# Men are you pro-choice or pro-life?



## ethericbody (Feb 22, 2016)

And why?


----------



## TenYears (Jan 15, 2010)

Ok, I ain't skeered....I'll go first. Def pro life. Because imo killing babies is wrong, and women shouldn't be allowed to murder their unborn children.

Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G


----------



## M0rbid (Jan 11, 2011)

Yep prolife


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

Pro choice, of course. When one is in a relationship, everything is shared. Therefore, her body becomes my body. And it is a fundamental human right that I should be able to choose what to do with my own body. So yes, I should be able to choose whether or not to have a child using my own body. Anything else would be slavery, pure and simple. :no


----------



## vsaxena (Apr 17, 2015)

Mainly pro-life, save for in cases of rape and whatnot. I used to be pro-choice when younger, but the sickeningly celebratory culture of on-demand abortion pushed me to the far-right. Sorry, but in my humble opinion, abortion should NEVER be used as an alternative to simply taking responsibility for one's actions. Wrap it up or pop a pill. It ain't that difficult ...


----------



## DC1346 (Feb 25, 2016)

I'm not a woman and will never have to go through child birth ... nor am I willing to impose my point of view upon someone else. 

I suppose if I had to choose, I'd go with pro choice ... the idea being that women shouldn't have anyone telling them what they may or may not do with their bodies.


----------



## Skeletra (Aug 30, 2012)




----------



## Mammagamma (Dec 9, 2015)

Pro choice because a person's well being is more important than a foetus' well-being (because foetuses don't care). People feel for foetuses because they expect from them, they think about how they'd be when they were born, but in reality they're still not, so it's really a wasted opportunity. It's not that people will stop using contraceptives to have better sex as if an abortion was a walk in the park.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

Pro-choice. I think a more accurate description for "pro-lifers" is "pro-birth".


----------



## That Random Guy (Jan 31, 2015)

*Bummer.*

I know I'm going to get some backlash on this, but I'm actually pro-choice given certain context.

I don't think it would be right to abort a born child, and given certain time, even a fetus would be too drastic in my mind, but I think after a minimum of time, and if the person in question doesn't have the ability to take care of the unborn child, then it makes more sense to me to just not have the baby.

So, let's say the mother is around 3-4 months along and she and her partner decide that they won't be able to keep the baby due to financial concerns. Well, if the life hasn't developed as far as it could, then why not just abort it? They know they can't do anything about it, and given that there's children in foster homes with no parents, it just makes sense.

To me, we should be following in suite with what China has done and create a policy of only allowing couples to have 2 children at most-at least until the population of those without parents goes down a certain amount. Those who break the law should just face repercussions that demonstrate having too many kids isn't rational. You can't just keep popping kids out and expect to be able to have them well brought up. I personally know of a couple who decided to have 10 children and while seemingly normal at first, I was able to pinpoint and realize certain children that hadn't gotten the best treatment they could have growing up in the environment they had.

This, of course, will never happen because people believe in the dumbest of things. Some people don't want children because of race, ethnicity, blood line, and other irrelevant qualities that hold no meaning in whether or not to take in a child that has no where to go.

I think what I detest the most in this world is that people feel like their entitled to do anything they want without reaping any repercussions. Every action you take has an effect of some sort on another entity. I think people who have more than 2-3 children are just asking for it to go wrong eventually. Raising a child is not easy and it takes up a lot of time not to mention a good income. This, of course, is only a specific perspective. Looking into the situation that some families face in third world countries, it's dim. I don't mean that in an offensive way, but because of the occupation most have, I feel they think that by having more children, they'll be able to have it easier when they're old. That will never happen if you don't raise them in a successful and opportunistic environment.

I can't go on because I've lost sight of where I was going with this.

I'm tired and I'm hungry. Sorry.

I'll either edit this later or forget about it and never come back to continue this.

Good day,

T.R.G.


----------



## McFly (Jul 15, 2014)

Pro choice, but the only exclusion I have is for third trimester abortion. I think the matter should be left entirely up to women and not old conservative men with their bibles in hand.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

AussiePea said:


> Pro-choice. *I think a more accurate description for "pro-lifers" is "pro-birth".*


Yeah I agree.



Skeletra said:


>


Yeah I'm definitely not winning most controversial thread of the day award this time lol.


----------



## Kevin001 (Jan 2, 2015)

Omg, I'm so torn. On one side I have to follow my "christian" side and say abortion is a horrible sin. But on the other side bringing in or carrying a baby that you don't want/can't "afford" is bad. I guess I'm more on the adoption side if the child isn't wanted. Carrying the child around for 9 months is the consequence for not being smart/safe.


----------



## andretti (Jan 2, 2016)

pro-choice. people arent really people until they are born. if it wasnt for abortions id easily have close to ten kids by now. So im cool with pro-choice.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

Seriously though, I have a very definite criterion. Abortion should be allowed up until the nervous system has developed to a point where it can feel pain. I don't know when that is exactly, but that's the criterion I would use. There are obviously two competing interests here: the right of the woman to control her body, and the right of the fetus. At some stage, the fetus passes from being an unconscious structure of cells that doesn't have rights, to being a sentient organism whose rights should be protected. The only issue is determining what that stage is. The point at which it can start feeling pain seems like the most logical transition point, as a rational ethical system should be based on the avoidance of pain.

So I disagree with pro-lifers who say that all abortion is wrong and that life begins at conception. What matters is whether the fetus is conscious and can experience pain, which it can't when it's just a zygote.

I also disagree with pro-choicers who say that abortion is okay all the way up to birth. Their argument is usually that since the fetus is completely dependent on the mother, the mother should have the right to abort it until it is born. This argument makes no sense though, because morality has nothing to do with how independent an organism is. Otherwise it should be perfectly okay to kill a baby after it's born, because it is still completely dependent on its parents for survival. A rational morality is, again, based on not inflicting pain, and that should be the criterion. (Obviously with exceptions for things like the life of the mother, etc.)


----------



## Mammagamma (Dec 9, 2015)

Ape in space said:


> Seriously though, I have a very definite criterion. Abortion should be allowed up until the nervous system has developed to a point where it can feel pain. I don't know when that is exactly, but that's the criterion I would use. There are obviously two competing interests here: the right of the woman to control her body, and the right of the fetus. At some stage, the fetus passes from being an unconscious structure of cells that doesn't have rights, to being a sentient organism whose rights should be protected. The only issue is determining what that stage is. The point at which it can start feeling pain seems like the most logical transition point, as a rational ethical system should be based on the avoidance of pain.


I guess all pro-choicers agree with that.


----------



## SplendidBob (May 28, 2014)

Fetus isn't conscious and is just a bundle of cells, so its not a problem. Pro choice.


----------



## Darktower776 (Aug 16, 2013)

Pro-choice because I think it should be up to the woman to decide if she wants to have the baby or not- at least in most situations.


----------



## Batcat (Nov 19, 2014)

I don't care. I hate babies that cry when I'm on the bus, I support tranquilising screaming toddlers.


----------



## Brad (Dec 27, 2011)

I'm fine with it until very late into the pregnancy


----------



## McFly (Jul 15, 2014)

Skeletra said:


>


So far this one hasn't been exciting. Think we'll have to wait until a female member starts a thread about her being pregnant.



Batcat said:


> I don't care. I hate babies that cry when I'm on the bus, I support tranquilising screaming toddlers.


People were smart in the old days when they let kids drink whiskey to reduce teething pain. Also put them to sleep.


----------



## Ominous Indeed (Sep 6, 2015)

Pro-choice in almost every circumstance, and by almost I mean pretty much every circumstance. I just may come over one where I think otherwise on the weird part of the internet or something, that is why I chose almost every circumstance.


----------



## AlwaysAlive (Feb 22, 2016)

pro choice


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

This is not a valid question to ask someone living in the US. Choice is against the law here.


----------



## JustThisGuy (Mar 24, 2012)

Pro-Choice in all cases. If you allow not in all cases and only select cases, then you're giving leverage to those who'd take away the right to one's body for what they perceive as right.

Abort: to stop before beginning. Lot of people forget to take that in when it comes to life. It's a pretty simple notion.


----------



## TenYears (Jan 15, 2010)

Funny how if a pregnant woman gets shot and fatally wounded, the shooter isn't charged with one count of murder. They're charged with two counts of murder. Hmmmmm.....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/us/pennsylvania-shooting/

Edit: I'm pretty outspoken about my views on this, because imo the baby's that are butchered, murdered don't have a voice.


----------



## Wings of Amnesty (Aug 5, 2015)

I lean towards the 'extreme' end of pro-choice, because I believe in having the right to decide what happens to your own body. Legally I believe there should be no restriction at all and it should be covered under health insurance and medicaid. From a personal standpoint I may find some things somewhat disturbing, but I wouldn't voice that and I don't believe that anyone should care what I think about it if my opinion isn't asked for.


----------



## SD92 (Nov 9, 2013)

Well, it's up the woman, you can't expect her to go through with it all if she doesn't want to. I wouldnt want something growing inside me.


----------



## Rodrigo R (Aug 19, 2015)

Pro-choice in every case, because overpopulation gonna kill human kind!!!


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

The laws in Aus (which vary by state but are generally the same) are pretty good imo. Up to 22 weeks by request, however 98% of abortions occur before 14 weeks of pregnancy and can be performed at any time if there is serious risk to the health of the mother to continue the pregnancy (the fact so many pro-birthers still believe pregnancy should continue even when the mother is at high risk dumbfounds me) or in cases of rape. The choice to abort if severe defects are detected should also be legal imo.

That being said, they estimate that 80,000 abortions take place per year here, which is so much higher than I would have expected. I can't help but feel that the amount could be reduced with improved education from a younger age, prevention is always better than cure.

The introduction of the male contraceptive will hopefully help as well.


----------



## Neal (Jan 14, 2012)

Rodrigo R said:


> Pro-choice in every case, because overpopulation gonna kill human kind!!!


This right here. People need to do less reproducing and get more involved in physics. We have a massive shortage of physicists in the world and this should embarrass us all.


----------



## ethericbody (Feb 22, 2016)

Neal said:


> This right here. People need to do less reproducing and get more involved in physics. We have a massive shortage of physicists in the world and this should embarrass us all.


How is physics relevant to anything? And no, the world is not overpopulated. The problem is not overpopulation, it is over consumption. We have countries like America where one third of the population is either overweight or obese. We have plenty of resources to sustain our current population and more if we would stop being fearful. People have been complaining and worrying about overpopulation since the 1800s when the population was a small fraction of what it is today. We have enough scientific knowledge and power to allow us to sustain double the population today. While physicists are important, it is important to have people of all professions contributing to society for a society to function. Your points are largely irrelevant and have absolutely no bearing on whether abortion is morally right or not, or even if it is beneficial in anyway or not.


----------



## kageri (Oct 2, 2014)

Sometimes even the best birth control fails and with our lack of being honest with teenagers they have an even higher chance of it failing even when they are trying to be responsible. I know someone that got pregnant 3 times on birth control pills before graduating highschool. For the good of the parent and the good of the child should they be forced to give birth? The child is either going to be poorly cared for or adopted out and even before it's born what if the mother can't maintain a healthy diet, live without medications that have negative impacts, and stop addictions like smoking? Should you setup a child to fail and have a hard life and the mother to go through physical and emotional pain just to create that life that has a high potential of misery? I don't think that benefits anyone or any society. 

I can't stop my pills, my genetics are crap, I do not want the health issues and risks of going through pregnancy, much less the discomfort and pain, and I can't take care of it once it's born. Now my husband has a vasectomy but I started out with the typical clueless first relationships. A few mistakes happened that could have led to pregnancy with condom use before and between taking hormonal contraceptive. Luckily hormonal contraceptive was very effective for me without the side effects. Which is another thing. There are tons of women who can't take hormonal birth control. It causes horrible side effects and even those that can take them often have to go through 3+ to find one that's tolerable. Anyone who has tried to find effective, low side effect anxiety or depression meds should understand that struggle. Then, even a vasectomy has a small chance of failure. Take away legal abortion and I will go use illegal, less safe abortion rather than go through pregnancy, birth, and the child that would be created.


----------



## McFly (Jul 15, 2014)

kageri said:


> Sometimes even the best birth control fails and with our lack of being honest with teenagers they have an even higher chance of it failing even when they are trying to be responsible. I know someone that got pregnant 3 times on birth control pills before graduating highschool. For the good of the parent and the good of the child should they be forced to give birth? The child is either going to be poorly cared for or adopted out and even before it's born what if the mother can't maintain a healthy diet, live without medications that have negative impacts, and stop addictions like smoking? Should you setup a child to fail and have a hard life and the mother to go through physical and emotional pain just to create that life that has a high potential of misery? I don't think that benefits anyone or any society.
> 
> I can't stop my pills, my genetics are crap, I do not want the health issues and risks of going through pregnancy, much less the discomfort and pain, and I can't take care of it once it's born. Now my husband has a vasectomy but I started out with the typical clueless first relationships. A few mistakes happened that could have led to pregnancy with condom use before and between taking hormonal contraceptive. Luckily hormonal contraceptive was very effective for me without the side effects. Which is another thing. There are tons of women who can't take hormonal birth control. It causes horrible side effects and even those that can take them often have to go through 3+ to find one that's tolerable. Anyone who has tried to find effective, low side effect anxiety or depression meds should understand that struggle. Then, even a vasectomy has a small chance of failure. Take away legal abortion and I will go use illegal, less safe abortion rather than go through pregnancy, birth, and the child that would be created.


Agree with you there. The only 100% effective birth control methods are not having sex, or having the testicles and ovaries removed. And that's ridiculous to expect someone not to have sex or go through a pregnancy just because abortions offend others.

I've read from women that were on the pill AND using condoms and they still got pregnant because with all those years of regular sex with their partner one managed to sneak in and get her knocked up. Even some women that had their tubes tied and burned, still found themselves pregnant.


----------



## Owl Eyes (May 23, 2011)

Not all pro choice people think this way. Abortion is fine until the fetus becomes viable to live outside the womb/sentient. But that doesn't mean it should be financially supported by the government, which I don't see happening anytime soon anyways.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

No, there is over-population. Each human needs an acre or so of land to grow enough food to survive at a minimum. Most people use more than that. And the farm land has to come from somewhere.

The rivers are polluted, the fish are wiped out from over fishing in many places. We are burning through the oil and gas reserves as fast as possible. And people throw away lots of food and garbage. Canada and Australia might not be overpopulated, but parts of the US, China, India, the big cities in the Middle East, and parts of Africa are. And the money to raise the kids has to come from somewhere, and if the parents don't have much, spreading it around to more kids isn't the best idea.

And yes, once male birth control comes out, there will be a sharp decrease in the number of abortions. The STD rate will shoot up, but the birth rate in general will fall pretty fast in the modern Western countries. I think the people in charge are afraid that Muslims and poor people won't use it and will out breed everyone though.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

If in doubt, abort, abort, abort.


----------



## Cronos (Mar 31, 2013)

For most intents and purposes I'm pro-choice. Birth control/contraceptives can crap out. If a couple took proper precautions but the woman still ended up pregnant, she should _at least_ have the option to have an abortion. The couple followed the rules but happened to get screwed over by that small chance of it all failing. In that case it's absolutely bull if the woman was forced to follow through with the pregnancy.


----------



## BJam (May 6, 2014)

I think people should be more careful about getting pregnant / getting someone else pregnant. With all the different choices for birth control, there aren't a lot of excuses to _accidentally_ get pregnant. It still happens sometimes, and I would rather someone have an abortion than have a child whom they severely neglected or mistreated.

I dislike the lack of responsibility, and the cavalier attitude that some people have towards abortion. There are _so_ many better options out there than having one; it should be the last resort. If you made a mistake, and need to have one, fair enough, but unless it was one of those very exceptional circumstances, you should feel some of the weight of that decision. It shouldn't just be okay.

It applies to guys as well. If I wasn't willing to accept the responsibility of being a father, I wouldn't have sex with someone without some form of birth control. Lo and behold, I'm 30 years old and haven't impregnated anyone yet. It isn't rocket science.


----------



## ScorchedEarth (Jul 12, 2014)

Simple: The person who'd be saddled for decades with taking care of the offspring gets to choose whether to go through with it. Bystanders can **** right off unless they'll foot the bills. How is this not common sense? Abortion is a no-brainer from a utilitarian standpoint. Even if it causes momentary pain to the fetus, you know what'd end up causing much more pain? Living a miserable life because your parents didn't plan for you or want you.


----------



## Pips (Feb 19, 2016)

*I'm pro-choice. *



BJam said:


> *I would rather someone have an abortion than have a child whom they severely neglected or mistreated. *
> 
> I dislike the lack of responsibility, and the cavalier attitude that some people have towards abortion.
> 
> It applies to guys as well. If I wasn't willing to accept the responsibility of being a father, I wouldn't have sex with someone without some form of birth control.


All of this, I agree.



ScorchedEarth said:


> Living a miserable life because your parents didn't plan for you or want you.


Bringing a child into the world and they eventually find out that they are a mistake and be mistreated by his/her parent(s), will probably lead them down a rather dark and twisted path. And we need LESS of that.


----------



## Neal (Jan 14, 2012)

ethericbody said:


> How is physics relevant to anything? And no, the world is not overpopulated. The problem is not overpopulation, it is over consumption. We have countries like America where one third of the population is either overweight or obese. We have plenty of resources to sustain our current population and more if we would stop being fearful. People have been complaining and worrying about overpopulation since the 1800s when the population was a small fraction of what it is today. We have enough scientific knowledge and power to allow us to sustain double the population today. While physicists are important, it is important to have people of all professions contributing to society for a society to function. Your points are largely irrelevant and have absolutely no bearing on whether abortion is morally right or not, or even if it is beneficial in anyway or not.


I was actually just joking. Let this be a lesson for you. If someone says something that is completely insane/idiotic, you're wasting a crap ton of time bothering to try and pull apart their argument. Especially if this is on the internet. Thanks for noticing me though.


----------



## Xenos (Jun 24, 2012)

Militantly pro-choice.

The idea that this or any government would make it policy that every woman who finds herself pregnant should be forced to carry it to term and give birth against her will just strikes me as insane. The real way to reduce abortion is with good sex education, contraception and expanded access to healthcare.


----------



## LemonBones (Sep 25, 2015)

It's a difficult one. I'd say ultimately pro-life, but if the circumstances are horrible then maybe abortion is the best idea. It's something that has to be decided very carefully. To *carelessly* bring another being onto earth is a really terrible and cruel act in my opinion, yet abortions happen everyday.


----------



## Skeletra (Aug 30, 2012)

McFly said:


> So far this one hasn't been exciting. Think we'll have to wait until a female member starts a thread about her being pregnant.


Yeah, I was really expecting more... Like a small war or something.


----------



## DistraughtOwl (Mar 1, 2014)

There should be a "Pro-choice in most situations." option.


----------



## copper (Nov 10, 2003)

Pro-choice. If it was outlawed again woman would go back getting back alley abortions that are dangerous.


----------



## SA go0n (Mar 5, 2014)

I wish me mumz aborted me.


----------



## TenYears (Jan 15, 2010)

copper said:


> Pro-choice. If it was outlawed again woman would go back getting back alley abortions that are dangerous.


What that means to me is, if you cut out all the bs here....

is that...

women would go back to butchering their babies in back alleys. Instead of imo having them butchered at Planned Parenthood.

I guess for some people it just boils down to whatever makes it easier for you to swallow imo. I mean, if I say "terminate pregnancy" rather than "murdering your baby"....if that makes it easier on your conscience then I guess some people are OK with that, and will probably thank me for putting it that way. I mean. We don't want to call it for what it really is. Now. Do we?

Smh.


----------



## Ape in space (May 31, 2010)

Skeletra said:


> Yeah, I was really expecting more... Like a small war or something.


I was hoping there'd be some outrage with my first comment, but there wasn't. It probably went over everyone's head. Either that, or everyone just hates me. :cry


----------



## Humesday (Mar 6, 2016)

Legal or illegal, roughly the same amount of women will get abortions, which was the case before and after Roe v Wade. You can either provide these women with the choice to do it correctly or let them risk their safety pointlessly. I suppose you could view it as just punishment, but I just view it as cruelty.


----------



## regimes (Aug 24, 2011)

andretti said:


> pro-choice. people arent really people until they are born. *if it wasnt for abortions id easily have close to ten kids by now.* So im cool with pro-choice.


least judgmental reply here so far, A+


----------



## gnomealone (Feb 3, 2013)

I'm for better options. But until these are available I'm pro-choice. it
would be nice if half the efforts of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" groups could go into helping to ensure kids are raised in loving, safe and productive environments.
And I hate the nomenclature. the options are misery or inflicted prolonged misery, in my opinion but wtf do I know.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Pro-life.
I will NOT marry a woman who thinks otherwise.

I am too old to play that. I want children and can control myself. Thanks.


----------



## RelinquishedHell (Apr 10, 2012)

Prochoice. No one should be forced to raise a child they don't have the time for or can't afford. When children are raised in stable environments, it creates a better society.

Religious loons shouldn't have any say in policy about this. They are crazy and are never right about anything.


----------



## Aloof Sensualist (Feb 8, 2016)

Pro-choice for the first trimester. 3 months should be long enough to figure out that you're pregnant and make that choice.

After that pretty much only in cases of rape. I think that's a fair balance.


----------



## Kanova (Dec 17, 2012)

I'm totally for abortion. Who cares? The thing isn't even alive. Turn it into scrambled eggs and suck it out with a vacuum. ****, even heat up a coat hanger and stick it up there. No one should be forced to have a kid if they don't want.


----------



## apx24 (Jan 31, 2012)

Pro choice. Yes most of the time women fall pregnant they would have known it was a possibility, but generally if there is something unwanted in your body you get rid of it

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


----------



## Hayman (Dec 27, 2014)

I honestly have no idea. If push come to shove, I'd have to say pro-life over pro-choice (just). Allow me to explain.

Unless the woman has been raped or there's serious medical concerns for her, in which case she should have the final say no matter what due to the circumstances, I think the man should have an equal say in the matter. Why not? After all, it's 50% his child. That's just a basic fact and one that's _always_ overlooked.

I know this can lead to bitter debate as it's a 'thorny' topic, so I'm going to leave it there. You can either agree or disagree with me. That's entirely up to you and I won't think differently of you either way.


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Pro choice.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Wings of Amnesty (Aug 5, 2015)

How is pregnancy itself not a serious medical concern :con


----------



## Torkani (Nov 9, 2012)

Pro choice. Forcing people to keep babies is only going to cause problems. (e.g. Children being raised in bad neighborhoods, teens turning to crime, abusive relationships, backstreet abortions ect...)


----------



## Yer Blues (Jul 31, 2013)

Pro choice. 

Not a fan of using abortion as birth control.


----------



## jonjagger (Dec 26, 2015)

Pro-choice.


----------

