The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

1. It takes two people to make a pregnancy. If women need to keep their legs closed, men need to keep their dicks in their pants and stop whoring around too.
I never liked this argument, in part because it assumes that there needs to be an addressing of both sides. If a woman doesn't want to have sex, sex doesn't happen. If a man doesn't want to have sex, sex doesn't happen. Either way, sex doesn't happen, so there's no value in saying that "it takes two to tango" except to diffuse personal responsibility.

2. If you're in a committed relationship or married to someone, are you really going to be okay with having a sexless life until you two are ready to have children? Most people would say no.
Then they can have sex and be aware of the potential consequences.

I just didn't expected to get personnally attacked
Are you playing a bit? Is that why you started sputtering about "de-radicalization"?
 
I never liked this argument, in part because it assumes that there needs to be an addressing of both sides. If a woman doesn't want to have sex, sex doesn't happen. If a man doesn't want to have sex, sex doesn't happen. Either way, sex doesn't happen, so there's no value in saying that "it takes two to tango" except to diffuse personal responsibility.
But there does need to be an addressing of both sides. Men have options as well and should be just as scrutinized for not taking them as women do. Women don't knock themselves up, someone needs to knock them up. It's not just the woman's responsibility to prevent pregnancy. Women need to stay on top of their birth control, but men also need to be pairing up condoms and the pull-out method. Women are not the only ones who can be reckless during sex. Whenever semen enters the vagina, pregnancy is possible. Men know this yet still choose to go bareback and nut inside, that deserves to be shamed just as much as women who have sex and don't take birth control.
 
But there does need to be an addressing of both sides. Men have options as well and should be just as scrutinized for not taking them as women do. Women don't knock themselves up, someone needs to knock them up. It's not just the woman's responsibility to prevent pregnancy. Women need to stay on top of their birth control, but men also need to be pairing up condoms and the pull-out method. Women are not the only ones who can be reckless during sex. Whenever semen enters the vagina, pregnancy is possible. Men know this yet still choose to go bareback and nut inside, that deserves to be shamed just as much as women who have sex and don't take birth control.
But who lets the man go bareback? But who doesn't make sure that the woman is on the pill?

When you try to separately point fingers in both directions for something like this, you have to temporarily pretend that the other party is invariably passive despite the end result (pregnancy) being equally their faults. Yet, only the woman acting is sufficient to avoid pregnancy, just as only the man acting is sufficient-- and of course both acting is equally sufficient.

Put another way: I say women need to close their legs if they don't want to be pregnant. You say that men need to not ejaculate inside women in response. What that response does, in context, is act as though the woman had no real hand in the ensuing pregnancy ("the pregnancy happened to her", instead of "she allowed herself to be impregnated"), even though my point would make your point a non-issue (it doesn't matter if a man is ejaculating if a woman isn't opening her legs in the first place).

Let's switch it: You say men need to not ejaculate inside women if they don't want pregnant women. I say women need to close their legs in response. What this response does, in context, is act as though the man had no hand in the ensuing pregnancy ("the woman became pregnant", instead of "he impregnated her"), even though your point would make my point a non-issue (it doesn't matter if a woman closes her legs if a man isn't ejaculating in the first place).
 
If you absolutely, positively, cannot raise a child, then you should be practicing the age-old institution of abstinence. People have, for thousands of years, held it as a matter of principle not to have sex except in marriage for this exact very reason, so it is entirely doable. You just choose not to follow any sort of principles, so the blood is on your own hands.

>But I never had an abortion
Then LMAO, so you're basically just arguing in favor of killing babies because you believe in it on principle? What principle is that? "Muh bodily autonomy"? Rest assured, you can piss and fart and shart all you want, nobody is going to ever take that away from you. This isn't about your body, this is about the baby. The problem you have is that you see human life as an abstract concept, if 50 million people per annum are killed, to you it's just a statistic (yet in total, abortion represents more deaths than were caused by any tyrannical regime in history, combined). To you, abortion is a victimless thing, you see the children as purely a nebulous idea. Maxine Waters said it best "I need to march because my mother could not have an abortion", said so hillariously oblivious to the fact that if her mother had her way, she would not exist. I've known people whose parents considered aborting them, but were forced by their family to keep the baby. These are real people, and for the matter, are happy to be alive, as are their mothers. I've also known women who have had abortions and not a single one has been free of guilt and regret. I also have children, so I know the value of human life. If you have absolutely no experience with any of these matters then I have to ask what your skin is in this game? Just parrotting something you read in some liberal rag?
 
if I did have an accidental pregnancy, I wouldn't kill my own child.
That's the great thing about being pro-choice. If you get pregnant, you have every right to choose to carry to term. And if I get pregnant, I have every right to choose to terminate. Your body is your body and my body is my body.
If a woman doesn't want to have sex, sex doesn't happen. If a man doesn't want to have sex, sex doesn't happen.
Good news, everybody! Rape has been eradicated!
 
ITT: People who have never had sex, lecturing people who do have sex, about how they shouldn't have sex.

Condoms - 99% effective. Pill - 99% effective. Jizz in a woman, not 100% garruntee to get her pregnant. Sometimes you can be on the pill, wear a jonny, have it split, and still not get a woman pregnant. Sometimes it does. Morning after pill reduces the chances again, but sometimes the odds line up and you get pregnant.

That's what abortion is for. It's the final safety net for all of the precautions.

Anyone who says "well don't have sex hur dur" has never been in a relationship longer than a week, if at all.
 
Anyone who says "well don't have sex hur dur" has never been in a relationship longer than a week, if at all.

Anyone who says this kind of thing has never met anyone with any kind of morals whatsoever. Even my non-religious parents were dating casually for weeks and in a very committed relationship for months before they got physical. Meanwhile literally every single person I've known married in the last five years has managed to abstain until marriage. It's amazing what a simple set of personal standards and respect for boundaries can do to prevent people hurling themselves at each other the first instant they develop a need for shallow, empty sexual gratification.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zero Day Defense
Anyone who says this kind of thing has never met anyone with any kind of morals whatsoever.
Show me the receipts.
Even my non-religious parents were dating casually for weeks and in a very committed relationship for months before they got physical.
Meanwhile literally every single person I've known married in the last five years has managed to abstain until marriage.
Sounds dumb. I wouldn't buy a car without taking it for a test drive.
It's amazing what a simple set of personal standards and respect for boundaries can do to prevent people hurling themselves at each other the first instant they develop a need for shallow, empty sexual gratification.
I enjoy sex = no personal standards? I don't fuck fat chicks. That's personal standards.

Need? There's no need. I blow the legs off of birds because I want to do it. It isn't empty or shallow. It's almost as if, different strokes for different folks.
 
I enjoy sex = no personal standards? I don't fuck fat chicks. That's personal standards.

Need? There's no need. I blow the legs off of birds because I want to do it. It isn't empty or shallow. It's almost as if, different strokes for different folks.

Boy, and people wonder why the world is going downhill...
 
Good news, everybody! Rape has been eradicated!
Clearly, rape wasn't part of that conversation to begin with.

This is the most worthless snipe you've made, yet. There's absolutely no point that you're making.

Anyone who says "well don't have sex hur dur" has never been in a relationship longer than a week, if at all.
Was in a relationship for a few months. Was approved of by the mother and was allowed to have sex with her daughter provided we both take an STD test. The woman was effectively trying to goad me to take the initiative so that she wouldn't have to be an active party in what she'd consider sinful. Still didn't have sex, still had moments of physical intimacy-- sometimes to an excessive point, sometimes to a point where I had to put the kibosh on what was going on. I have had the opportunity-- multiple, really-- and that was not the only relationship in which I did.

If you can't control yourself enough to not have sex, of all things, knowing full well you're still rolling the dice on conceiving, you're probably no more evolved than a chimpanzee-- except I don't even think a chimpanzee would kill its flesh and blood before it was even born. If you truly believe that you're incapable of knowing anything about sex or sexual attraction without having had the former, then 1) you're projecting onto others and 2) you lack the ability to think abstractly.

Not that I, nor anyone else, have to tolerate being talked down to by someone who tolerates poop on his dick and thinks "squirt" isn't urine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sanshain
Was in a relationship for a few months. Was approved of by the mother and was allowed to have sex with her daughter provided we both take an STD test. The woman was effectively trying to goad me to take the initiative so that she wouldn't have to be an active party in what she'd consider sinful. Still didn't have sex, still had moments of physical intimacy-- sometimes to an excessive point, sometimes to a point where I had to put the kibosh on what was going on.

On one hand, respect for sticking to your own morals and beliefs. On the other hand, for a man (I assume?) to type this is just, pathetic. "allowed to have sex" do you live in the 1500's?
If you can't control yourself enough to not have sex, of all things, knowing full well you're still rolling the dice on conceiving, you're probably no more evolved than a chimpanzee
I don't drive cars because I may die in a crash. I don't drink water because I may choke.
-- except I don't even think a chimpanzee would kill its flesh and blood before it was even born.
I'm not a chimpologist or whatever, but little monkey fellas don't know when a chimp is up the duff.
If you truly believe that you're incapable of knowing anything about sex or sexual attraction without having actually had the former, then 1) you're projecting onto others and 2) you lack the ability to think abstractly.
I don't like Pizza. I've never had it or cooked it, but i've read the Pizza Hut menu enough to know I don't like it.

Simp logic 101
Not that I, nor anyone else, has to tolerate being talked down to by someone who tolerates poop on his dick and thinks "squirt" isn't urine.
Talked down do? Are we not on an equal footing? Why put yourself below anyone else? Jesus dude.
 
On the other hand, for a man (I assume?) to type this is just, pathetic. "allowed to have sex" do you live in the 1500's?
If it was the 1500s, it would be "allowed to marry", without exception. And the point wasn't that "I was allowed" as much as it is that her mother told me that "she was allowing me". It didn't make any difference because I wasn't going to have sex with her without being married to her.

I don't drive cars because I may die in a crash. I don't drink water because I may choke.
"I need sex as much as I need to drive to work or drink water!"

I'm not a chimpologist or whatever, but little monkey fellas don't know when a chimp is up the duff.
I'm pretty sure animals know when others of their kind are pregnant.

I don't like Pizza. I've never had it or cooked it, but i've read the Pizza Hut menu enough to know I don't like it.
Sex isn't pizza.

Talked down do? Are we not on an equal footing?
Don't be disingenuous.
ITT: People who have never had sex, lecturing people who do have sex, about how they shouldn't have sex.
Anyone who says "well don't have sex hur dur" has never been in a relationship longer than a week, if at all.
 
That's the great thing about being pro-choice. If you get pregnant, you have every right to choose to carry to term. And if I get pregnant, I have every right to choose to terminate. Your body is your body and my body is my body.

Good news, everybody! Rape has been eradicated!
Okay, there seems to be something very simple you are having difficulty understanding: your baby's body is an entirely different person, which you created through your own intentional actions. Being a person, they have the right not to be killshotted by some lunatic parent.
 
Okay, there seems to be something very simple you are having difficulty understanding: your baby's body is an entirely different person, which you created through your own intentional actions. Being a person, they have the right not to be killshotted by some lunatic parent.
That embryo would inhabiting my body without my consent. As the host, I would be allowed to take care of it as I see fit.
 
Back