Pro-life or pro-choice?

I think there is a very easy question that should be answered by the pro-choice brigade. If the life of the child is paramount, are you willing to take on an unwanted baby and give it the "blessed" life you feel it deserves?

If the answer is no, then with all respect, I feel your morals are misplaced. It is easy to stand up for ideals when they don't affect you personally.

If yes, then fair dos. I await you throwing your hat into the ring and adopting.

A.) abortion and rape are tricky conversations sometimes. both sides (for/against abortion) come from sympathetic intentions and positions. at the forefront, pro-life argument pushes respect for both victims. also desire to refrain from furthering acts of violence against the woman. for any whom have suffered in this way, please know there is support out there. rely on family but also rely on professional help to navigate the grief. groups exist that bring victims together to give a safe place to speak. all changing from victim to survivor.

There have been many women (rape) survivors to speak out against abortion. to explain how their actions brought greater healing. there are also women who choose abortion and explain their experiences to being worst than rape or a triggering moment to relive it. I am open to learning more in this topic from both sides on the discussion. there have been many to keep their pregnancy as well as child, coming forth "stronger" (in their words). if anyone knows an article or survey on the topic that shares the perspective from women who suffered rape and remained pregnant, please share. I am open on reading such info.

here is an article from a feminist Serrin M. Foster on the topic. https://www.feministsforlife.org/what-about-rape/
I'd say following could be sensitive.

However, important to note that many countries and anti-abortion groups would allow acceptation to abortion or other operations that may result in unborn death for cases of rape and medical reasons.

B) in regards to medical. may you or anyone please list or provide example to medical reasons? many times people say "danger to the mother," but provide examples that abortion is not necessary. in some cases abortion can not be used at all, like still births. instead, even abortion technicians have provided insight to medical situations where other options are more viable for both woman and child.

important to note that in many medical examples, the child is wanted - not unwanted.

1. there may be instances where people choose to kill other humans, some even deemed necessary. however, still not proclaimed as moral. which is why there has been pushes against some of these killings like death penalty, war, etc. if we look at how a community functions, we can see how laws protect self defense cases but analyze situations where a person should not have killed another. such laws are in place to protect citizens and maintain a functioning community. still I'd bet it hard to compare an unborn to the likes of someone sentenced to death or another situation.

2. "There is no correlation or causation between abortion and equality."
then it looks like abortion rights is not human rights after all.
"women can have an abortion if they want to, or they can have the baby and have support structures like statutory maternity leave available."
my point uses pro-abortion argument that a woman can not do anything with her life if she has a baby should indicate enough that the support structures (e.g. maternity leave) do not exist or are not adequate for the needs of the mother and child.
there are pictures thrown around online and elsewhere that depict women shackled to children like slaves. a woman asks her infant "what could [she] ever do without [her child]." where the infant lists what she could have done, indicating a better life.

since the roe v. wade turn over in America, there have been several articles to show that businesses would loose millions of dollars if abortion was not available. except part of that million of dollars in costs is used to provide women maternity leave. so the article affectively complains about providing women support economically - and instead aboriton is the better option. this is not new and has been direct push to sell abortion. there will never be equality with abortion.

3. plenty of mums who don't love their kids? I agree. if this occurs with or without aboriton, then abortion is not the solution to help both mom and child.

4. more bad messaging? I call it double speak. curious, you say this:
"reinforce that no women should ever feel bad for having an abortion, especially when pregnancy is under one of the two situations mentioned above."
when a mom is wanting her child but told she needs an aboriton because there are medical complications. are you saying she should not feel bad because she is having an abortion?

C) for your last comment. I find it oddly familiar to something Margaret Sanger is reported to saying. the people who drag on the system and such should have abortion available to them for all situations to help reduce their population. except - for Margaret, her people who drag on the system are Africans.

Do you believe it is moral to kill homeless people, to save them from the difficult lives that they’re living?

If not, how many of them will you be taking into your own home?

Lol. All posts on tsr and all comments people make in life are opinions. A thought or belief about a given topic. Your reply to me are opinions being projected. Only quotations, data, and the like are not opinooons.

In regards to my morals. Der as well. I referenced how my view that morality is objective but argued to being subjective. Therefore my focus was on ethics within medical field often refered to as hippocratic oath. Ethics in medicine has long been viewed as a staple for what every doctor, nurse, etc. should do and as something that should exist.

My one example for a benefit from banning abortion is vasecomy? No, the benefit I listed was increased in shared responsibility prior to being pregnant or having sex. Then I give a real life example based recent events to show how society adapts for the better (my opinion) when abortion is banned. More men should not rely on the women to just end a pregnancy.

This occurs because there is greater realization by women that there is no morning after pill. Pregnancy is once again viewed as something to prevent prior to it occuring rather than trying to end it after it occurs.

For the reasons you list, I addressed it earlier. some depict a failure to support families and women in general. otherwise we get into the age old debate as to whom deserves rights because right to life should be a trump card (unrelated to any person).

Then your last paragraph. This part is an opinion. So how is someone suposed to look at your opinion?

Also you said earlier that abortion does not correlate with or cause equality. So if its banned, no equality lost.

Who are you asking this question to?
Sounds like rhetoric towards anti abortion not pro abortion.

Do you believe it is moral to kill homeless people, to save them from the difficult lives that they’re living?

If not, how many of them will you be taking into your own home?

We already have Ukrainians living with us. As do many of our friends. Next question.

It’s a different question entirely when you replace unborn baby with homeless person. Its rather disingenuous to suggest it’s the same tbh.

I didn’t ask about Ukrainian refugees I asked about ordinary homeless people. What housing are you personally providing them?

Nothing - obviously.

But neither am I calling for all homeless people to be unsupported or blaming them as if it is somehow their fault that they became homeless, or that it is down to them to bare the cost of getting them out of homelessness or even suggesting that being homeless is their own fault for supposed poor life choices or bad luck.

It's a pretty poor analogue if you ask me.

It’s not disingenuous at all. People who are pro-life oppose killing the unborn child for precisely the same reason as why you’d oppose killing the born person. The whole point of being pro-life is that they aren’t convinced that the two are fundamentally any different.

So an argument for abortion is never going to work if it simply assumes that the two are somehow morally different, because that’s the very issue that’s in dispute.

Yes it is. You loaded the question by phrasing it in the way you did. Very underhanded.

I literally just gave back hotpud the same question he asked himself, except replacing an unwanted unborn child with a homeless person. I've made it quite clear that the reason for doing this is that, as far as pro-lifers are concerned, there's no unequivocal reason why the two situations should be considered any differently, from a moral perspective.

What's "underhanded" about that? It's no more a loaded question than the one hotpud asked in the first place.

So you don’t support killing homeless people to save them from their plight, yet you also aren’t personally taking them into your home.

Now simply replace “homeless person” with “unwanted child” and you’ll see why people can equally oppose killing them without personally taking them in.



Not sure what this has got to do with the analogy; I don’t think anyone is blaming unwanted fetuses or saying it’s their fault they’re in that position either.

Ive fixed it for you

but ill ask you this, if the two situations are the same why is there such a curfuffle in the anti-abortion crowd about pregnancy as a result of incest or rape, why is there such a division among them if "life is life"?

I am saying
a) I don't think a comparison of abortion with homelessness is particularly analogous. You seem to be suggesting that two solutions to homelessness are either to kill homeless people or house them in my house. Seems a bit ridiculous really when the actual solution is to support them and provide them with what they need to live a fulfilling life.

b) Which I suppose comes back to the main point. Either allow women to make their own decisions within a reasonable time scale - 24 weeks seems reasonable to me although I would hypothesise that the majority of women abort much, much earlier than that, or as you seem to suggest, support those women in bringing up their unwanted children.

You’ve yet to explain why that “fix” actually makes any difference though.

Because undoubtedly, some people do accept your premise that killing the unborn isn’t as bad as killing someone who is born. But that doesn’t make it indisputably true. It can’t be used as a self-evident assumption in your argument if it’s not evident to the people you’re arguing against.

Because its rather important detail for the question, that is to make clear this is a case of sentience vs non-sentience.

But remember these arent pro-choice people like myself, these are anti-abortion pro-lifers who hold those as exceptions.

It’s essentially a philosophical debate only, with broadly speaking two opposing views, those being Aristotelian and Lockean. Given this the only logical choice is to keep it legal and accessible and let the individual decide based on their own philosophical outlook. The practical implications on a ban however are quite real and quite detrimental which only serves to reinforce the need to let it be an individual’s choice and not something which can be banned outright.