Need pro abortion arguments

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:12 pm

For school, I need to bring in a strong pro abortion argument, any ideas? These cannot be hypothetical situations, they must be an argument for abortion.

As a side note, I am pro life.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:26 pm

12 Girl is raped. Having a girl that young carry a child to term is ludicrus.

Couple have unprotected sex. Woman gets pregnant. Keeping child would mean giving up their dreams possibly forever to give the child a semi decent life. Obortion would allow the couple to finish school and get a better life for both of them and any future children.

SSX-Thunderbird · Post by **SSX-Thunderbird** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:53 pm

cdn_merlin wrote:Couple have unprotected sex. Woman gets pregnant. Keeping child would mean giving up their dreams possibly forever to give the child a semi decent life. Obortion would allow the couple to finish school and get a better life for both of them and any future children.

That one is really easy to shoot down, but the first one is a decent argument.

I can't think of any strong arguments myself at the moment.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Apr 01, 2004 11:11 pm

The supreme court says it's a womans right to privacy.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 7:00 am

Thunderbird, why is it easily arguable? I for one could of been in that situation. I would of done it.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 8:04 am

Merlin makes a valid point

A young couple are irresponsible and make the mistake of having unprotected sex and the girl gets pregnant. The child would essentially have to pay for it's parents' mistake because the child would be unwanted and grow up in a family that did not want or care for it. I'd rather not exist than grow up in a situation like that.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 8:17 am

Severe abnormalities. Extreme retardation.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 8:48 am

I tend it to believe that it also has alot to do with freedom. Women don't want the government telling them what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

They draw offence to what they do with their own bodies becomming a government issue.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:08 am

Flabby Chick wrote:Severe abnormalities. Extreme retardation.

This, Merlin's rape arugment,and the possible fatality of carring the fetus to term are the only points that won't get shot down with a salvo from the "why not give the baby up for adoption" camp; even then, the raped girl argument is iffy, cause one can also say the fetus shouldn't suffer for the crimes of its father as well.

the only really strong argument is Goob's.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:10 am

Too many humans on the planet.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 10:18 am

Goob, isn't making prostitution illegal *telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies*?

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:13 pm

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:37 pm

Here's a few arguments I came up with off the top o' my head:

- You don't have to buy birthday presents.
- It beats sewing your thighs together.
- You can't party when you're pregnant.
- You don't have to buy new clothes.
- Birth hurts and stuff.
- Babies are "ucky".
- Americans are already too overweight.
- If you were me, would you reproduce?
- You're pretty sure your fetus has 666 on its scalp.
- You have a body, you don't need another one.

Santrix · Post by **Santrix** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:30 pm

Why do you even need to argue for it? It's a natural right.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:45 pm

Heh, run, Goob, run! -Bash

You made no argument, you just asked me if a fact was true, and why did you delete that post?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Fri Apr 02, 2004 5:21 pm

Santrix wrote:Why do you even need to argue for it? It's a natural right.

You might be surprised that 50% of the country disagrees with you on that. Meaning you (and anyone else who takes a side on this issue) are at least half-wrong.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 11:04 am

What's wrong is 50% telling the other 50% what they can and cannot do. It's none of the other 50%'s business. Period.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 11:25 am

Less than 50% of america decided that murder was against the law and we all seem to agree on that...

The problem is, many people see abortion as murder and instead of having a court define what is, and isn't murder, they decided to dodge the question and disguise it as a matter of personal privacy...so what's to keep me from murdering someone and claiming personal privacy?

The definition of 'what is life' needs to be outlined if the law is to be able to protect it.
They just dodged it like politicians instead of ruling like judges.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 12:15 pm

Murder is killing a seperate entity, violating their civil rights. Murder can also be justified, albiet not often.
While it's still in her body, it's her tissue, her flesh, her decision.

Animals kill their offspring all the time, for many of the same reasons women get abortions. We're no better than animals. We just learned some table manners.

America is too fond of blanket laws restricting the many because of the stupidity of the few. It's quite pathetic.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 12:55 pm

testi, can you quote statsitics on hyena abortions?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:00 pm

Testiculese wrote:Murder is killing a seperate entity,...

So why the ruling on privacy? Why not rule on what is a seperate entity?
I'm not looking to debate abortion just wanted to point out that the only real argument for abortion is the one the supreme court made, and it isn't a very clear argument.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:12 pm

Well obviously abortion should be allowed because if it was disallowed it would start a slippery slope down into banning other sexual products, like the morning after pill, contraceptives, and toys.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:07 pm

No, but there was a documentary on lions and how they kill their offspring, and why (food shortage, new male, etc). A little Google goes a long way if you want numbers. I just know it happens, and is frequent. Even with domestic animals.

Will: I've not read the Supreme Court's argument.

If ccb wants a valid argument for abortion, go into most any city, and check out the people. Ghettos, gangs, and 15yo's with 5 kids. If anything, this country needs more abortions, not less.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:07 pm

/me appreciates Tetrads sense of sarcastic humor

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:11 pm

i'm not here to weigh in for or against abortion. however...

murder is killing a living person, i.e. a living human being. under the current law, the unborn is not a person. whichever side you support, it is important to take this into consideration in your argument. this is not a matter of debate.

the fetus is alive. no one debates this. according to the statute, the fetus is not a person.

so the questions then become, should the fetus be given rights (under the law) despite lacking personhood? and/or should the fetus be recognized as a person and given rights accordingly?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:15 pm

Palzon, is this the new law Bush signed regarding doing harm to a fetus or Roe vs. Wade you're talking about?

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:32 pm

Essentially, roe v wade. my understanding is that the Bush law applies only to a special case, where the victim is pregnant.

remember, there are many other existing statutes that pertain to the unborn that are not related to the victim being pregnant or even the abortion issue. it will be interesting to see how the bush law withstands challenges given other laws.

again, i'm not saying the unborn should or shouldn't have rights. but it doesn't make a lot of sense to say they have rights in one instance and not another. it would make more sense to give them rights across the board, or to simply treat a murder victim's pregnancy as a mitigating circumstance that calls for mandatory sentencing.

i could say a lot more about this but it depends on the interest here.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:35 am

heres a reason for ya ccb:

an abortion clinic is the only place where you can go in, get drugged up, and come out not pregnant.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 9:44 am

Some pro-lifers use terrorism to further their cause.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:52 pm

Genghis wrote:Some pro-lifers use terrorism to further their cause.

Well, if we could abort them, retroactively, then you would have at least one more argument for abortion

Santrix · Post by **Santrix** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:17 pm

Genghis wrote:Some pro-lifers use terrorism to further their cause.

Hmm, well they should make some sort of genetic test to tell weather a fetus is going to grow up to be a pro-lifer or not. If it tests positive as a pro-lifer, then abort it. That would save on the terrorism and controversy.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:08 pm

It's a good thing this thread is so serious, huh?

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:21 pm

Heh. I liked it better when the idiots just lurked.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:28 pm

...you all are somehow better because you cling to the conceit that you're more *enlightened* than the rest of us when really all it comes down to is you seem to judge intelligence solely by how closely someone else agrees with you. -Bash

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:30 pm

As I was saying, I liked it better when the idiots just lurked.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:37 pm

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 11:48 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Genghis wrote:Some pro-lifers use terrorism to further their cause.
Well, if we could abort them, retroactively, then you would have at least one more argument for abortion

Heh. We do abort them. It's called the death penalty.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:33 am

Testiculese wrote:No, but there was a documentary on lions and how they kill their offspring, and why (food shortage, new male, etc).

Cept that isn't abortion.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:52 am

my little "joke" was something that a doctor actually said to a friend of mine right before he put her under. i remember her telling me about it as i carried her to the car. he was a pro lifer.

go figure.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Apr 09, 2004 10:28 am

Just because animals don't have wire hangers doesn't change anything.