Poll of the Day > Do you mostly consider yourself to be pro choice or pro life?

(+) Yeah! (+)

ReturnOfFa posted...

oh right, I forgot that everyone followed the law in all of those ancient cultures. my mistake!!!

So your counter, to my statement that people have not always followed the same laws and traditions across a multitude of time periods and cultures, each with their own societal norms, religious beliefs, societal structures, and so-forth, is to simply say people didn't always follow the law?

That's not a counter or even an argument. It's a blind assertion relying on the fact that it's impossible to disprove a negative (especially when it comes to ancient history). You may as well claim that the ancient Mayans played D&D and acted out 'The Real Housewives of Machu Picchu' since you can't prove they didn't have those sorts of ideas.

For example, in a lot of feudal societies, the infant mortality rate was high since, well, feudal. If you wanted your bloodline preserved you usually needed to have a multitude of children. Not only that but every child you had meant more help with things like farming and what-not regardless of their gender. In the noble families each child you had meant more opportunities for political alliances, fall-backs for maintaining titles, and so-forth. There's a reason a lot of noble families had 3-5 children if not more. Combined with extremely strict catholic moral taboos against that sort of thing and it's crazy to think that they'd have the same view of it as we do today or even the same views as the exact same society just in the 1800's or something. Especially since a society in a place where food was plentiful would have an entirely different view on children than a place where food was scarce. Or a place that frequently was involved in wars was from a place that was relatively peaceful. Nevermind the difference between a European culture, a culture in the African Congo, Central America, Mongolia, and India in the exact same time period.

So no. Saying 'they didn't always follow the rules' is not an argument here.

Abortion rates have varied little in modern culture regardless of their legal status. All of your information on high birth rates doesn't mitigate abortions happening in ancient cultures.

Pro-life is tyranny

adjl posted...

Also, important reminder that the US has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world, by a very significant margin.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/nov/maternal-mortality-maternity-care-us-compared-10-countries

It's exceptionally dangerous to carry a pregnancy to term in the US, which makes it even more deplorable that so much of the US is hell-bent on forcing women to do so.

Especially minorities. The US is like a third world country in everything but like military spending.

Relevant. This went viral elsewhere:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_Z9yacOvf4

ReturnOfFa posted...

Abortion rates have varied little in modern culture regardless of their legal status. All of your information on high birth rates doesn't mitigate abortions happening in ancient cultures.

*facepalm*

So, because ONE culture had (according to you) a consistent abortion rate despite it's legal status (which I highly doubt, but whatever), you now believe that ALL cultures, across ALL of history, had similar rates of abortion?

I'd call that a leap in logic, but if I did you'd be able to leap to Pluto.

Edit: This isn't even about pro-choice vs. pro-life at this point. It's about dealing with this redonkulous claim that makes sense only in a deluded mind.

Revelation34 posted...

By definition it can't be murder.

it is though

pedro45 posted...

Especially minorities. The US is like a third world country in everything but like military spending.

Yea.... No. Not in the slightest. It may not be the best but 'third world'... It's like saying you're eating literal trash because you are eating out at a steak house instead of getting some fancy diner food that costs 200+ dollars an entry or something. It may not be 'the best', but to think it's trash/third world is insanely stupid.

The two names are not mutually exclusive if you call the pro life the actual true meaning of its position is really anti-choice.

Unbridled9 posted...

Yea.... No. Not in the slightest. It may not be the best but 'third world'... It's like saying you're eating literal trash because you are eating out at a steak house instead of getting some fancy diner food that costs 200+ dollars an entry or something. It may not be 'the best', but to think it's trash/third world is insanely stupid.

Have you seen mortality rates amongst black women during pregnancy?
Don't get me wrong, the USA is a first world country, but there are a ton of stats that aren't a pretty picture for it. If you're a minority in America, it starts to get less appealing.
America isn't the worst, but there's a long way to go before it is as great as some people wanna paint it.

pedro45 posted...

Have you seen mortality rates amongst black women during pregnancy?
Don't get me wrong, the USA is a first world country, but there are a ton of stats that aren't a pretty picture for it. If you're a minority in America, it starts to get less appealing.
America isn't the worst, but there's a long way to go before it is as great as some people wanna paint it.

I'll be honest here. Someone claiming that black women are more likely to die than white women in childbirth, and therefor we should allow abortions especially for minority women, sounds a lot like someone trying to practice a subtle version of genocide against black people. Even if the statistic is true (something seems fishy about the claim at least. The article I found showed that hispanic women, while higher than white, weren't, like, absurdly so... But then Eclampsia from black women suddenly surpassing all of white women and almost all of hispanic women? And were's other minority groups like asians? It feels like it was made to drive a narrative.) it seems more prudent to try and address the cause of why these women are dying in childbirth than to claim that the 'solution' is abortions. I say 'solution' because it's impossible to predict if a pregnancy would lead to birth complications/death except in very specific cases and, even then, it won't actually affect the rate of women dying in childbirth, just the number who actually have it. In other words, black women would still be dying at something like 3+ times more often than white women, they'd just have fewer women reaching that point. Not to mention blacks are a minority and encouraging a minority to get abortions because it's dangerous, especially with a majority not receiving the same message/attempt at fear, seems like it would lead to a reduction in the percentage in the minority group.

I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying it sounds fishy, a bit cherry-picked, and like it was designed to fit a specific narrative with possible ethnic genocide being said narrative. It's not like it would be the first time abortions been used to attempt this (though it's usually forced).

And yes. I do DEFINATELY agree there's a lot of things in the U.S. that need improvement. Universal healthcare, seeing stuff like food and shelter as basic human rights, workers rights, addressing climate change, etc. It's why I shifted away from the right to become an independent. America has a lot of issues that need addressing. However the right seems content to stick it's head in the sand and/or go 'you're on your own bucko cause we don't want big government' while also getting their fingers involved in peoples personal lives (like homosexuality and abortion), while the left seems utterly obsessed with gender identity, racial issues, and the like and offers unrealistic solutions (how the heck am I supposed to afford a $40,000+ brand new electric car if I can BARELY afford an old used car? Not to mention other issues with electric cars especially for long-distance travel.). So I don't belong on the right because I advocate for policies/things they disagree with and don't believe the government should be dabbling in peoples personal lives, especially when it refuses to do things that could actually help people by doing that. I don't belong on the left though since I disagree with a lot of their current fascinations and feel their solutions are unrealistic at best. Hence, I am an independent.

Unbridled9 posted...

I'll be honest here. Someone claiming that black women are more likely to die than white women in childbirth, and therefor we should allow abortions especially for minority women, sounds a lot like someone trying to practice a subtle version of genocide against black people. Even if the statistic is true (something seems fishy about the claim at least.

Exact same could be implied in states that disallow the abortion of ectopic pregnancies, where they are literally allowing the death of the woman, as opposed to the removal of a fetus that will never come to term.

When minority communities don't have access to abortion, they are in more danger of adverse health risks. Deal with it. Suggesting that allowing abortion for minority communities is 'genocide' is absolute nonsense when women's health demonstrably deteriorates without access.

Demanding that all people have access to medical care is not race-based genocide. What a stupid argument.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Exact same could be implied in states that disallow the abortion of ectopic pregnancies, where they are literally allowing the death of the woman, as opposed to the removal of a fetus that will never come to term.

So saying they should focus on reducing the number of deaths from childbirth instead of advocating for abortion is genocide? That's... Illogical.

If a mother dies in childbirth but still manages to deliver the child that's a neutral gain. If a mother dies but this is her second child the population has increased by a net of 1. An abortion would keep the net population the same. Not to mention it's an INSANELY huge leap to go from 'abortion shouldn't be allowed' to 'they're letting women die intentionally'.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Demanding that all people have access to medical care is not race-based genocide. What a stupid argument.

I don't recall saying I thought they shouldn't have access to medical care. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say the difference happens because they don't have equal access. A lot of minority groups in general live in smaller income brackets meaning less access to health care in general and likely living in areas with overworked and underfunded hospitals. Not to mention other possible health complications that might arise from living in less well-off neighborhoods. Though I do think it's very suspicious still that the hispanic demographic seems relatively similar but the black demographic is vastly higher. That tells me there's something else going on with the numbers being reported and they're probably doing something to twist them for a narrative (especially since they didn't list other minority groups).

Unbridled9 posted...

I don't recall saying I thought they shouldn't have access to medical care.

Abortion is medical care, as is health care related to preventing maternal mortality in general, as I would have thought my earlier posts in this topic would have demonstrated.

Gaawa_chan posted...

... I was thinking about this post and it occurred to me that I think a lot of people don't know much about pregnancy if they think this isn't valid for more than one reason. Putting aside the fact that it can kill the person in question, pregnancy/birth often permanently alters/maims the body:
It can increase risk of diabetes, stroke, and heart disease.
Chest (duh)
Skeleton (beyond the obvious change in hips, pregnancy seems to degrade teeth... I'd assume it's because the body is redirecting nutrients to the fetus? Not sure)
The sheer weight can impact blood flow to lower parts of the body, causing long-term issues with the circulatory system.
Foot size and shape, oddly.
Skin, both color and elasticity.
Musculature
Bladder (this one's fun :-/)
It can tear the flesh between the V and A.
Scarring caused by pregnancy/birth/c-sections can result in permanent chronic pain (If birth is not going well, it's not uncommon to have to cut the body mid-birth)

Just worth pointing out. This is why I compared forcing pregnancy/birth to forcing an organ donation. Even in the best case scenario, you're forcing someone to permanently alter their health to sustain someone else on pain of State violence.

If you're trying to argue against abortion, you're failing. All you're doing is further illustrating the point that poc deserve MORE access to health care, not less.

Abortion is medical care, as is health care related to preventing maternal mortality in general, as I would have thought my earlier posts in this topic would have demonstrated.

Barring situations where there's legitimate health concerns, I don't see it as medical care. Even if I did I would want things in place to ensure it doesn't become a safety hammock.

If you're trying to argue against abortion, you're failing. All you're doing is further illustrating the point that poc deserve MORE access to health care, not less.

It seems to me that post is just highlighting negative aspects of pregnancy and then using that as justification for a procedure simply because there are negative aspects. Like saying that, since there's a risk of crashing and car exhaust can cause health problems, we should all give up cars.

Edit: Also, let's be honest here. No one here's going to be moved from their position. I don't believe abortion should be permitted except in instances where there are serious medical issues (such as situations where a mothers life is at risk) as I value the unborn while you are not going to be moved from your pro-abortion stance. My only real reason for sticking around ATM is because Fa said something insanely stupid about abortion rates that I, as someone who enjoys studying history, find insane and rewriting history to fit their own world view. We're not going to convince one another to change what we both see as a key moral foundation to our world views.

Why do states ban abortions on ectopic pregnancies when there is no chance of the fetus coming to term? Why do those states force these women to host a fetus that will only harm them and itself?

Unbridled9 posted...

Abortion is medical care, as is health care related to preventing maternal mortality in general, as I would have thought my earlier posts in this topic would have demonstrated.

Barring situations where there's legitimate health concerns, I don't see it as medical care. Even if I did I would want things in place to ensure it doesn't become a safety hammock.

If you're trying to argue against abortion, you're failing. All you're doing is further illustrating the point that poc deserve MORE access to health care, not less.

It seems to me that post is just highlighting negative aspects of pregnancy and then using that as justification for a procedure simply because there are negative aspects. Like saying that, since there's a risk of crashing and car exhaust can cause health problems, we should all give up cars.

Edit: Also, let's be honest here. No one here's going to be moved from their position. I don't believe abortion should be permitted except in instances where there are serious medical issues (such as situations where a mothers life is at risk) as I value the unborn while you are not going to be moved from your pro-abortion stance. My only real reason for sticking around ATM is because Fa said something insanely stupid about abortion rates that I, as someone who enjoys studying history, find insane and rewriting history to fit their own world view. We're not going to convince one another to change what we both see as a key moral foundation to our world views.

You're suggesting that the state's regulation of abortion, back into ancient times, had an effect on the amount of abortions that occurred in said state. I'm suggesting it didn't, or if I am to temper my argument somewhat, its effect was minute.

I also have a great interest in history and read it daily. If abortions didn't happen in states where it was illegal, why does it happen so much in the Bible in states where it was illegal?

If you want to have this discussion, it's a lot more interesting when we don't just call each other stupid.

ReturnOfFa posted...

You're suggesting that the state's regulation of abortion, back into ancient times, had an effect on the amount of abortions that occurred in said state. I'm suggesting it didn't, or if I am to temper my argument somewhat, its effect was minute.

I also have a great interest in history and read it daily. If abortions didn't happen in states where it was illegal, why does it happen so much in the Bible in states where it was illegal?

I dunno, but that's not really what I care about. What I care about is you effectively saying abortion happened as much and whatnot in China under the one-child policy as it did during the middle-ages Arabic countries or the native American cultures around the same time.

Unbridled9 posted...

Barring situations where there's legitimate health concerns, I don't see it as medical care.

Then you don't know anything about medical care and you should know better than to chime in on this subject.

It seems to me that post is just highlighting negative aspects of pregnancy and then using that as justification for a procedure simply because there are negative aspects.

Yes. Like all health care. Because this is a matter of health care and medical bodily autonomy that our laws literally give more respect to corpses to than living pregnant people.

Edit: Also, let's be honest here. No one here's going to be moved from their position. I don't believe abortion should be permitted except in instances where there are serious medical issues (such as situations where a mothers life is at risk) as I value the unborn

Lol, no you don't. You aren't affording "the unborn" any rights other than ones that give them superseding rights over the people carrying them to term, which is not how rights work. The State does not force living people to give their blood and spare organs to sustain the lives of others (and those come with fewer side-effects and risks). The State does not even force corpses to give their bodies to sustain the life of others (no side-effects and risks). You want to make a blatantly bigoted exception in the law.

Unbridled9 posted...

I dunno, but that's not really what I care about. What I care about is you effectively saying abortion happened as much and whatnot in China under the one-child policy as it did during the middle-ages Arabic countries or the native American cultures around the same time.

Just curious, which example do you think resulted in more abortions? I know we disagree but I am still interested in the conversation.

I personally feel that both would have somewhat similar rates, although I assume the one-child policy would likely increase abortion rates.

Allow abortion, as long as the bill is 100% assumed by the person who needs it.

Your body, your choice, your bill.

pro-choice.

I'm pro-life, and the posts that you see ITT are several reasons why.

I'm propane and propane accessories

ReturnOfFa posted...

Just curious, which example do you think resulted in more abortions? I know we disagree but I am still interested in the conversation.

I personally feel that both would have somewhat similar rates, although I assume the one-child policy would likely increase abortion rates.

Unquestionably the single-child policy. Not only would any woman who got pregnant after having her first child effectively be pressured into, if not outright forced to, have an abortion but the culture highly valued male heirs since they could 'continue the bloodline'. So if you/your wife got pregnant and it was a little girl in there... There's a reason there's more men than women in China.

Conversely in Arabia at that time women had very few rights and were often treated as being subservient to men with a religion that was outright hostile to the notion. If a wife got pregnant then got an abortion she'd probably have been severely punished if not outright killed and even simply miscarrying the baby (naturally or not) could result in public shaming.

I don't know what the views of the various NA tribes were on abortion, especially since there were a multitude of them so trying to condense them down into a single culture would be hilariously short-sighted, but they were not technologically advanced (especially in areas of medicine) and had small, tribal, populations. I would expect that every child would have been considered extremely precious and intentional abortion, if it happened, was probably extremely risky at best. Especially since I wouldn't be shocked if every child was considered precious due to small population sizes.

You can't go around and assume every culture had the same views and everything. Cause that's not how it was. Various religious, societal, population, technological, and resource-al? factors existed that would change how every culture would perceive it and there would be a lot of women who would be shunned into fear.

For every Rome (where we know there were a lot of contracepts used, we've found 'baby dumps', and I know of no taboos) there is a One-Child Policy China. It's a spectrum. I suspect that, in the future, there will be a culture that will see an abortion as being no worse than turning a computer off and on again or even possibly encouraging an abortion if the child lacks certain genetic traits.

Unbridled9 posted...

Unquestionably the single-child policy. Not only would any woman who got pregnant after having her first child effectively be pressured into, if not outright forced to, have an abortion but the culture highly valued male heirs since they could 'continue the bloodline'. So if you/your wife got pregnant and it was a little girl in there... There's a reason there's more men than women in China.

Conversely in Arabia at that time women had very few rights and were often treated as being subservient to men with a religion that was outright hostile to the notion. If a wife got pregnant then got an abortion she'd probably have been severely punished if not outright killed and even simply miscarrying the baby (naturally or not) could result in public shaming.

I don't know what the views of the various NA tribes were on abortion, especially since there were a multitude of them so trying to condense them down into a single culture would be hilariously short-sighted, but they were not technologically advanced (especially in areas of medicine) and had small, tribal, populations. I would expect that every child would have been considered extremely precious and intentional abortion, if it happened, was probably extremely risky at best. Especially since I wouldn't be shocked if every child was considered precious due to small population sizes.

You can't go around and assume every culture had the same views and everything. Cause that's not how it was. Various religious, societal, population, technological, and resource-al? factors existed that would change how every culture would perceive it and there would be a lot of women who would be shunned into fear.

For every Rome (where we know there were a lot of contracepts used, we've found 'baby dumps', and I know of no taboos) there is a One-Child Policy China. It's a spectrum. I suspect that, in the future, there will be a culture that will see an abortion as being no worse than turning a computer off and on again or even possibly encouraging an abortion if the child lacks certain genetic traits.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I would absolutely only encourage abortion when necessary, and I think that the majority of society, even those that support it do treat it that way. There will of course be those that 'abuse' the system, but they are a statistical minority.

I stand with you against the concept of utilizing abortion for eugenics. However, there are many countries with far more permissive abortion laws that do not in any way practice eugenics. There are some that have of course (Sweden).

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/5/1/AAQ2WmAADD1n.jpg

That's dark

Pretty sure she'd know she's pregnant by the time the fetus looks like that, lol

ImSadTails posted...

I'm pro-life, and the posts that you see ITT are several reasons why.

Now, now, we have commie "winners" here who believe they should be given UBI so they can stay at home and be even more useless than they are right now. Just keep in mind that you will more than likely not find any avatars of common sense among them.

The_tall_midget posted...

Now, now, we have commie "winners" here who believe they should be given UBI so they can stay at home and be even more useless than they are right now. Just keep in mind that you will more than likely not find any avatars of common sense among them.

*snap snap* stay on topic young man

Pro-Choice.

Personally, I think weve got too many people already.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Why do states ban abortions on ectopic pregnancies when there is no chance of the fetus coming to term? Why do those states force these women to host a fetus that will only harm them and itself?

Because they don't actually care about the babies whose lives they claim to be protecting. They just want to punish women for having sex.

The_tall_midget posted...

Allow abortion, as long as the bill is 100% assumed by the person who needs it.

Your body, your choice, your bill.

Which would you rather:

• A woman gets pregnant who is unable to afford an abortion. The government pays ~$750 to cover the abortion. The issue is resolved with no further costs
• A woman gets pregnant who is unable to afford an abortion. The government does not pay for her abortion, so she has no choice but to carry the pregnancy to term. Because she was unable to afford the $750 for an abortion, she is also unable to afford the ~$10,000 it costs to deliver a baby (if nothing goes wrong, and given that the full package with proper prenatal care tends to run around $30,000, the likelihood of something going wrong is going to be much higher than it would be for somebody that could afford that care and that cost will probably go up), so the government ends up on the hook for the vast majority of that as well. It then costs roughly $230k to raise a child to 18, and somebody who can't afford $1000 for an abortion is probably also going to struggle to afford that, so the government will have to step in for a good chunk of that as well. Toss in the reduced earning (and therefore taxpaying) potential of single mothers, potential costs dealing with mental health issues stemming from being/having a single parent who wasn't prepared for/interested in a kid, and the increased risk of children of single parents turning to crime, and you're looking at even more government money being lost/spent on the average unwanted pregnancy whose mother couldn't afford an abortion.

If money is what you're concerned about, you need to look at the bigger picture, and the bigger picture overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that funding abortions for those that can't afford them is more cost-effective than not. Ask yourself if this principle of "don't give handouts!" is worth the massive monetary cost associated with it. If you arrive at any answer other than "no, I guess that was a stupid suggestion," keep thinking.

Of course, IUD's cost about the same amount as abortions and each sexually active woman only needs one every five years. Subsidizing all or part of that is an even more cost-effective way to solve this issue than subsidizing abortions, especially considering that even the most basic health insurance plans tend to cover birth control in some capacity and that further reduces the need for subsidies (though don't forget that insurance is a subsidy, so there's not actually any real difference there except that some insurance executives are getting rich off of you).

Unbridled9 posted...

it seems more prudent to try and address the cause of why these women are dying in childbirth than to claim that the 'solution' is abortions.

You are correct that abortion doesn't solve the issue of minorities being at greater danger of dying in childbirth, but that issue does mean that minorities suffer more for abortions being illegal than most. That discrepancy should indeed be fixed, as should the US' abhorrent overall maternal mortality rate (both of which are largely due to the broken health care system, since having a baby safely is expensive and there are massive racial disparities in SES), but that doesn't mean abortions shouldn't also be legal, especially in the mean time. Long-term, "let's just abort all the minorities to avoid their higher maternal mortality rate" is indeed very much not a solution (and, as you say, is pretty genocidal), but it remains true that minorities are at the greatest risk if forced to carry pregnancies to term.

adjl posted...

Because they don't actually care about the babies whose lives they claim to be protecting.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/3/1/AAQ2WmAADEGf.jpg

Pro-choice because ^ that's the kind of argument you'll typically hear against it. Appeals to emotion/religious ethics. I'm just not convinced that an unborn fetus has any rights comparable to the pregnant woman or child that already has years of life experience. Obviously there's a lot of nuance to this debate though, it's not exactly cut-and-dried.

kind9 posted...

Pro-choice because ^ that's the kind of argument you'll typically hear against it. Appeals to emotion/religious ethics. I'm just not convinced that an unborn fetus has any rights comparable to the pregnant woman or child that already has years of life experience. Obviously there's a lot of nuance to this debate though, it's not exactly cut-and-dried.

where is the emotion or religion there?

i don't really see where the nuance is

Wanded posted...

where is the emotion or religion there?

Not emotion, appeal to emotion. It's a type of fallacious argument where instead of making reasonable points you pretend that undeveloped fetuses are children so you can tug at the heart strings when you claim that we're all just out here slaughtering children. It tends to be a favorite among the religious because they believe in some innate sanctity to human life.

kind9 posted...

Not emotion, appeal to emotion. It's a type of fallacious argument where instead of making reasonable points you pretend that undeveloped fetuses are children so you can tug at the heart strings when you claim that we're all just out here slaughtering children. It tends to be a favorite among the religious because they believe in some innate sanctity to human life.

it's not a point, it's just reality lol
a fetus is the child of his/her parents

Another lack of argument from Wanded. You're on a roll.

At what point does sperm become child?

kind9 posted...

At what point does sperm become child?

Depends on who you ask. Ultra conservatives will say sperm are potential and viable life and so even masturbating to ejaculate is morally wrong.

Others will say as soon as the egg is fertilized it's "life" and thus a potential child. At this point abortion is morally wrong.

sodium-chloride posted...

Ultra conservatives will say sperm are potential and viable life and so even masturbating to ejaculate is morally wrong.

That's why I recycle.

kind9 posted...

Another lack of argument from Wanded. You're on a roll.

At what point does sperm become child?

sperm at no point becomes a child on its own

i asked you to back up your claim about religion or emotion being present in that post, something i'm still waiting for, no one asked for my argument, if you want it you can ask for it but after we finish with this topic we are already on

Wanded posted...

i asked you to back up your claim about religion or emotion being present in that post

But I already answered that. I said "not emotion, appeal to emotion" meaning I wasn't accusing you of being emotional, I was saying that the type of argument in the meme, and that I usually hear from pro-lifers, is an appeal to emotion.

Wanded posted...

if you want it you can ask for it but after we finish with this topic we are already on

I'm finished with that topic now. Mainly I'm curious why and when you give personhood to the fetus or embryo or whatever. What is your personal justification for that?

This topic has me convinced pro life people just can't separate themselves and their beliefs.
It sounds fascist and very closed minded.
As others have said, the emotion connection is really blinding people, as if something is controlling them.

Maybe we can set standards as to what would change our own beliefs. Something that would help the pro life argument for me is if people actually remembered their birth.

To force a baby upon someone is just setting them up for failure. Seems like maybe misery loves company and maybe that's why people want others to have unwanted kids; maybe it's similar to their upbringing.

Wanded gonna get up in the uterus and save every zygote

For the most part I'd say pro choice

If the woman is raped, had a miscarriage, has some sort of health issue in which giving birth could cause adverse effects on her or the baby or if it's an incest baby then by all means get an abortion

However if it's a case of the woman having irresponsible sex every weekend with the first dude that buys her a drink then have the baby and put it up for adoption instead of killing it because you have no self control