this post was submitted on
1,449 points (59% like it)
4,715 up votes 3,266 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,138,938 readers

1,455 users here now


Help Atheist Organizations!

The Secular Student Alliance, Camp Quest, and Foundation Beyond Belief were all nominated for the Chase Community Giving program, which awards grants based on the votes of the public. Everyone gets 2 votes on Facebook, plus an additional one if they share a CCG page. The links for them are:

SSA | CQ | FBB

Voting runs from September 6-19


Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes


Related Subreddits <--the big list

GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists

Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ


Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]horribledad 106 points107 points ago

Well you have to admit that the anti-abortion protestor has a pretty good response to her.

[–]mbgt 43 points44 points ago

Yeah, imo, his is better.

[–]byte-smasher 8 points9 points ago

It's easy to support your troops when you're not the one being killed by them.

I'd be willing to place money on the fact that he supports his troops.

[Edited for clarity]

[–]horribledad 13 points14 points ago

That doesn't really make much sense. Maybe "It's easy to support war when you're not the one being killed."

[–]byte-smasher 3 points4 points ago

How doesn't it make sense?

[–]horribledad 0 points1 point ago

How is it any harder to support troops when you are one of them and might die?

[–]Marqued 4 points5 points ago

Unless he already served. :|

[–]davidts15 7 points8 points ago

There's a difference between supporting troops and supporting war.

[–]byte-smasher 5 points6 points ago

Since when has "Support your troops" been used as anything but a piece of propaganda to support war?

[–]davidts15 6 points7 points ago

I was in a war I didn't believe in (Iraq 08-09) and I still appreciated people telling me thanks for my sacrifice. A lot of kids that join don't know what they are getting into when they sign up at 17 because the the military seems cool. They deserve support because they only thought they were signing up to help everyone who stayed home.

[–]paranode 2 points3 points ago

Troops are those human beings that our government sends to fight the wars that it starts. Supporting your troops (in the meaningful way) means doing anything you can do make their lives easier while they are serving at the government's discretion.

Still confused?

[–]Italian_Barrel_Roll 2 points3 points ago

"I Support the troops" was used starting in the unpopular Second Iraq War as a way of condemning the war without the harassment toward the men and women in the military that we saw during the Vietnam War.

Basically, we wanted to make it known we disapproved specifically of the asshats sending the troops to war.

[–]Timmytanks40 -1 points0 points ago

"Youre doing a great service for your country. I dont support wars but you look great out there. Keep it up. Not the war, just what youre doing."

[–]DayManNightMan 30 points31 points ago

This isn't a pro-life pro-choice debate.

-The guy on the left thinks a fetus is a human life. Scientifically, he can't be shot down. -The girl on the right thinks a fetus is not a human life. Scientifically, she can't be shot down.

We all believe in life, and all but the most extreme of us believe in choice. Abortion is really a debate of, "Is a fetus a human being. If so, how far in does it become one?"

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points ago

Exactly. I've never met anyone on either side, being like, "FUCK YES! ABORTIONS KICK ASS!"

No one is FOR abortion. No one is really completely okay with the idea. I had an ultrasound every 2 weeks starting at 10 weeks with my daughter. I've seen MY fetus develop. From the moment I saw her wiggle, she was my baby, not fetus.

That being said, I'm pro-choice. I'm not saying it's okay to use abortions as a form of birth control, but in certain situations & first trimester, yes. They're going to happen either way. Be it in some back alley somewhere, or in a sterile office. Just because you make it illegal, doesn't mean it's not going to happen.

Ultimately, a woman will always have that right to choose, but a medical procedure shouldn't be performed in some tent in Brazil with a coat hanger, because you couldn't get adequate medical treatment here.

[–]ChiTownGal 0 points1 point ago

This.

[–]Propayne 13 points14 points ago

Abortion OUGHT to be a debate on that, but sadly that is rarely what is debated.

[–]Pinkfish_411 3 points4 points ago

Well, because it can't be just about that. If you call the fetus a human being, then you still have to negotiate the conflicting rights-claims of the unborn child and the mother. If the fetus is a full-fledged human person it isn't going to definitively settle the issue for a lot of pro-choicers.

[–]paranode 2 points3 points ago

How so? The entire debate is focused around when a life is worth legal protection, which is the very same issue.

[–]Propayne 0 points1 point ago

As far as I can tell it usually goes something like this "God says abortion is bad!" and "Women's rights! Don't abuse women!"

Rarely does it concern what fundamental rights there are and how to figure out how to balance or figure out self determination to your own body vs a right to life.

[–]ThatPirateGuy 2 points3 points ago

No that is irrelevant as no one can compel you to use your body as a life support system. Hell you can't even compel people to donate blood so why is it so obvious that you can compel something as body altering and dangerous as pregnancy.

[–]Tonytarium 2 points3 points ago

What we ought to do is figure out exactly when a baby becomes a baby and earns human rights. Then abortions after that point are not allowed and abortions before that point are.

[–]Luxray 2 points3 points ago

I believe a fetus is a human life. I'm pro choice.

[–]DayManNightMan 1 point2 points ago

Murderer.

[–]emoney_33 1 point2 points ago

We all believe in life, and all but the most extreme of us believe in choice.

I'm not sure exactly what "believing in life" means. I certainly don't believe life itself is sacred, I mean I have no hesitation stepping on an ant for example. I do believe that subjective experiences are of very high value however.

Abortion is really a debate of, "Is a fetus a human being. If so, how far in does it become one?"

Not true. Even if you believe a fetus is a "human being" from conception, you still have the very real conflict of two human beings. The issue is still not solved at that point, and I would still be pro-choice.

[–]DayManNightMan 1 point2 points ago

If someone doesn't want something, you can't just kill it if you consider it another human.

If it's a danger to the mother, then sure you're making a legitimate trade. If you think that it is a human and you just don't feel like being a parent, then you are committing murder for no reason.

[–]ThisEndsHere 1 point2 points ago

"The guy on the left thinks a fetus is a human life. Scientifically, he can't be shot down"

Wow, would have never expected this on /r/atheism... Go on...

"The girl on the right thinks a fetus is not a human life. Scientifically, she can't be shot down."

COSMIC FAILURE!!!

[–]polecatt 11 points12 points ago

People on this thread seem to forget that no contraception is completely effective. There are people who become pregnant even whilst using condoms, with an implant in, with a coil etc. So if the condom breaks will the government make the condom company pay for all medical bills the couple has to pay for the pregnancy?

[–]ew73 5 points6 points ago

Well, if it's not a legitimate pregnancy, then the lady's anti-get-me-preggers gland will secrete a special secret hormone that makes them burp instead of get pregnant.

[–]jamesandlily_forever 1 point2 points ago

Then people would say "then don't have sex before you're ready to deal with the consequences of a baby." Which I disagree with for a number of reasons including: 1.)most people won't stop having sex and 2.)how is it fair that because a woman is born with a vagina she has to deal with the physical, social, and emotionally consequences of having a child? The man had sex too, but they don't have to deal with these same consequences. Which is proven by even the simple fact that woman are degraded and called "sluts" and men are congratulated on their "man whore-ness." In this day and age, if the women has the means to avoid all of these things if she doesn't want them, she should have that choice. It's her body and her life. Just because she was born with a vagina and likes sex just as much as men, possibly having a contraceptive that didn't work, etc..., doesn't mean she should HAVE to have the child. I just hate the fact that many men get away with so much in this situation while women have to deal with mostly everything (besides money and social consequences--possibly).

Edit: Let me make this clear, my downvote-happy friends: I am just making a suggestion about how some woman may feel about the fact that THEY are the ones responsible for carrying the child that BOTH the man and the woman created. If there wasn't physical, social, and emotion consequences for mostly the WOMAN, then many wouldn't have a problem with it. But it is still something to consider. Biology sucks sometimes, I know. I was just presenting another side/perspective of it. It's sort of like "woman's body, woman's choice." As I have said before, this issue isn't black and white. Have a problem with what I said? Reply to me and refute it like the person below me did. I want to hear other perspectives about this aspect of the issue.

[–]Kamaria 1 point2 points ago

While I sort of agree with you, ask yourself this: Is sex not, scientifically, intended for procreation? It's true that a few species of animals have sex for 'fun' as well as us, but procreation is primarily the main function. I'm not saying everyone should just stop having sex until they're ready to have babies, but they should be fully aware of what they're doing.

[–]jamesandlily_forever 5 points6 points ago

Yes, I completely see your point. I just feel bad for people who are acting like--well, people--have sex with contraceptives and get pregnant with a baby they can't afford. And the women who are raped. And the girls too educated with only "abstinence" perspective on sex that they get pregnant by accident. And the women who can't afford birth control. And the women who find out there is something severely wrong with their babies. And the women who are so desperate, for whatever reason, to get an abortion who would go to back allies to get one if they were illegal. And the women who just (imagine that) happen to be born with vaginas and find that it completely sucks to have to put all of your dreams on hold, put your body through hell, and deal with social consequences that men don't have to deal with. All because they were biologically only meant to be the "baby maker." I just wish this issue was more black and white--but it isn't. I just feel bad for everyone involved. Which is why I believe I don't have the right to judge whether abortion is right or wrong. "I haven't walked a mile in your shoes, so who am I to judge?"

[–]emoney_33 0 points1 point ago

It's not "intended" for anything so to speak, it was the evolutionarily beneficial way to reproduce in our environment, which came along with biological impulses. But that doesn't do anything to address the question of whether anyone should have sex for pleasure, or what to do after a resulting pregnancy. Pregnancy might be the known risk, but birthing a child does not have to be the risk.

[–]warmghosts 3 points4 points ago

This was taken in Olympia,WA where every Thursday these jerks show up with their dead baby trucks and I walk past them everyday on my way to work. Ugh.

[–]Abif 0 points1 point ago

Funny how the dull gray weather in Oly, and its oddly colored houses are so recognizable. Just walked by a teen boy arguing with one of the protesters, at least one of them had an excuse for arguing with the mental competency of a 13 year old.

[–]yokhai 52 points53 points ago

I HATE THIS FUCKING ARGUMENT.

The whole "you don't have a vagina you dont have an opinion" argument is total bullshit. We live in a collective society where our decisions affect each other. Women can have a say so about circumcision, men can have a say so about abortion.

Yay we sparked a discussion. I love this. Please keep your comments on topic though and stop trying to infer words/beliefs/scenarios from them. That's really annoying and hard to keep straight.

[–]baconcraft 17 points18 points ago

No. I'm a man, and I wouldn't let a women make decisions about my body, period. Conversely, I wouldn't presume to make decisions about a woman's body. I would hope she takes the issue of abortion very, very seriously, but at the end of the day it's her body.

[–]tehbishop 7 points8 points ago

This.

If people don't support abortion/choice then they don't have to have an abortion/let themselves choose. For the rest, nunya.

[–]MoreLogicalThanYou 1 point2 points ago

This issue is that the fetus is not really her body.* The Violinist is a common thought experiment in favor of choice but it avoids the issue of cause. If you create a scenario where another human is reliant on you, you do not have the right to kill that person unless your own life is in imminent danger.

*For now just assume that "personhood" begins at conception.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(thought_experiment)

[–]Luxray 1 point2 points ago

No one purposely becomes pregnant and then aborts it, and no human being has the right to use another human being's body to sustain themselves, no matter what caused the situation.

[–]baconcraft 3 points4 points ago

*For now just assume that "personhood" begins at conception.

No.

[–]MoreLogicalThanYou 1 point2 points ago

If you can't temporarily assume a position for a thought experiment you're not honestly considering all sides, which makes discussions about complex subjects impossible.

However, I'm happy to discuss this other aspect of the debate as well. When do you consider a set of human cells to become a person?

[–]baconcraft 1 point2 points ago

That's a good question. Not at conception, certainly. I've heard when the heart begins to beat suggested. Now we're in the murky waters of defining life and personhood, so it's hard to exactly when that begins, but a handful of cells a person is not.

[–]LashBack16 11 points12 points ago

This reminds me. I had a female high school teacher talking to some girls about how great circumcision is. Saying how much cleaner it is and shit.

[–]monkeedude1212 11 points12 points ago

I always laugh when I hear that.

Seriously, the penis is cleanest part of a man's body, as it attains 80% of focus during a shower.

[–]jceez 7 points8 points ago

If you can't keep your dick clean in this day & age, you don't deserve to have one.

[–]yokhai 1 point2 points ago

There is an old MTV/College Humor video about how much time a man spends washing his dick/playing with it in the shower. Funny stuff

[–]lnkatts 0 points1 point ago

Do you want to know why she told those students that? Because it is true. "The slow decline in infant male circumcision in the U.S. is likely to be accompanied by increasing healthcare costs driven by higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, researchers reported. A mathematical model suggests that if circumcision prevalence among adult males reaches European levels -- about 10% -- healthcare costs would rise by about $500 million a year, according to Aaron Tobian, MD, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University an colleagues. ..... Several randomized trials, Tobian and colleagues noted, have shown that, for men, circumcision reduces the risk of HIV, low-risk and high-risk HPV, and herpes simplex virus type 2. For women, the trials suggest that having a circumcised partner reduces the risk of HPV, bacterial vaginosis, and trichomoniasis." from Health Costs May Rise with Drop in Circumcisions found on MedPage Today and published August 20, 2012.

[–]karmamel 11 points12 points ago

Yes, because the tip of your dick is just like a child. so much responsibility, your foreskin. These two things are in no way comparable. You will not have to rearrange everything in your life to revolve around your foreskin. You will not go into debt to support your foreskin. Quit acting like its the same.

Get over your fucking foreskin envy.

edit: And if guys want to force their impregnated sexual partners to go through with their unwanted pregnancy, then they can pay for all of it. They can raise the child. They can deal with it. Plenty of women are forced into raising accidental children on their own, so it should be no problem for mens. Perhaps you could even arrange child support for your hypothetical offspring. Good luck in your cause.

[–]byte-smasher 0 points1 point ago

I'm venturing a guess that yokhai isn't circumcised.

[–]karmamel 7 points8 points ago

Really? It seems that most of the people on reddit who have rage over being circumcised are males who are circumcised. Actually, the only time I hear about the circumcision debate being a priority at all is here on reddit. Privileged hivemind complaining about things that only hurt them in principle. Most of them didn't realise their dicks were different until their teens. Doesn't seem like trauma to me. Then comparing it to the responsibility, the decision of raising a child, living your life dedicated to someone else? Ridiculous.

[–]Hitthelights 0 points1 point ago

We already have to pay for it

[–]Zenigata 6 points7 points ago

The whole "you don't have a vagina you dont have an opinion" argument is total bullshit.

Well I guess it's a good job she doesn't use that argument then. She didn't say "The gender that can get pregnant" but "The one being pregnant". Hers is an argument about an individual's right to control their own body and makes no claims about women but not men having the right to impose choices on women.

[–]byte-smasher 5 points6 points ago

Just to chime in, I'm circumcised and I love it.

Now tell me why I'm wrong.

[–]84960718640 25 points26 points ago

Now tell me why I'm wrong.

The argument isn't about whether being circumcised is right or wrong, it's about performing an irreversable operation on an infant with no decision making capacity for no modern practical reason other than tradition.

[–]sirbruce 6 points7 points ago

Firstly, since you don't have the experience of being uncircumcised, the fact that you love it isn't an informed endorsement; you don't have anything to compare it to.

Secondly, let us assume for a moment that men who are circumcised liked it beter than being uncircumcised. If this were so, then it stands to reason that the relatively few adult men who do get circumcised would be out advocating it on those grounds. And that this would convince other men to do it, and you would see widespread adoption of the practices as a result. Instead, we do NOT see this, and in fact the vast majority of adult men who choose circumcision do so for religious purposes.

Thirdly, while appealing to the crowd is fallacious reasoning, it should be noted that the vast majority of civilized countries do not do routine circumcision. While it's possible that you just lucked out and Lewis Sayre was a visionary who understood just how amazingly great circumcision is, it seems more likely that the US just got it wrong. Other US innovations see widespread adoption in other countries because of their positive benefits; one wonders why circumcision hasn't caught on anywhere else but South Korea.

Finally, regardless of whether or not you love it, there's no reason to subject infants to it. I know guys that love their nipple piercings and tattoos, but that's no reason to force every baby to get one.

[–]emoney_33 1 point2 points ago

but that's no reason to force every any baby to get one.

Fixed to be consistent, circumcision isn't forced on every baby. Great post otherwise.

[–]Drakonisch 3 points4 points ago

You're not wrong for enjoying your circumcision. Your parents were wrong for doing it without your consent.

[–]tgujay 8 points9 points ago

You're not, it's awesome.

[–]Residual_Entropy 3 points4 points ago

Oh boy, this won't cause any arguments.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]emoney_33 -1 points0 points ago

You are not wrong. The society that allowed you to be circumcised as an infant are wrong.

[–]jakjg 0 points1 point ago

That's really a bad comparison.

You're saying that I have a right in your circumcision?

[–]simjanes2k 47 points48 points ago

Both of these arguments are fucking stupid.

[–]ItWillBeMine 59 points60 points ago

I disagree. I experienced an unexpected pregnancy, and went from pro-life to pro-choice in a fucking heartbeat. Though I decided to keep my child and am very happy with the choice I made, I'm also glad I live in a country where I had the opportunity to carefully consider every option.

[–]jamesandlily_forever 12 points13 points ago

This is very interesting. I haven't met many who are willing to open up about this aspect of the discussion.

Only my mom... She couldn't get pregnant most of her life and when she finally did (at the age of 40), she made the decision that if someone was wrong with the baby (severely wrong) she would have to abort it... Just because both of my parents worked full time and they were older. My dad was a cop in a dangerous city and if someone happened to both of them, who would they burden to take care of the child? It was a difficult decision to contemplate. The baby was me, but I wouldn't have blamed my mom for making that decision. You don't know what people can go through until you are faced with it or the possibility of it. I wish this issue was more black and white, but it isn't.

Edit: If something was wrong with the baby. Not someone.

[–]rarisgod 7 points8 points ago

I wouldn't have blamed my mom for making that decision

Because you would've been dead.

EDIT: I don't disagree necessarily, I was just amused by the choice of words.

[–]jamesandlily_forever 2 points3 points ago

Yeah I thought of that afterwards but didn't feel like editing. I laughed when I reread it. :)

[–]superdillin 34 points35 points ago

You should read "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion". The person to the right has more behind her argument. Pro-lifers immediately tend to change their stance when it's THEM in that position, often reverting back to their original beliefs once their ordeal is done with.

[–]reckona 20 points21 points ago

50% of america identifies as Pro-Life. 92% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted after an optional but very recommended DNA test for pregnant women over 35. Even when you generously adjust for the people who would outright refuse the test, you are still talking about a lot of fucking hypocrites.

[–]another-generic-user 4 points5 points ago

Not arguing, but do you have a source for this? I'd like to use this statistic but I like to know where it came from before I sound like an idiot.

[–]reckona 0 points1 point ago

I have to go to class so I just scooped the first search results, so they may not be the best sources but those two statistics are seemingly very consistent.

Down Syndrome

Pro-Life

Edit: And just to be clear, when I said "generously adjust" that is not based off a specific statistic. Its just a conjecture based off the huge percentage gap.

[–]Bored_At_Night 2 points3 points ago

The first page is already 3 years old. If you show it can swing 15% in a year, 3-year old stats are worthless. Coincidentally, 2008 was also an election year where abortion was a major debating point. It was also an election that encouraged "you're either with us or with them" politics where people adopted opinions like wildfire.

The second page is completely without any scientific sources and just appears to be someone pandering for support. "Share this on your personal Facebook so we can raise support" sums it up.

[–]BadFlirter 2 points3 points ago

[–]theoneandonlyMrMars 0 points1 point ago

Lazyness makes me happy

[–]Arseloch 3 points4 points ago

They're both using the same argument so I don't know how you can state one has more behind their argument than the other. All this really means is that she's more likely to be personally affected, but this in itself says nothing about the legitimacy of the argument itself.

I'd also like to see the evidence you have that confirms most pro-lifers change their views when they're personally affected and then switch back when they're not. I'm pro-choice myself but I don't think these sorts of claims are very productive if they can't be substantiated and seem to exist more to portray the other side in a negative light rather than actually debating the underlying issues that lead people to different conclusions.

[–]Arseloch 0 points1 point ago

Thanks for the link. I'm not really surprised that most abortion recipients are religious considering the demographics in this country but it's not quite the same as the claim that was made.

[–]superdillin 2 points3 points ago

It's not so much an issue of being religious, but there's the Catholic vs, Protestant statistic (Catholics are more staunchly anti-birth control and anti-abortion than Protestants and are the ones more often obtaining abortions).

On top of that there's the 24% who believe outright that abortion is wrong but still opt to get one.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point ago

The link your page has for that study is broken.

Oh, likely anti-choice. That clears things up.

Identifying as a particular religion does not denote them as a practicioner of the religion. Plenty of people say "I'm totally Catholic" out of tradition/familiarity but don't subscribe to all the tenets.

[–]emperorpotatoketchup 1 point2 points ago

"The Only Immoral Abortion is one I can't imagine having"

[–]jamesandlily_forever 11 points12 points ago

Just a random thought: If people didn't a.) rape people b.) fight against birth control covered by health care c.) call girls who get pregnant "sluts" and "whores" while the guy has hardly any consequences like that--then I think they wouldn't have much of a point. But it seems that many people who are "pro life" do these things. Not all. Just the most outspoken ones

If they want to change things, they need to:

a.) emotionally and financially support young mothers to be and mothers b.) fight to change the social stigma of women who are pregnant out of wedlock (a little more difficult to do, but still...) c.) fight for FREE birth control for all women (they are deluding themselves if they think that they can just tell people to stay abstainent) d.) fight for sex education with a more limited discussion on abstinence in ALL schools. If kids want sex they will have sex, simple as that. They need educated in order to avoid pregnancy. e.) fight for something to reduce rape--whether it be increased police, free security escorts, technology to detect date rape drugs in alcohol (they have some sort of straws not that change color when something is detected in the drink) g.) educate women on how back ally abortions can result in death. This was the problem when abortion was illegal--the women that really wanted it got it anyway and got seriously sick or died because of it. (although I'm sure a lot of them knew the risk, which just speaks to their desperation) h.) emotionally support women who are willing to give their babies up for adoption i.) financially and emotionally support women with children with severe disabilities. Many people want abortions for this reason--they know they cannot handle what it entails and worry that if they and their partner dies, who would they place the burden of the severely disabled child on?

Those are just my thoughts.

[–]a9froggercooi 2 points3 points ago

I am "pro-life" but I also consider myself "pro-choice". I believe that people should be having sex responsibly, using protection in some way or another but in cases where the mother's life or the child's life would be seriously in danger I believe the mother, as an absolute last resort, has the right to terminate the pregnancy. For some women this means that even bein pregnant and giving the baby up for adoption is not an option because if they are pregnant and have to stop working or can't afford the necessary prenatal care, even adoption may not be a reasonable option. This however should be extremely discouraged! From a guys perspective, sex really isn't so bad when you have a condom on... just fucking wrap it up! Abortion should be allowed when it endangers life in one way or another but should not be a casual thing like oops pregnant again, how'd that happen? I think the answer to the pro-life pro-choice debate is that they are not mutually exclusive and that we need to find a nice ground in the middle. Besides according to futurama "There's no scienctific evidence that proves that intelligent life is good".

[–]jamesandlily_forever 2 points3 points ago

Edit: Sorry I kind of repeated the list. I think I added some new ones though. I didn't know I was replying to a comment that I already made a list for. I guess I am in a list mood today!

Thanks for replying. I completely see where you are coming from.

I do think it's important to remember that most women do not use abortion to "get rid of a problem." Many have VERY good reasons and go through hell making their decisions. And just because it may not be a "good" reason to us (social consequences for example) doesn't mean it isn't to them. I only wish pregnancy wasn't so a.) looked down upon if you are young and unmarried b.) emotionally and physically tolling c.) expensive before birth and after birth.

The middle ground thing sounds fantastic. And here is what I would love to see:

Free birth control for all women

Complete sex education in all schools (not just abstinence) starting at a young age

Fight against women being called "sluts" when they become pregnant. Men have sex too. They're just lucky they don't have physical consequences of it.

More support for young, unwed mothers--financial and emotional support during pregnancy and after birth, and if the mother is going to give the baby up for adoption.

More people who care for the MOTHERS as well. Everyone makes mistakes and contraception isn't 100% perfect. I don't want to hear preaching against abortion as someone gets into their expensive car and doesn't give two shits about the woman or her baby after its born.

Understanding for women who have been victims of rape and how THEY feel about carrying a reminder of their pain for 9 months. Rape is not a light subject and can mess a person up. It needs to be taken more seriously. I don't know if I could emotionally handle carrying a rape baby.

Understanding that if we make abortions illegal, the women who are desperate enough will still get them. Babies will still die...but the poor women will die as well when they get sliced up in a back ally because they can't face the wrath of their fathers, pressured by abusive boyfriends, don't have money to have a baby, would have to drop out of school, etc... If you are desperate enough and in an Emotional state, you will do anything.

Educational support for teenage and college aged unplanned mothers.

Increase in fathers being forced to pay child support and/or to help take care of the kid they made.

And understanding that mostly everyone has sex. We as humans love it. So to condemn someone for it, calling her a slut, etc.. While YOU (a general you, not you specifically) have sex with tons of woman and don't have to personally carry a child as a consequence of that is messed up. I am so sick of hearing this. Women like sex just as much as men. I wish I could 100% turn off my ability to carry a child, but I can't. There's always the risk. I am glad we live in an age where birth control is readily available, but let's keep birth control in a positive light. So many people have sex outside of marriage; even religious people. Birth control can prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus prevent abortions. Win win win, right? And as I said before, it should be free for all women.

To me, that's a great middle ground. Let's prevent women and girls from getting unwanted pregnancies in the first place and change the social stigma/support them if they do get pregnant. There would be a lot less abortions, I can tell you that right now.

And then for cases of rape and disease for the child, those should always be on the table. Always. They are just too complicated to not be and they are things that can't really be prevented.

[–]kobayashimaru13 1 point2 points ago

First of all, I love your username.

I completely agree. The problem with the pro-life, pro-choice debate as it relates to the political and legal arena is the majority of "pro-life" advocates are the religious right. They aren't exactly consistent in their positions. They are against comprehensive sex education because kids shouldn't be thinking about sex AT ALL and if they are taught about sex, they will most certainly go out and have all the pre-marital sex they want. They are against birth control because if there are no consequences (like pregnancy) then they will go out and have all the pre-marital sex they want. They are against welfare because poor people deserve to be poor and aren't doing anything to help themselves out of their situations and they are against any programs that might even be construed as socialism because socialism is bad (for some reason). They believe that no one should be having sex out of wedlock or for any reason other than procreation so none of that stuff is important anyway. They want to legislate morality. Sex is very very bad unless done with your marriage partner, in bed, with the lights off, missionary style and they want to make it impossible for anyone to do it any other way.

They aren't "pro-life." They are anti-choice.

(In case anyone is confused, the stuff about poor people was sarcasm.)

[–]emoney_33 1 point2 points ago

Abortion should be allowed when it endangers life in one way or another but should not be a casual thing like oops pregnant again, how'd that happen?

No one wants it to be casual. Birth control is by far the better option, which is why almost all pro-choice people advocate for strong sexual education as well. However, I disagree with you that it should be illegal to be done for any reason whatsoever. At least up until the 3rd trimester. After that, then the moral issues start to come into question, but before that a developing fetus doesn't yet have the hardware to experience the world.

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 2 points3 points ago

People say that (the card on the right), but then when you have someone like me who has been pregnant and is still pro-life, they still don't think your views are valid.

[–]mlba23 6 points7 points ago

There is a difference between your view being valid and your view speaking for all pregnant women.

[–]Propayne 2 points3 points ago

I'm pretty sure it's hard to have an opinion even when you're being killed, as I am nearly 100% certain that a fetus doesn't have opinions on anything.

[–]Gloveless_Lover 0 points1 point ago

On a related note, that lady has some miiighty fine birthing hips.

[–]okfornothing 2 points3 points ago

Its easy to be pro life when you are not the one who is going to pay child support and help raise the kid. And then the anti abortionist bitch and complain about welfare. What fucking idiots.

[–]ijustwanttotaco 16 points17 points ago

I would like to point out that atheism and being anti-abortion are not mutually exclusive at all. I am pro-life AND atheist, and I think that it is selfish to look at abortion as simply as a woman's right. Sure, a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body, but she is not choosing just for herself, she is choosing for someone else. At the very least she can put it up for adoption.

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 5 points6 points ago

My husband is atheist and also against most abortion. Christopher Hitchens was also against abortion. You're right, the two are not mutually exclusive, because there are other reasons besides religious ones for being against the termination of unborn human lives.

[–]emoney_33 0 points1 point ago

because there are other reasons besides religious ones for being against the termination of unborn human lives.

Not very good ones though, at least not for early term abortion.

The morality of protecting humans stems from empathy which stems from placing ourselves in another's shoes. A fetus poses a problem with this type of empathetic reasoning because it has none of the qualities that our empathy/morality evolved to understand, mainly having subjective experience. Imagining ourselves as a fetus is a non-starter since it does not even have the necessary physical neurology to be capable of thought, and to this point has never yet had that ability. It is further problematic because this new organism is attached to a woman with full subjective experiences who, without intervention, will go through permanent bodily changes, emotional and physical pain, along with health and life risks.

So if we are to respect logic so much as to demand evidence and reasoning for the existence of a god, why should be so apt to throw away our logic to favor our flawed empathetic reasoning that relies on imagining a fetus in the same way we imagine young born human beings?

[–]speaktodragons 12 points13 points ago

At the very least she can put it up for adoption.

At the very least she should be compensated for doing so.

But its still her choice. I don't get it, even with women that are pro life, when does anyone have a right to privacy? Its none of your damn business what goes on between a person, a doctor and the choices they make.

If we lived in nation that really supported families; preventable health care, health care for those that can't afford it, paid family leave, affordable child care, and even programs to prevent unplanned pregnancy, etc. How pro lifers are also Republicans and wish only to gut such programs? Gut high school sex ed and replace it with abstinence only.

So if a woman can't financially support a child she should just give it up?

[–]ijustwanttotaco 8 points9 points ago

I agree with you. I'm only pro-life in my own beliefs and actions. I do not believe that laws should be passed that limit abortions, I believe that abortions should be prevented with better access to contraceptives and comprehensive sex-ed. I do believe in expanding all of the programs you listed with state and federal funding. I do not believe in abstinence-only education and I am certainly not a Republican by any stretch of the imagination.

A reasonable woman who engages in consensual sex should know that her actions could possibly result in a baby, and if she takes that risk, knowing she can't financially support the child, than I personally believe that it is the moral choice to at least carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption.

[–]angelfoof 3 points4 points ago

I believe that abortions should be prevented

and

I do not believe that laws should be passed that limit abortions,

I'm sorry, doesn't that contradict itself? Or did you mean prevented as a result of better access to contraceptives and sex-ed?

[–]ijustwanttotaco 1 point2 points ago

Yeah I meant that they should be prevented not through legislation but through better access to contraceptives and sex-ed.

[–]taggedjc 8 points9 points ago

I do not believe that laws should be passed that limit abortions

Then you are not Pro-Life - not in the way these people are.

You have your own personal beliefs and will make your own choice if the situation ever presented itself to you, and will give your advice to others who seek it but will not force people to carry a baby through to term by law. That's Pro-Choice. Especially considering there are cases where a woman does use protection and still ends up pregnant... or who wants to have a baby, but then, just as she gets pregnant, her life situation changes and she wouldn't be able to raise it effectively afterwards. You admit there are circumstances where an abortion would be a reasonable course of action (for instance, non-consentual sex) and I assume you feel it would be reasonable for a woman to have an abortion if the pregnancy would carry significant risk of complications for her own health.

Pro-Lifers do not feel those things. They feel that abortions are strictly wrong no matter what, and want to put in legislation to make that the case.

Nobody wants an abortion. Pro-Choicers do not think that all women should just get abortions, and think nothing of it. Pro-Choicers just don't want it to be legislated to be illegal, especially since people will still get abortions illegally if they can't do the procedure legally, which can cause terrible consequences if done incorrectly. Pro-Lifers picked the name "Pro-Life" because it makes it seem like "Pro-Choice" meant "Anti-Life" --- but nobody wants to kill fetuses if they can avoid it. They just feel that there's reasonable cases where it would be the right course of action. On the other hand, "Pro-Choice" makes "Pro-Life" seem like "Anti-Choice" --- and that's exactly what they are, since they seek to legislate the choice away from the mothers and their doctors.

tl;dr : You are Pro-Choice. You would choose not to have an abortion (and at the least put the child up for adoption) but you do not want to forcibly restrict the choices of others even if you do not agree with their choice and think they should take a particular other course of action.

[–]jamesandlily_forever 0 points1 point ago

Very well said.

I actually had a girl tell me I was pro-abortion one time. It made me so mad...

All I could think of was Eric Cartman going up to pregnant women persuading them to abort their children so he could build a Shakey's pizza with the stem cells.

[–]taggedjc 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, it's silly.

I mean, who wants an abortion? Even if you don't want to have a baby that doesn't mean you'll enjoy having that tumor-like growth removed.

It's like claiming you would enjoy surgery or enjoy chemotherapy. No, you don't enjoy those medical procedures, but you enjoy the results more than if you didn't get them! Surgery can even be for cosmetic or quality-of-life purposes rather than being life saving, and so it's still a price to pay.

Plus, having any medical procedure is going to cost you money unless you have an appropriate healthcare insurance plan or whatnot. Hardly pleasant.

[–]jamesandlily_forever 0 points1 point ago

Agreed. I'm going to do anything I can do to help women NOT get an abortion, but ultimately it's their decision and not mine. And frankly, with the lack of support from Pro-lifers (generally), they really have no reason to be fighting so hard against it. What do they (generally) do to prevent pregnancy or support pregnant woman? Hardly anything in my perspective. Some even want birth control to not be covered under medical care. How will that help the problem?

Disclaimer: I am saying SOME. Not all. Just that's GENERALLY what I see from pro-lifers (mostly religious people and/or Republicans who are (again generally) against birth control, don't support mothers the way they should, and sometimes call women who sleep around like men "sluts." Pssh...what a double standard. For most, abstinence is a joke...even for some religious people).

[–]angelfoof 4 points5 points ago

This so much. Pro-life is not pro-life, it is anti-choice. Absolutely.

[–]ShockedDarkmike 0 points1 point ago

I was really close to being an abortion. The 4th child my parents had, they were a bit old and didn't have a lot of money. And I'm not pro-choice, because I don't believe that abortion is a choice that implies the one that chooses, but also the one inside her.

And I'm pro-life most of the time, but of course there are chases. If there is a risk for the mother, it's justified. Also in cases of rape. But some people just abort like someone who goes to Walmart, caralessly; and I know that it's just some cells. but it doesn't feel right to me once the fetus has a beting heart (that's my "line").

And another thing: fetuses are made after sex, and that includes a male. Nobody ever seems to remember the father. Just because it's attached to the mother, it doesn't mean it's exclusively hers. I would get angry if i were about to have a son (that would be half "me"), and my partner decided to kill/interrupt/abort it without my consent.

Edit: The problem is that there are not just two extremes. I don't want abortion to be illegal in all chases; I don't think "the -day-after" pill is a murder; but i don't think you should be able to get rid of an almost-born baby just because you don't feel like having it.

[–]taggedjc 6 points7 points ago

Pro-Choice does not mean that men get no say. However, the ultimate decision would lie with the pregnant woman, since she is the one who would have to carry it to term.

I agree with you that people should not use abortions as a form of birth control. But I'm not sure if anyone would, really. Getting an abortion is a pretty traumatic thing. Or, at least, it should be.

Pro-Choice isn't about not letting anyone have a voice and just letting the pregnant woman decide for herself in a vacuum.

But a woman also shouldn't be forced to carry a baby to term just because the father wants it. He wants it, she doesn't, and she gets more say because it's inside her. But if she has the choice, she might choose to keep the pregnancy and give the child away to the father after. Pro-Choice doesn't take that option away!

Edit: Also, Pro-Choice isn't about letting someone get an abortion on a whim. The mother still has to find a doctor and the doctor would go over all her options and try to help her make the best choice. If she is just being stupid, he can dissuade her or refuse to do the procedure so she would have to find another doctor or deal with it. But that would be at the doctor's discretion. Pro-Choice is not out to legally mandate that all doctors give abortions to anyone who so much as asks!

[–]speaktodragons 0 points1 point ago

I get it! :)

[–]curelight 9 points10 points ago

Right because as we all know, going through a pregnancy poses no risks and has no opportunity cost.

[–]HyperspaceHero 4 points5 points ago

Neither does dying, amirite?

[–]Tonytarium 4 points5 points ago

Stop posing that bullshit argument that implies that the mother is in some sort of heightened risk of dying during pregnancy. That is not a good argument for supporting abortion.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 5 points6 points ago

Because people spontaneously become pregnant from no action or decision of their own.

[–]MoreLogicalThanYou 1 point2 points ago

Nothing in life poses zero risks. If you skydive and take every possible precaution there is still a chance that the parachute rips or something goes wrong and you die. If a man chooses to have sex with a woman there is a possibility that she will get pregnant and he will be on the hook for child support. If a woman chooses to have sex she might get pregnant even if she is "being safe."

All actions have risks. If you choose to do something you should accept the consequences.

[–]CakeBandit 3 points4 points ago

You can pay for it then.

[–]ijustwanttotaco 4 points5 points ago

So money is worth more than a life?

[–]curelight 4 points5 points ago

Oh isn't that cute. We put value on life with every single person every single day.

In any case the real question is is a mother's life worth less than the foetus inside her.

[–]mbean12 5 points6 points ago

Yes. We do. And in general we hold it to be worth quite a bit. That's why we have prohibitions on murder and what not.

Your "real question" is also incorrect. While the mother's life is most certainly at risk during pregnancy it is not a sure fire death (I believe maternal mortality wobbles along at something like .01% in the developed world). Therefore weighing the life of the mother against the 'life' of the foetus (however you care to define life) is unfair. What needs to be weighed is the costs of carrying a child to term (both material, psychological and some valuation of the risk posed to the mother) versus the 'life' of the foetus.

However even if we use your question our society says "yes" (I know, I know - just hang on a second before you go off on me). There are laws in our society about something called duress. If you are parked outside of a bank and a bank robber jumps in your car and tells you to drive with a gun pointed at your head (and assuming you do as you're told) you are not guilty of aiding a criminal. You were placed under duress. This works for most crimes actually - if someone threatens you (and you can reasonably prove it) then you are innocent of the crime. There are exceptions to this rule, however, and a big one is murder. Under no circumstances can you justify the murder of a third person to save your own life.

Of course the status of a foetus and a mother is a bit more complicated than that, because you do have the right to self-defense and in some ways the foetus threatens the mother's life. However self-defense relies on a belief that your life is in imminent danger and that .01% maternal mortality rate suggests this is not the case. But it'd be an interesting tack to approach that discussion on.

The key here is the definition of life, and what is alive and what is not. Unfortunately this is not clear - not even the almighty science can state when life begins and ends because science also has difficulty defining what exactly "alive" is. Does it begin when metabolism begins? When a genetically distinct entity exists? When the zygote becomes fixed? When brain activity is present? When the foetus is viable without the mother? When a child is born?

Tough, philosophical question that is. Not something to be treated trivially

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]taggedjc 4 points5 points ago

Not always. And Pro-Lifers would want the mother to go through with the pregnancy even if it has complications and may end up killing her as a result.

Plus, there's a few other things to consider: the baby will either have to be raised by the mother or adopted, which puts economic stress up until the baby is old enough to start contributing back. If the mother is pressured to keep her baby, but is poor and cannot provide good parenting, the baby may end up being an overall burden to society instead of eventually paying back.

And while it may seem unjust to equate the life of a fetus to money, that money could have been spent to save others' lives or better others' lives, who in turn would give more back to society to make the world a better place to live in for everyone.

Just some thoughts.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 2 points3 points ago

Plus, there's a few other things to consider: the baby will either have to be raised by the mother or adopted, which puts economic stress up until the baby is old enough to start contributing back. If the mother is pressured to keep her baby, but is poor and cannot provide good parenting, the baby may end up being an overall burden to society instead of eventually paying back.

These arguments always strike me as ridiculous - NOBODY is guaranteed a good childhood, good health, or adequate parental income to meet their material needs. Babies born into "ideal" situations sometimes face illness, death, poverty, etc. later in childhood. Life is unpredictable. By this logic, everyone should just be aborted, because all of us could end up suffering, or growing up to be an asshat, or otherwise not remaining in an "ideal" situation.

Also, I take great offense to the implication that a poor person can't be as good at parenting as someone with money, or that a poor child probably won't ever contribute as much to society as someone who came from a "better" home. Screw everything about that.

[–]polecatt 2 points3 points ago

America actually has one of the worst childbirth mortality rates in the developed world.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point ago

Yes, a whole 25 per 100,000 births.

How about a little context to your statistic instead of being misleading.

[–]gak001 2 points3 points ago

Abortions are almost always safter than childbirth.

[–]CareyLS 4 points5 points ago

Definitely less painful & less expensive!

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Celarcade 0 points1 point ago

I don't understand this particular line of reasoning.

Depends on what you mean by "pro-life". I know a pro-life ob/gyn personally, who actually performs abortions when they make medical sense. He just chooses not to do any elective/cosmetic procedures. Out of all the doctors I know that I've had the abortion-conversation with, I don't know a single one who performs abortions because "the mother is more important". They usually do the procedure when it's common-sense to do so.

Who is "more important" simply isn't the issue, here.

[–]yokhai 0 points1 point ago

Depends on how much. Everyone has their price.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point ago

It's not about that.

With choice comes responsibility.

[–]emoney_33 0 points1 point ago

Why should society demand that a woman give her uterus and share her nutrients to develop a 1 month old fetus which does not have the hardware to be capable of any thought or experience for 8 months, go through permanent changes to her body and risk her health and life?

Remember we are talking about a fetus in the first trimester here, we'll completely forget about any abortion after that for the time being. What is special about that unique human organism that society should force a woman to develop and birth it?

[–]Major_Dick 7 points8 points ago

The term pro-life kind of annoys me. It should just be anti-abortion or anti-choice.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points ago

To be fair if you get to dictate the position of others, they get to do the same to you. They could call proponents of abortions pro-death or pro-murder, then.

[–]lasthop 0 points1 point ago

They do.

[–]Truth_Revealed 3 points4 points ago

Well there are women who've changed from pro-choice to pro-life because of being pregnant. The feeling of another human being growing inside is said to be extremely overwhelming and world-changing.

[–]CareyLS 7 points8 points ago

I was pro-choice before both of my pregnancies. The first was terminated by me and I became a stronger advocate for the right to choose. The second was a miscarriage (and a pregnancy I didn't really WANT but had accepted) and I was a wreck from it but I still stand by the fact that when a woman gets pregnant she has three choices. My choice still would be to terminate (and yes, I am on birth control and a strong advocate for low cost bc so there are less abortions... termination is a tough decision for most so I am pro-prevention not pro-abortion)

[–]jamenlang -1 points0 points ago

you sure sound like you're pro-prevention.

[–]CareyLS 2 points3 points ago

I know! What is up with that?! I mean, CRAZY! Right?

[–]aristideau 5 points6 points ago

You may be pregnant for 9 months, but you are dead for a long time.

[–]Eaglesun 6 points7 points ago

so is this an argument against killing that fetus that hasnt developed a brain yet?

Or are you referring to the thousands of pregnant women who are incapable of surviving childbirth?

[–]simjanes2k 1 point2 points ago

I still don't get this argument. What percentage of the population does this point work for? How many pregnancies exactly are ending in the death of the mother? Is it more than accidental asprin overdose, or is it really cancer level stuff?

I don't see how it's applicable at all except for those women. In rare exceptions such as that, shouldn't the law adopt it's own circumstantial allowance, rather than set the bar for everyone based on the whatever percentage?

[–]IsThereMOAR 2 points3 points ago

You can't have it both ways.

It's not justifiable to promote abortion if the foetus is putting the mother's life in danger if you legitimately believe the baby is living being imbued with all the rights a normal person has.

Legitimate question ;

If you have perception to see how this affects a mother in this circumstantial case, then why can't you see that the foetus can still fuck up the mom's life in ANY case? Why should the mother be forced to live with a decision that could ruin her life?

[–]psiko74 0 points1 point ago

I think women should have a choice and live with the consequences. Do I want to have protected or unprotected sex? Abortion should only be used if the birth is going to kill the mother or if there was a rape.

[–]Coutcha 1 point2 points ago

And if the condom fail?

[–]salakasto 17 points18 points ago

I do love how these people put unconscious, undeveloped fetuses before the rights of women. As if these unborn babies know what the fuck is happening.

[–]simjanes2k 50 points51 points ago

An actual already-born baby doesn't know what the fuck is going on either. And in truth, we value their lives so greatly it would be offensive if a parent DIDN'T give up their life to save their child.

Not really taking a side here, but this particular argument doesn't work.

[–]wskrs 2 points3 points ago

It might be offensive, but it's not required by law that the parent give up their life and body for their born child... except in the case of pregnant women (or, at least that's what the GOP platform is).

[–]pkonrad 5 points6 points ago

Depending on the trimester (Third I believe) they have a developed nervous system and can respond to stimulus. But by then if a woman hasn't gotten an abortion she probably won't end up getting one.

[–]Celarcade 7 points8 points ago

A fetus can do this much earlier than that. A baby can survive (with help) usually after 24 weeks or so (when the lungs are developed enough). The third trimester doesn't even start until 28 weeks.

I also know women who have had abortions at 25+ weeks. It's not nearly as likely, but it sure happens. Usually there's a medical reason behind it at that point.

[–]emoney_33 3 points4 points ago

A fetus has a 50% chance of survival at 24 weeks, so it's false when you say they can "usually" survive. Technological ability to provide an environment in which a fetus can survive is not the same thing has having fully developed nervous system. The neurological connections required for consciousness and emotion usually doesn't fully develop until late. Physical response to stimulus also does not equate to "feeling". A fetus likely cannot differentiate touch from pain until close to term.

[–]p3ngwin -1 points0 points ago

A fetus can do this much earlier than that. A baby can survive (with help) usually after 24 weeks or so (when the lungs are developed enough). The third trimester doesn't even start until 28 weeks.

"surviving" has nothing to do with the cognitive quality of "response" which is what he said : "they have a developed nervous system and can respond to stimulus."

[–]NoontideDemon 2 points3 points ago

Jellyfish have nerves and can respond to stimulus.

Without a developed pre-frontal cortex personhood as we know it (I know I exist) cannot exist. Even after it is there there is a lot of question as to when humans develop a sense of personhood.

Fetuses are human, but they are not people. Unrestricted access to safe abortions is both in everyone's best interest and a strong moral/ethical position to take.

[–]p3ngwin 0 points1 point ago

exactly, jellyfish have "A" nervous system, but not a "central" nervous system.

[–]uclaw44 20 points21 points ago

Umm, aren't the people that cannot protect themselves the ones most worthy of our protection?

[–]Cyl1d3 4 points5 points ago

implying a cluster of cells is "people"

[–]aristideau 8 points9 points ago

where is the line?

[–]Cyl1d3 0 points1 point ago

--------------- <- right here

[–]Deradius 12 points13 points ago

Can you establish unequivocally that it is not? There are no clear, objective criteria for personhood that everyone can agree upon. If there were, this would not be a discussion.

[–]vjmurphy 1 point2 points ago

Which is exactly why the question of personhood should not be mandated: I can make a great argument that a fetus is a parasite that can't live without the host. Maybe I should force everyone to abort all babies because of my belief.

[–]Deradius 0 points1 point ago

The problem is that, in the absence of certainty, we must entertain the possibility that permitting people to abort fetuses means permitting people to destroy people who have a right to live.

If this is the case, then the best position to occupy in the absence of certainty would be one in which the life of the embryo/fetus is preserved unless the mother's life is at risk. This would be the positions that preserves the maximum number of lives.

The counterargument, of course, is that this is an unfair intrusion into a woman's right to choose what to do with her body; where we then come back round to the question of personhood and weighing the rights of what is either a person or a clump of cells (depending on whom you ask) against the rights of the mother.

[–]Offensive_Username2 4 points5 points ago

Third trimester fetuses are well beyond a mere cluster of cells.

[–]Cyl1d3 0 points1 point ago

No objection to that. I'm not aware of details of the debate in the US. Could you clarify until which week an abortion is legal and until when "pro-choice" people would like abortions to be legal?

[–]Eaglesun 0 points1 point ago

honestly I dont consider something a person until it meets the defining characteristics of our race. Namely, the ability to reason. Forming memories and reflecting on the past is also a big part of it.

But I mean hey, by this logic, some adults don't even meet my criteria, and children dont meet it until the age of 3-4

[–]holyhellproteinbar 3 points4 points ago

So are you saying that people aren't just cells?

[–]Cyl1d3 9 points10 points ago

No they are god-jelly.

All people are clusters of cells, but not all clusters of cells are people.

[–]TheShadowFog 0 points1 point ago

>>>4chan

[–]IamBabcock 0 points1 point ago

Aren't you just a cluster of cells?

[–]gazork_chumble_spuzz 0 points1 point ago

Do you know how short of a time it's just a "cluster of cells"? People say this as if it applies to the entire pregnancy, but it doesn't.

[–]burntham77 1 point2 points ago

Clearly people think that "Look Who's Talking" is a real thing.

[–]samulin1 9 points10 points ago

And abortion is related to atheism in what way..?

[–]Keiichi81 3 points4 points ago

Because many in the pro-life camp are religious and many in the pro-choice camp are not? The same way that atheists are far more likely to be liberal than conservative, and therefor be interested in liberal issues.

Really, the whole "this isn't related to atheism" thing needs to go away. 98% of everything posted here could have the same thing said about it. If only things that were directly related to atheism were allowed to be posted, the entire subreddit would consist of "DAE not believe in gods?" and nothing else.

[–]PeterPorty 8 points9 points ago

the topic is slightly related to atheism, the picture is not related at all.

[–]adamdavid85 2 points3 points ago

This isn't a subreddit about atheism, it's a community of atheists. It's said every single solitary time anything not related to facebook confrontation posts or NDT/Dawkins/Hitchens quotes are posted here.

/r/onlyatheism and /r/trueatheism might be better suited to you if you don't like how this community chooses to focus itself on issues that aren't directly related to not believing in gods.

[–]Cyl1d3 1 point2 points ago

A distant one.

[–]gak001 2 points3 points ago

I'm going to go with the same way the same sex marriage is in that religious arguments are used to justify forcing a narrow set of beliefs on everyone else.

[–]OvoZ 2 points3 points ago

stupid thought, but I wonder if we grew babies in test tubes completely independent of a body then what would be the left's response to killing it

[–]sdbear 1 point2 points ago

I refuse to call the anti-choice crowd pro-life. They are probably the most anti-life group of people in the country.

[–]TheSmoosh 3 points4 points ago

How about anti-choice?

[–]sdbear 0 points1 point ago

Works for me.

[–]angelfoof 3 points4 points ago

I think people need to realise that there are already 7,000,000,000+ people on this planet. Many of whom are orphans who are waiting to be adopted. Do I see any pro-life people adopting orphans, or are they too busy hunting down abortion doctors?

By abortions being completely out-ruled as a choice, we're literally just increasing the amount of people coming on to this already full boat. I feel bad for our planet.

[–]simjanes2k 1 point2 points ago

I also don't understand this argument. It's really dodging the issue, which is that some people consider a fetus a human, and some do not.

If you ignore that and simply reduce it to an overpopulation problem, you allow the pro-life side to see you saying, "We have too many people. Let's legalize killing some."

It seems to me that the fetus = human thing should be resolved first.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]amandahottia 2 points3 points ago

"It's easy to be sexually irresponsible and sleep around when you can't get pregnant."

FTFY

Women are not the only ones who are sexually irresponsible. They are just the only ones who get blamed for anything or have to deal with any of the consequences. Sex is not wrong. It's human nature.

[–]IsThereMOAR 1 point2 points ago

"Hurr it's all those slutty women's fault for getting raped."

It's got nothing to do with promiscuity dickweed.

How about instead we change to arguments to whether or not men can use condoms during sex?

[–]revv4 0 points1 point ago

The majority of voters in America are women. If having a vagina made you automatically pro-abortion then the issue would be settled by women outnumbering men.

[–]emoney_33 2 points3 points ago

Most women are "not the one being pregnant" as the sign says...

[–]neonblue120 2 points3 points ago

You've been raped? Get an abortion. You can't carry or your life is at stake if you do? Get an abortion. Otherwise you've already made your "choice".

[–]Luxray 3 points4 points ago

If you're in favor of abortions for rape, then the only reason you want people not to have them when they haven't been raped and won't die in childbirth is because you want to punish them for having sex. Babies shouldn't be punishment.

[–]SilentJeans 3 points4 points ago

I'm all for letting anyone do whatever they want but geeze abortion is barbaric. I personally couldn't associate with someone who would do such a thing unless it was vital to their survival. I'm not religious or atheist, but a lot of girls do it because they aren't don't partying yet. That's not acceptable.

Keep it legal for those who are victims, and physically not able to give birth, and say too bad to the girls who just got drunk and fucked the football team. If you can handle birth (not saying I can, just speaking from observation) then give birth, and put it up for adoption. Let a family that can't give birth, adopt your child. Give it a chance.

Excuse grammar. On iPhone!

[–]DooDooBrownz -1 points0 points ago

let's keep em coming. how about: it's easy to give 0 fucks about any of this, when you're neither being killed nor pregnant.

[–]mx_js_reddit -1 points0 points ago

8/10

[–]BigFatPauly 0 points1 point ago

If my mother aborted me without my likeness, I would disown her.......or something like that.

[–]touchmahtots 1 point2 points ago

There is no common ground in the pro life / pro choice argument, so we are going to be getting no where while we argue two completely angles of the subject.

[–]zeke3elevn 1 point2 points ago

This is stupid

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point ago

More women are against abortion than men, so her poster isn't exactly accurate.

[–]RonaldFuckingPaul 0 points1 point ago

It's easy to repost when you're on reddit.

[–]Anaract -1 points0 points ago

This is it. The fact that this has 1300 karma, and how fucking stupid it is. I'm unsubscribing. 7 months of this shit and it's gotten worse every day. If this wasn't a default subreddit it might not be so full of shitty users. People upvote anything that is remotely anti-religion at all. there's no content any more. goodbye forever

[–]Mutt_Buncher 0 points1 point ago

I've seen a lot of comments discussing if a man or a woman has the right to tell the other gender how to treat there bodies. My opinion is this: no one but yourself should be Able to dictate what you do with your body. If you want an abortion, that's great. If you want to keep the child, that's great too. I'm sick of hearing the same old arguements about if life begins at conception. No one knows, but I do know its a personal choice and a freedom. The kind of personal freedom that the united states was founded on and has now strayed so far from. The US essentially became a country to evade taxes, but luckily the people that led the revolution and rebuilding cared more about freedom of the individual. Today the Europeans they cut ties with have more personal freedoms then Americans.

Tl:dr personal freedoms and do want you want.

Basically I believe that these people should both get the fuck off the street and do whatever they want as long as it doesnt impede on each others freedoms.

[–]brainfoam 1 point2 points ago

they both look fucking stupid standing outside in the cold holding signs

[–]Pinkramone 0 points1 point ago

Yes!!

[–]ChiTownGal 0 points1 point ago

At the end of the day, if a woman doesn't want to conceive, carry, and raise a child it is her choice and no law anyone passes nor any person who does not believe she should have that choice is going to stop her.

[–]lnkatts 1 point2 points ago

I'm pro-choice because if I was put in the situation of being pregnant by someone I did not want to have a kid with or any other number of circumstances, I know I would at least want to be able to seriously consider the outcome of the pregnancy. I am not going to morally condone the act of abortion, even if I was the person receiving one but, I believe that given the enormous impact the pregnancy, birth, and life of the child has on the mother and her life, she should have primary say in whether or not to go through with the pregnancy. Suggestions like adoption can (and IMO should) be made to the pregnant person but it should always come down to her choice in the matter. As a society, we need to affirm a person's right to choose abortion and then receive safe medical treatment to achieve the goal instead of forcing these people into a dangerous underground world of shame in which they may not receive a safe abortion but they still receive an abortion.

[–]vinylscratchp0n3 1 point2 points ago

I wish they'd actually research fetus' development during pregnancy. At the optimal time for abortion, (before the second trimester,) the fetus hasn't developed nerves capable of a sense of touch, nor are they capable of conscious thought. Hell, even infants aren't really capable of it either. Most of their points involve saying that it hurts the fetus, or that it kills a sentient life form, but I just disproved that by reading a book written for children.