Its like saying you can't ban stealing.

Its an unchangeable reality, people will steal but is it banned in virtually all countries? Absolutely, and people who are wholeheartedly against it will try and prevent it at any cost, whether their efforts are in vain or not.

Its all about how you approach Morality. To a person against Abortion, the value lies not in the outside consequences as much as it lies in the act itself intrinsically. Abortion itself is wrong to the pro-lifer no matter what, no exceptions.

Which is why it must be nice to live in the world where that's a viable dichotomy to live by. Black and white. Nice and neat.

But I don't live in that world. I live in the world where not every fetus develops normally. And where not every zygote implants where in a place that can sustain it. And not every body that can get pregnant is physically capable of carrying that pregnancy to term.

Because genetics isn't binary. It isn't black and white. Nice and neat.
Bodies are stupid and nature is cruel.

I'll freely admit, if I had to choose between my wife and a child, and abortion were an option, it would be a very long, hard choice.

And I'm not sure the government belongs in that decision by preemptively telling me "Abortion ain't happening so you're losing your wife either way... hope the kid makes it!"

Exactly, it all comes down to ultimate authority, the lens through which one sees all the world.

For a person who places value on material things and makes them their idol, pain and suffering are devastating and the sign of a cruel world whereas a believer still experiences pain and hardship but doesn't place any of his value on the pain or the pleasure but on something beyond it. To him or her, nature is painful and brutal like it is to everyone else but beyond it lies a beauty it has in it of itself.

But I'm getting ahead of myself here and wouldn't want to go off topic. Continue discussing your presidential policies everyone.

By this definition, the believers lack empathy, if they're willing to overlook the pain and hardship of others for their own glimpse of the beauty beyond.

Or, as I like to refer to the same scenario:
I've go mine, eff you.

Wife would win for sure. No one remembers being born and you can always have another rugrat or adopt.

Yeah, we'll have to carry this on in PM, otherwise this will become BOTH a political and religious thread, and nobody wants that.

Thanks for the offer, but nah...I'm good.

For the record, I'm firmly with Plastron on this one. And I speak from harsh experience. Unfortuantely, those who are adamantly AGAINST it for ANY reason usually have little experience with the other side of the pro-life coin. Or to put it another way- it's a different story altogether when the shoe is on the other foot!

"We're going to kidnap the governor" -Drake and Josh. :lol:

For a serious answer though, gotta do some research before I say anything. I'm not fully used to modern politics right now.

Personally, I'd call that a true statement.

Whatever, guys. I respect the dignity of human life and that's what being pro-life is about. If my life was in danger and it was a choice of saving me or my future child, I'd sacrifice my life in a heartbeat to give that baby a chance to live. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but I stand by what I said about abortion. A life is a life no matter what and NO ONE has the right to take a human life.

But this whole thread is only hypothetical anyway so I really don't see why people have to be so serious about it.

I'll save some time...

Like I said, it must be nice to live where you live, Larry.
Except for the fact that gay people don't exist there.

Yes and that's your decision. I would most likely do the same if I was a female in that hypothetical situation. I think it's up to the female though. Hilarious when dudes start talking about women's body's and reproductive rights. Or arguing one side or the other with a woman.

Thanks Andrew.

As somebody who's worked in children's services/foster care/mental health for over five years, I'm intimately aware of how many "unwanted"/"damaged" children there are out there already. Nobody likes abortion, but I see it as a kinder alternative than dooming a child to a life of poverty, neglect, and inadequate care. That may sound callous but I think it's true. And why would you want to force somebody to carry to term a child born of rape? That's pretty twisted. No, a child isn't a "blessing" or a "miracle", it's biology. Yes, life is precious and amazing and a wonder to behold but kids are born every day. I'd rather see less children born each day, if those children are born into circumstances that will provide them with every opportunity to grow and flourish and succeed in life as healthy, happy human beings.

Letting a child be born and then denying that child and parent aid is the cruelest thing to do.



So yeah, that would be part of my policy as hypothetical president. Increased access to prenatal healthcare, childcare once the child is born, and improved sexual education so less teens and dumb adults have unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Vote for Prophet, 2020!!! :lol:

It's a harsh reality. But it's true.

Too soft! Temporary sterilizations until you apply for (and are granted) a parenting license! 2 kid maximum after that or pay a huge fine and sterilization goes in again! Vote for Modeen, 2020!

You know I've honestly wondered about the best way to put some sort of competency test into practice so that people would have to prove they could handle having a child.

Like a much more serious version of the "carry an egg around for a week without breaking it" bit that teachers used to do in high school. It always ends up feeling too dystopian tho, but if it could have prevented some of the abuse/neglect cases I've seen then I guess it'd be worth it. Plus, more casual sex for everyone!!!

What if the child has a chance to not be raised in poverty or neglected/abused? Don't rich people who are more than capable of raising children also get abortions. It's interesting that folks often talk about it as something for "poor people."

Steve Jobs and John Lennon both raised in foster care. I never knew that until today.

Jobs and Lennon also didn't start out as rich superstars, either.

But yeah, rich people have abortions too. Being wealthy would mean that you are more secure financially and would be able to provide the material components necessary for child-rearing but it doesn't automatically imply that you'd be capable parents, either. Plenty of rich people simply outsource their parenting duties to hired help, which in itself can be damaging to a child (ie. making the child feel unwanted by its own parents, pawned off onto servants, etc.).