(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Are you 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'? Whichever you are, why?

Pro-choice. At the stage you get abortions the baby isn't even formed. I do believe in it for woman who genuinely need it. ie. Rape etc I do not agree if people use it a lot for no reason other than they don't want it. There is no pacific time when it becomes a baby but if you believe at 3 weeks it's a person then wanking is genocide because it is not more than tissue at that time.

I agree with Dman about the wanking is genocide if abortion is before the baby is even formed. It depends what the reason is, if some idiot got a girl knocked up and they want an abortion they shouldn't get it but if someone gets raped and wants an abortion they should.

Depends really. If the mother is young and under the age of consent, then I think abortion is okay. I don't think it's okay if the mother finds out that the baby might be disabled and wants to get rid of it. Just because your child isn't "perfect" doesn't mean you can get rid of it. I think in the right circumstances abortion could and should be used.

Abortion should never be used for any case. If you cant take care of the baby why not seek adoption? If you have ever been to the abortion clinics you may think twice about your views

A babies heartbeat will start at about 4 weeks. So after a month, it's life. Even with that being said, a child is still a child no matter what. Life scientifically does begin at conception. I do not agree with abortions only in cases like rape, incest and life of the mother. A child is not merely "tissue". I am sick and tired of people using the masturbation card saying that it's the exact same thing. Calling a fetus a cluster of cells is the exact same thing as calling a human being a cluster of cells. I am a cluster of cells. So I should be allowed to kill regular born humans as well. The thing that really gets me is late term abortions.

Canada being such a "free" country and all, there are people who take some serious advantage of this. We have quite a few thousand people who use late term abortions (4+ months) and I never truly understood why they wait so long. Actually, abortion is something that I have really switched my mind on. I was actually a pro-choice person at one point, until I really came to grips with the truth about it. I never could be able to know that my girlfriend/wife's child was killed by our hands.

I've said this before, and I'll probably be saying it again. The morality of the people needs to change. Abortion shouldn't even be a big deal. Abortions should only be used in the health of the mother, rape and accidental incest. Children and young adults need to be focused on getting a good paying job, instead of which boy they need to hook up with in school. Back in the 60's sex was not even discussed between peers. Sure there were people who were together, but sexual intercourse at 16 was unheard of at those times. I am frankly disappointed with our biased education system and system of government encouraging people that it's okay because it's merely a "cluster of cells". Abortion is taking the easy and irresponsible way out. I do not agree with it, and I will have a tough time taking back my previous opinions of being pro-choice.

Why not? You're not just punishing the parents, you're also punishing the child-to-be.



What if the child is going to be born for want of a less offensive and more accurate term, a 'vegetable'? Where do you draw the line?



Adoption isn't viable. Most kids never get adopted, and that's with the majority of people getting abortions when in need of one. Under your proposal the problem would grow exponentially.



Debatable as to where exactly we all draw the 'line of life'.



It's a foetus, not a child. By definition.



So? Ants are living, yet none of us give a flying f*ck about them. Saying something is 'life' really means little to me morally.



A child may not be, a foetus on the other hand...



A foetus shares a vast lack of characteristics with sperm. A human being does not.



Let's see...



Ignoring the lack of clarity with "quite a few thousand people", this really isn't an issue for me. But let's just dot dot dot for now...



It was a foetus. That's literally all it was. Even if you waited eight months to abort it and it started to resemble a human being, for good reason nothing has the right to forcefully live off of another human being. Ignoring literal semantics it's parasitic in nature.



Let's grab you off of your high horse. The morality of people like yourself actually needs to change. You're advocating forcing women to be parasitically lived off of by a foetus for nine months, in an incredibly uncomfortable state leading up to child birth that I'm told is very, very painful. After that you want to force them to put their entire life and monetary stature on hold for the child. Barring that, I'm assuming you advocate adoption, which as I said above is simply not viable resulting in children being brought up miserable to likely move on to a life of crime or at the very least poverty.



Why should they be focused on working for their entire lives in a mindless nine to five? Sometimes I look at society and all I see is a sugarcoated form of slavery.



Because socially it wasn't to be discussed - that doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's also true of a lot of taboo subjects that are slowly becoming more the norm to be talked about socially. If you'd like some examples of what this kind of societal cloak cast upon certain things such as sexuality can cause then feel free to ask.

Children will discover their sexuality whether you like it or not - some at 21, some 18, some 16, some 13 and some even younger. That is a fact, and in knowing that it'd be incredibly irresponsible to not teach them about some basic matters such as protection, pregnancy, et cetera. Beyond that kids change, and not explaining to them that these changes are normal is despicable for reasons I really shouldn't need to point out.



You say easy and irresponsible, I just say easy. On the other hand I find attempting to legislate against abortion to be utterly abhorrent.

Scientifically, we know that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings. Leading embryology books confirm this. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.

The question you should be asking is "How does a mere change of location from inside the womb to outside the womb
change the essential nature of the unborn?”

I'm going to side with Dman to a certain point. I just can't understand the rationale of the pro-lifer agenda beside the fact that they are religious nutjobs. What I find sad about the pro-life stance is that they believe that just because the zygote is simply dividing early on, they think that is the same as life. It's really not, it's the same as a person being brain dead but the body physically living. There is no brain activity (or soul for you religious people) that can constitute any kind of higher living. These pro-lifers are hypocrites who won't bat an eye at the thought swatting a fly or blowing their load into a woman's (or man's if you swing that way) face. Like the newly growing fetus, the fly is a living being made of cells, the difference is no matter how simple the fly is, there is to some degree some kind of conscious being or thought. In the example of sperm, you're wasting sperm thus failing to reproduce and at the same time by failing to even attempt to reproduce you're killing millions of cells in the process. So if the pro-lifers were practicing what they were preached, any kind of non reproductive sexual activities would be sinful and genocide. But then again, religious people only cherry pick the good stuff from their various documents. That all being said, pro-choice or GTFO.

So? It still doesn't resemble a human being and it's still feeding off of the mother in a parasitic manner. As I've said, you're just arbitrarily drawing the line at that specific type of cell where you could easily draw it elsewhere.



I've already answered that above when I was quoting Millz.