The moment anyone is recognized to have any sort of mental deviancy or possibly genetically transmitted illness, they should be sterilized

Edgists and feminazis are the comedians of the modern world. Literal faggots lmao.

I wouldn't mind adopting kids. Putting them up for adoption isn't a bad idea. Everyone likes kids.

Not that many people are willing to adopt, user. Most who want kids want to raise their own.
We have enough orphans already without homes.

And as said that's half the issue.

Pro-Life, easily.

>mental deviancy
>sterilized
Ripe for abuse

Not /his/ take your Sup Forumsshit elsewhere.

I bet there's many single men that are willing to adopt. The problem is that they aren't allowed to because people think only women can take care of kids.

This. Both parents should be fine with aborting the baby, if they actually want to

Why don't they just give me their baby?
Why would you destroy something instead of giving it to someone else?

I'm pro-abortion, mostly because the vast, vast majority of babies killed are minorities and white trash.

I also think there should be financial incentives to get sterilised, and forced sterilisation for criminals, the mentally ill and disabled people.

Strelisation incentives, sponsored by the WHO in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia would also only do good.

Of course, in countries with low birthrates these would be coupled with tons of natalist polices.

There wouldn't be nearly enough for the amount of orphans around.

I agree abortion is objectively killing the infant but I see no reason to say it's necessary. If we were to discuss rights, there's no reason to put a limit at the time the human is deprived of rights and then receives them nor a reason for the rights of the mother to deny the rights of the infant. However, if we were to not get into rights things get a bit more complicated. Namely the justification ethically would have effect on other ethical decisions and thus struggle to defined by the state what need be protected. In response to your comments:

>1: This defense relies on being an orphan or being in poor upraising being a worse scenario than death. Further, this ignores the social effects that would extend from upholding a right to life of the unborn. Allowing abortions and contraception basically enabled the Sexual Revolution so we cannot think society is static to these laws. And for practical reasons, promoting the sexual revolution's view of family planning has damaged society in a practical sense by not being able to provide a replaceable population, damaging its economy and promoting immigration policies to protect the country's welfare.


2. Your initial claims generally relies on the right to bodily autonomy but one's rights should not be used to deny the rights of others, particularly the most innocent in this scenario.

Well, I guess. The first thing that comes to mind, to me, are sexual deviants, or anyhow people inclined to rape someone, and Down people. Autists too, I guess. There ought to be some form of regulation tho.. there's no way such a system would be as vague as the fucking Youtube community guidelines