(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); The reason why I'm asking it like this is because they both involve the killing of a human. What are your views on each of them?

I'm not entirely sure but I think it's at 24 weeks the foetus gains the ability to feel pain and suffering. This is the cut-off time for me and also the time at which for me it becomes a human child.

I'm for capital punishment, even if I'd rather have the bastard rot out his life in a 6 by 8 solitary confinement cell. It's just simply much more cost efficient to end his life soon.

I'm for abortions under certain circumstances. 1.) If birth is a threat to the mother's health. 2.) With consent from the mother and father. 3.) In a case of teen pregnancy, consent by the mother and father, and both of the sets of grandparents have to sign a form showing that they are aware of the choice. And 4.) In the case of rape, the mother has a right to terminate the unwanted pregnancy.

I'm only against abortion when its used as birth control.

1) Fair enough.
2) Wait, women can't have an abortion if the potential father wants her to keep it? That's terrible. I do however like the possibility of the potential father being able to give up all rights to the potential child within the abortion period in exchange for having none of the responsibilities.
3) WTF? If anyone disagrees a woman has to endure 9 months of what can only be described as natural torture followed by either giving the kid up for adoption which is emotionally draining or looking after it herself, which potentially could ruin her life? Again, WHAT THE FLYING F*CK?
4) Sure.

It seems to me people who oppose abortion only do so because they think that they're killing a child. They're not. They're killing off one opportunity for a child to be born. Within the abortion period, the foetus has neither emotions nor the ability to feel pain. That is no human being anymore than a single sperm or egg is.



Why? Nobody gets hurt when it is(and before you come out with the obvious response, there isn't actually a child yet).

Its just immoral. Life is a beautiful gift and for someone to take a potential childs life repeatably because they can't use proper precautions while having sex is wrong, IMO.

---------- Post added at 02:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 AM ----------

I do, however, think embryonic stem cell research is important. Another reason i'm pro-choice.

Life is not a gift, it's just:
It's honestly nothing more than that. Also, sperm and eggs are potential children under such flawed logic.

Oh, and safe sex isn't actually as safe as people tend to assume. On-top of that, even if it were, you can't punish parents for having sex by making them have a child. The child will end up miserable (as he/she wasn't really wanted) and so will the parents. And again, before I see yet another generic and flawed "lifer" response, adoption isn't an option at this point. There are so many kids that need adopting already. We're overpopulated as it is and bringing more people into the world under miserable circumstances as a punishment for something which may not even be the parents' fault is atrocious. That's just draconian.

The child is half his! If you don't wanna go through pregnancy, use condoms, use birth control, and watch your periods. The father should legally have a say. I mean if they aren't married, he can just raise the child if the mother doesn't want it and he does. If I wanted to become a father and the mother terminates my chances of that without my consent, I'd be outraged.

1) And half hers too. Given that we're talking about either aborting a foetus and nothing happening or forcing a woman to endure 9 months of pregnancy, you're picking the wrong side.
2) If you use condoms and birth control and do the whole thing properly sometimes things still "get through". If you'd like to stop regurgitating that argument and you'd like me to find a source for my claim(although it should be common sense) then I'd be happy to scour through my browser history to find it.
3) The mother should have the right to do as she wishes with her body, but the father should have the right to "legal abortion". This forces nobody to do anything they don't wish to.
4) Prior to approximately the 24th week of pregnancy the foetus cannot feel pain nor emotions. You are not a human child (yet) if you cannot do these things. Your only argument from here therefore would be to argue the potential for life there, but that's as flawed an argument as you'd get from someone claiming that masturbation is mass genocide.

There is birth control that's 100% effective. It's called abstinence.

Let me use an analogy. Say, speeding. If you never go over the speed limit, or never have sex, you won't get a ticket or a child. Say you do speed, or do have sex. You might not always get a ticket, or a child. But, you always run the risk of it. If a cop sees you, or you get impregnanted, you will get something you didn't want.

That baby has a right to live. He has a chance at life. You can't deprive him of that right.

Don't wanna go through pregnancy? Tough ****ing luck. You could have prevented it.