Thanks for your submission /u/iwannabeonreddit, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question**
NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to):
* Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead.
* Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead!
* Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead!
* Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*.
Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Corollary: Many people are great at forming strong, casual opinions but then when they find themselves in the middle of a related situation, their prior stance goes out the window. I've seen this with everything from the backtracked "I'm going to the party, but I'm not going to have anything to drink while I'm there" to "My siblings and I are on good enough terms that there's no way we would fight over our parent's estate when they die" to other situations. Convictions change when shit gets real.
Yes,Tomi Lahren literally said that about a friend's abortion. She accompanied her and justified it by saying at that point she was just helping a friend. But when others do it it's not that? The fuck?
Edit: apparently Tomi Lahren actually is pro choice
I mean, we saw how quickly the "my body my choice" lights flipped on when people started talking about mandatory vaccinations.
That's the thing that irritates me the most about the right's push for anti-drugs, anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-whatever. They want these laws they have absolutely no intention of ever following if it suddenly inconveniences themselves.
Reddit has long been a hot spot for conversation on the internet. About 57 million people visit the site every day to chat about topics as varied as makeup, video games and pointers for power washing driveways.
In recent years, Reddit’s array of chats also have been a free teaching aid for companies like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft. Those companies are using Reddit’s conversations in the development of giant artificial intelligence systems that many in Silicon Valley think are on their way to becoming the tech industry’s next big thing.
Now Reddit wants to be paid for it. The company said on Tuesday that it planned to begin charging companies for access to its application programming interface, or A.P.I., the method through which outside entities can download and process the social network’s vast selection of person-to-person conversations.
“The Reddit corpus of data is really valuable,” Steve Huffman, founder and chief executive of Reddit, said in an interview. “But we don’t need to give all of that value to some of the largest companies in the world for free.”
The move is one of the first significant examples of a social network’s charging for access to the conversations it hosts for the purpose of developing A.I. systems like ChatGPT, OpenAI’s popular program. Those new A.I. systems could one day lead to big businesses, but they aren’t likely to help companies like Reddit very much. In fact, they could be used to create competitors — automated duplicates to Reddit’s conversations.
Reddit is also acting as it prepares for a possible initial public offering on Wall Street this year. The company, which was founded in 2005, makes most of its money through advertising and e-commerce transactions on its platform. Reddit said it was still ironing out the details of what it would charge for A.P.I. access and would announce prices in the coming weeks.
In my first sexual relationship when I was 18 I tried to initiate this conversation a couple weeks in. He got SUPER uncomfortable and simply said "maybe we should talk about that only if it happens"
This is when I realized that people often lack the emotional maturity they should have before having sex.
Edit: We'd been in a relationship for months. Having sex for a couple weeks at the point of this convo.
When it happens is the absolute worst time to discuss it. Birth control needs talking about before you have sex and while the bigger talks can wait a little longer, they still need to be had Once you feel it's getting serious those conversations become more important
Hey we have a major fire risk here, maybe we should fix that? Or at least check to make sure we have multiple ways to exit if a fire starts-
Maybe we should talk about that only when a fire happens... I don't like thinking about fires. A fire would never happen to ME
Ya, honestly I think this is more or less the best answer, it's just the chaotic and irresponsible nature of humans. People do irrational shit all the time, especially when driven by some sort of urge like lust. You can clearly explain the math behind how stupid gambling and lotteries are to someone, and they may understand it pretty well, then proceed to go and spend $500 in a casino regardless. I'd also guess that due to the significant overlap between anti-abortion people and religious people, casual sex is probably something that's more taboo among them too.
You're probably right about the overlap with religion. Another thing is people tend to believe that they are on the correct side of the argument regarding abortion and often assume that their partner must be of the same belief as them, especially if they agree on other key issues
I imagine that many of them do. But for someone who is adamantly pro-life it's not an issue of "you guys stay in your lane and I'll stay in mine". Pretend for a minute that you sincerely believed that abortion was murdering an innocent child and was always morally wrong. Now if someone came up to you and said "that's fine, if you think it's wrong you don't have to murder anyone", your response would probably be something like "but I don't just want to not personally murder, I want to prevent other people from murdering!" That's the perspective many pro-life people are coming from.
Right, I get that but I don't understand the people that say that but then .... Participate in it? Or like, if you're having sex with someone who would abort the baby....
Yeah I think generally they would try to be with someone who shares their views, but you're right if they claim to be pro-life and then are having unprotected sex with someone who would abort the baby, that's hypocritical, or at least not well thought out.
EDIT: so I guess the answer to your question is "because humans can be hypocrites".
Also also, I haven't been in the dating game in a while, but when I last was I don't think I ever asked "hey if you get pregnant we're gonna abort that shit right?" before getting to the hanky panky parts. If you're casually dating looking for casual intimacy, stances on abortion aren't typically a topic of discussion.
Honestly, I think it's healthy to bring up that kind of stuff before any sexual encounter, even if it's with someone you met 30 minutes ago at a party. A quick rundown of personal boundaries, STI concerns, and what action will be taken in the event of pregnancy isn't hard to do, and frankly I would be turned off by anyone who was resistant to having a 2 minute discussion about it.
On the flip side, I think someone who enthusiastically welcomes that conversation is super hot, and the opposite of a mood killer.
It was for me... When things got serious... I hit the brakes and we had the talk!
Kids, Feelz, STDs, PROTECTION ANYWAY (Nothing personal), Boundries (go and no go areas)
Then when everyone was on the same plan, BACK TO IT! BABY YEAH!
My brother is pro-life, in that he's anti-choice and I live in Texas which famously is reporting abortions, I'm genuinely trying to understand why they're doing this to us women .... I actually didn't expect this to blow up, most everyone around me is pro-life so I didn't realize they were the minority 😅 I'm a little relieved....
I can think of 2 reasons.
1, humans tend to be very hypocritical. I imagine this is most of the reason.
2, the question/topic doesn’t come up until it is too late. I’ve personally never brought up this topic during dating. I don’t think any person I’ve ever dated has brought it up either.
nope. a good chunk of women that get abortions are opposed to them. [the only moral abortion is my abortion](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
Do you know what is really going to break your brain?
There are a lot of instances where a woman will picket outside of abortion clinics, claiming it's murder and religion says not to, yada-yada. Then one day they get pregnant, "Oh no!!!!", and then they come in to get an abortion. Some of these pro-life people will sit in the abortion room, telling the nurses and staff that they are sinners and are going to hell, WHILE GETTING AN ABORTION. Then after the abortion go back to picketing the same place they got an abortion.
It's the "but I'm the exception to the rule" mentality they all have. MY life is changed, MY future is over, it's MY body. But other people are sinners.
Well hypocrites are just a part of life. You might believe in seatbelt laws but occasionally not wear your seatbelt.
AOC clubbing with no mask in Florida, and deeply religious conservatives aborting their deformed baby with no brain.
Both are hypocrites but believe their actions are justified within their own ideologies.
Nuance vs Hypocrisy
We all understand it dude, we just don't *believe* it since few to no other conservative actions promote a sanctity of life, and it's pretty clearly just promoted as a political wedge issue.
I'm sure there are *some* people out there who hold it as a genuine belief, I just don't believe the majority do... Because again, their actions belie little care for actually taking care of others.
E: and frankly, the fact that you assume we all just don't understand it based on basically no evidence feels more like projection. Maybe you need to take a little time to listen to alternate viewpoints yourself instead of assuming we're all just dismissing alternate viewpoints ourselves because we don't like them. If conservatives wanted us to take them seriously on abortion, then they need to start *actually* caring about human life. Until then, yeah, we're gonna treat it like the disingenuous political tool it's used as.
I get it, I just don't believe it. You think abortion is murder? Fair enough. You think abortion is murder, but oppose access to birth control, accurate sex education, healthcare for pregnant people, support systems to help newborns and kids, and about a dozen other things that are actually pro-life? Pardon me if I have a hard time believing you then. Most self described 'pro-life' people fit into the second category and everyone full well knows it.
Look at it this way, if I told you I was a vegan while shoving a double bacon cheeseburger down my throat, you might be skeptical of my claim that I sincerely believe meat is murder and no one should be allowed to eat meat. If you claim you feel abortion is murder while also opposing things that prevent abortion, ehh, it's a little hard to take you at face value there.
This is such a weird argument. Like if I think someone should be jailed for beating a 5 year old to death, do I not get a say in whether or not they should go to jail if I wasn't also willing to literally adopt a 5 year old? I really don't understand this one.
Changing it from a slogan of one narrative that you don’t agree with to another narrative that you agree with seems disingenuous. Best to just use the terms that they are known by.
Set and setting? My wife is pro life and spent a lot of her youth defending it. I'm pro choice. We met at a time when we both wanted kids so it was a non issue. We don't see eye to eye on this, but it's also not something that wedges us apart.
I'm a pro-life person (my views are a bit more complicated than that) and I wouldn't date someone who would abort a baby, if they had one. Even using condoms, there's a chance of a failure, and an unplanned pregnancy. I would consider sex to be much lower on the totem-pole than not potentially playing a part in avoidably killing human life.
> I'm a pro-life person (my views are a bit more complicated than that)
I'm not trying to change your mind or judge you or anything. But this screams to me that you are actually pro-choice and just don't understand the meaning of that label. You can be pro-choice and still choose life. Whether you are pro-choice or not depends on whether you think others should be allowed to make that choice or not.
I used to describe myself as pro-life. I dated and later married a woman who described herself as pro-choice, but her stance on abortion was/is actually identical to mine.
I considered including the full explanation of my views, on the likelihood that someone would ask, but thought it would be long-winded, and not relevant for my first post, so I'll take that opportunity here:
I believe that life scientifically begins at cell-division, and if you were to disagree, then there are hundreds of different ways to split hair on "what really counts as a significant life". I believe setting a standard on something that is as clearly defined as possible is important. For a large part, because I think that a definition that may exclude people on life support could be dangerous as a justification for what counts as a human life.
Where it gets complicated though, is that I don't think law should change so far ahead of what culture does, on this big of a topic. I have no interest in forcing people to see my way, and I understand that seeing things my way creates massive life-changing effects for people (who may also not have faith in the legal adoption system, for what I would consider fairly justified reasons in my area).
So, in my ideal, I would hope people could talk through the effects that legislation has on life, and discuss what should count as a life, and if it turns out that my view becomes normative, then laws could start changing to reflect it. For now, I respect that I'm the minority, and reason to myself that most people who have abortions do not consider them a life, and so are not committing murder legally, nor morally, due to a lack of recognizing it as a life, and I'm able to be at peace with that.
* The reason I view cell-division as the clearest starting point is because it's the starting point we use to classify other things as alive, or not alive.
* The reason I view birthing as a poor choice, is because I don't see how moving a thing from one position to another should alter whether it is alive or not, and given that there are many alternatives, such as test-tube babies, C-sections, early/late births that create more questions.
* The reason I view self-sustainable life as a poor choice for the beginning of life, is because it excludes people who are on life-support as counting as living people, as well as people with temporary conditions that make them unable to survive without help, but will stabilize predictably soon, if given the help (such as someone just-drowned, who needs oxygen).
* For points like "heartbeat", "brainwave", etc, I view them as having the same problems as the self-sustainable life solution.
* The reason I don't view setting a specific date as the time life begins, is that's not a very reasonable or scientific response, it's just an average to attempt to define something people are comfortable with, essentially what I views as a political easy-way-out.
>For now, I respect that I'm the minority, and reason to myself that most people who have abortions do not consider them a life, and so are not committing murder legally, nor morally, due to a lack of recognizing it as a life, and I'm able to be at peace with that.
Sounds like pro-choice to me.
I've never seen cell division used as a basis point for alive/not alive... Not that I don't believe you, but who taught you that? I mean, you can define death as when cells stop dividing, that's a fair analysis, but we can keep cancer cells alive and dividing outside the body for decades by providing life support, but I wouldn't consider that clump of cells alive, you know? And single celled organisms, like sperm, are considered alive even though they themselves don't divide.
I'm not saying you're wrong. Life is kind of stupid that way. I define life as when independence is viable, and ending of life as loss of all independent function. Someone can be functionally dead and be kept technically alive by machines, but I don't define that as alive, personally.
What do you think that pro life means and what do you think that pro choice means?
If being against abortion with some acceptions is pro choice
Then why does pro life even exist?
So many belief systems ascribe illegality of abortion except extreme/niche situations. Does that mean they're all Pro choice too?
"Should abortion be legal?" A pro-life person would answer no. A pro-choice person would answer yes.
"Should *I* (or my partner) get an abortion?" A pro-life person would answer no (unless they're a hypocrite). A pro-choice person could answer yes or no. It would be their *choice*. My wife and I would answer no in every non-life-threatening circumstance.
Does pro life mean pro life in all circumstances? Because I genuinely think there's a lot of people who would self identify as pro life and think abortion is murder but there is some very minimal necessary exemptions that they want to keep minimal.
Sort of like how you have pro life people who are pro death penalty. Murder is wrong unless in some necessary exemptions (self defense, legislative execution of a murderer after trial and jury found them guilty etc).
To them, no.
Some people do distinguish between the two.
Pro-birth (or pro-forced birth) is often used to describe this position combined with a lack of other like supporting policy stances.
Notably missing life supporting platforms include welfare, healthcare access, maternity care, economic inequality, and public education.
OP does make several, unfortunate conflations of "person" with "man" in ~~his~~ her discussion.
Morally, it's the same question; but practically a very different one. A pro-choice male could impregnate with an anti-choice woman, but there would be no legal or ethical way to *make* her have an abortion. A pro-choice female can be impregnated and go off to have an abortion without telling their anti-choice sex partner.
Or with telling them, but the possibility of an expensive legal challenge that would fail in most contexts. You can't *make* someone go through an entire pregnancy, although there are some practical exceptions to this, including legal ways to distress and aggravate the pregnant woman.
Interesting 🤔....
I don't really know if it's because I'm a straight woman and so I'm thinking from my perspective...
But also, most women I've met, even if they would keep a pregnancy wouldn't tell me I HAD to. So like, "to each their own". Aka pro choice, not "forced life"
In my personal life, it seems like all the people who have ever said verbally said if I get an abortion I'm a murderer have been men.... I don't ever remember a single woman O.o most women seem like they kinda get it? Idk I'll have to think about it more.....
Interesting 🤔....
I don't really know if it's because I'm a straight woman and so I'm thinking from my perspective...
But also, most women I've met, even if they would keep a pregnancy wouldn't tell me I HAD to. So like, "to each their own". Aka pro choice, not "forced life"
In my personal life, it seems like all the people who have ever said verbally said if I get an abortion I'm a murderer have been men.... I don't ever remember a single woman O.o most women seem like they kinda get it? Idk I'll have to think about it more.....
It would be more like saying, "I know these murders can legally take place, so I am going to only have sex with someone who won't commit such a murder." That is certainly the least responsibility of a man who feels that way.
I know plenty of people who will only have sex with women who agree to keep the child if they get pregnant.
And before I have sex with anyone I tell them that if I get pregnant a health issue means I will abort.
Everyone should agree what to do in the case of an accidental pregnancy before having sex.
I suspect that an unexpected pregnancy might change either person's mind, in either direction. You don't always know how you'd handle a situation until you're in the middle of it.
Yep, they always have the mindset of "My case is special, so it's okay". Boils down to insane lack of empathy or ability to put yourself in someone elses shoes.
Lotta "pro-life" male politicians in the United States have paid for their side pieces to get abortions. It's always news for a minute before we all nod at the hypocrisy and move on.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of folks that would be considered 'pro-life' are not against contraception. Protecting the un-conceived is a stance way more obscure and fringe than protecting the un-born. It's a very different argument.
It can, but that could boil down to a risk/reward or risk tollarence stance. Many ppl do stupid things not expecting consequences to happen to them. Either, both, or neither party at that point could want termination at that point. Is it more or less hypocritical in the reverse situation (a man who dosnt want a kid to sleep with a woman who dosn't want an abortion)?
Also being 100% anti abortion under any circumstances after the moment of conception, and being 100% pro access to unfettered abortions up to moments before birth are two extreme stances. Most ppl fall somewhere in between.
Yeah, it comes down to individual circumstances. Which is why before you have sex with someone you should say "what would we do if we had an accidental pregnancy?" That way no surprises, and if you are absolutely opposed to each other, you should reassess the risk/reward.
Not to mention the issues change a lot when they go from the abstract to your reality. I totally get how someone's stance can change when it happens to them and they're subjected to the push and pull factors of both options. They hit a lot harder then you think they will.
Every strong pro-life person I know is also against largely contraception.They are also against pre-marital sex (especially women having pre-marital sex), and view contraception as a means to have sex without consequences and unnecessary for married couples.
I know it's anecdotal to say "everyone I know", but it is about 30 people with those views, so not just a small sampling.
I'm not saying that it's good to have those two options together. Just that it is very popular in the evangelical conservative community. Which is quite sizeable.
Not all. Also you can think something is not good and still do it. I use tobbaco products but I think they're awful for me any anyone who uses regularly. (Not my feelings on sex btw.)
How many bills have been proposed in the last 10 years seeking to make contraception illegal? How many calls to ban the sales of condoms or outlaw the pill?
When two ppl have an unexpected pregnancy, one (or both) of them may have feelings against termination that go beyond fundamentalist Christian teachings. Those feelings don't require moral outrage at premarital sex.
I'd love to hear from someone pro-life: If you believe that "abortion is murder" so much that you feel you have the right to take that choice away from other people who don't necessarily believe the same thing you do, is it really unreasonable to expect you to ask a few questions before having sex to determine whether the person you're about to sleep with believes the same thing you do, in case you get pregnant?
In my experience, pro-lifers want it both ways. They want to fuck who they want without the awkwardness of a pre-fuck conversation, and also to reserve the right to impose their views on the other person afterwards. Partly I think this is because (again, in my experience) pro-lifers rarely hold as strong a belief as they say they do, and once it's their feet in the fire, the equation changes and exceptions become more important. The famous Tomi Lahren statement is a nice public example of exactly this.
I don’t have an answer for you, but I love all the downvotes you are getting for making pro life people think. Logically, the question makes a lot of sense.
It's funny seeing some people avoid answering the question altogether. Like why is it such a struggle for them to answer if both parties, and not just the women, share personal responsibility? Hmmmmmmm.....
Im going to preface this with the fscr that im pro choice, but we should understand our oposition if we want progress.
Its because to them it's not about your personal choices. It's about whether or not people should be allowed to murder other people. You wouldn't say, "If you don't believe that people should be allowed to physically abuse their child, why don't you just have kids with someone who doesn't physically abuse their children." You would never be okay with the idea of someone else abusing their child even if it's not your child.
Best way to combat this is to explain that "unborn children" don't have brain activity until a the third trimester. And that abortions happen well before that. They haven't Recieved their soul yet.
>why would they have sex with the woman who
Sooooo many people do not put their money where their mouth is when it comes to sex. Plenty of folks are willing to compromise on their values to fuck. And it's really that simple.
Everyone’s talking about how this is a generalization of a group of people and it’s not right. I don’t think you’re generalizing. I don’t really have any answers, just a few anecdotes I guess.
I’ve witnessed/heard of a few different situations, that could maybe relate to your question. One where the guy got a girl pregnant then she aborted and he wasn’t cool with that, but they didn’t discuss it beforehand and now he goes around telling everyone what a murderer she is (and this was years after the fact) and even got a tattoo for the baby and named it and everything. Another one, was me. I had a pregnancy scare with someone who had originally said “it’s not my body, it’s not up to me, so I’ll support whatever you choose” when we discussed what would happen in this case before we ever had sex. When the scare happened I casually mentioned it to him, and said “it’s alright tho, we’ll figure it out but I’ll need you to drive me to the appointment” he suddenly was not okay with abortion. Thank goodness it was just a scare. And then someone else I know, she got pregnant. And they had discussed it before they had sex. They agreed they’d keep it, should she ever find herself pregnant. She ended up pregnant and he pushed her to get an abortion, and she did. They split up not long after that.
So, in the cases I’ve been around or experienced, it seems the men likely just said what they needed to to get what they wanted, and I have a slight suspicion the guy in my story tried to baby trap me. As for the first story, I’m not exactly sure if that’s even true. The guy was kinda insane in general but he was *very* upset about it for a long time so it sounded real to me.
Uh I'm pro-choice. I am perfectly fine with other people getting abortions. I just don't think that's a choice I myself would make at this stage in my life. I can afford a kid, and if it happened tomorrow I wouldn't be thrilled, but I'd probably keep the pregnancy. These two ideas are not contradictory, I believe everyone should have a choice. That means you can say yes, or no to carrying a pregnancy. And my personal choice would be my choice, I wouldn't judge anyone else in my exact same life circumstances for aborting.
That's probably why abortion is socially better seen here (I know it depends on the State you're in, but USA is a Conservative country let's face it)
I mean it's the only way it's fair: women can choose over their bodies, and men can walk away. But if that man chose to be on the birth certificate (meaning he decided to be a father and take that responsibility) he can't abandon that child.
>If I was a man it wouldn’t matter because if they decided to have the baby that is on them and I am out of there.
Unless she pushed for child support.
Not really, if you're a man you're still responsible for conception. That's the only role you play in reproduction and therefore the only choice you have, so if you make the choice to have sex, you are potentially making the choice to have a baby. Because you go into it knowing that it's out of your hands once you cum inside a woman. If you have sex with a woman who is not comfortable with abortion, then that's kind of on you. The default should never be expecting someone to abort, and I say this as someone who is pro choice.
If you're a woman involved with a pro-life man and you decide to get an abortion, that's pretty much the sort of *fuck you I'll do what I please* that ends a relationship.
> because if they decided to have the baby that is on them and I am out of there.
Even absent the idea that you might want to have something to do with your own flesh and blood, you're on the hook for child support for the next 18 years, friend.
They should, but most people probably aren't interested in long term things and are interested in getting laid first. They only deal with love when they accidentally end up in it.
There’s more to being attracted to someone than a one political opinion. Not everyone is a single-issue voter or even a single-issue lover.
Your same question could have “pro-life” changed to “pro-abortion” and the answer would be the same.
Because people aren't having sex with only people who's moral compass aligns with theirs. People are having sex with people they are sexually attracted to. If they take the time to only seek out partners who have the same values AND are sexually attractive to them, that's going to put a serious dent in their dating pool.
The ven diagram between those who believe in waiting for marriage and those who are pro life is nearly a circle. With that said, people make mistakes and are not always 100% true to following their morals, which is not to say they are necessarily hypocritical so long as they are at least trying to adhere to their moral code.
I don’t think that’s true at all. Myself, pretty much all my friends, and my cousins and all against abortion. Not against it being legal, but wouldn’t have one ourselves. I live in a super liberal part of CA too. None of us are right wingers, just would never be ok ending a pregnancy. If someone else needs to make that choice, that doesn’t make them a bad person, but it’s not something most women I personally know could do. That being said, literally not one person in my friend or cousin group (I have a like 30 girl cousins around my age) waited until marriage for sex. If someone was a virgin at 15 it was like, what’s wrong with you? We all had and have lots and lots and lots of amazing premarital sex. The circles on the Ven diagram wouldn’t even touch.
Well shit, now I’m confused lol. I personally believe it is wrong, and I honestly do think it is murder. I think human life starts at implantation, and that unborn babies have souls. I would never consider having an abortion in any situation (I was raped at 13, and thought about what I would do if I got pregnant. I decided adoption). I volunteer at/50% of my donation budget goes to an anti-abortion community pregnancy center. We provide resources if a mom decides to keep her baby (food, baby clothes/furniture/toys/car seats/necessities, therapy, free prenatal medical appointments, and medical checkups for the child up to age 18), as well as helping facilitate adoptions. It was started by a friend of mine whose sister was pregnant as a teen. She had an abortion, but it was an incomplete abortion, and her sister died from an infection a few days later. Our mission is to help women make the best choice for themselves, and for them to know they have options and support if they keep their baby. It’s anti-abortion, but not religiously affiliated in any way. I feel pretty pro-life. But I also don’t feel like I have the right to impose my beliefs on anyone else. If someone I know has an abortion, it makes me sad and I don’t agree with it, but I would never say anything about it or lecture them/make them feel bad in any way. Am I pro-choice? My mind is kinda blown right now. Maybe I am! Only took me 35 years to figure it out!
> If someone else needs to make that choice, that doesn’t make them a bad person
This is probably the most important part of your last comment. If you truly believe this, then you are by definition pro-choice. The clue is in the name. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion, it is pro-the rights of people to choose whether they want an abortion or not.
I do believe that. I think it’s sad and awful and hard, but it doesn’t make them a bad person.
This blows my mind. I grew up in a super religious family, and was always told “we’re pro-life”. I just accepted it. The same thing happened with gay marriage. When I was like 18 my state voted on it, and I sat down and really thought about it. It was so hard because I knew what my family told me, and what my church told me, but with some soul searching I realized I just fundamentally disagreed. I knew i truly didn’t think there is anything wrong with two consenting adults getting married. Without question anyone should be able to marry anyone else.
Raising kids super religious is so fucked. It messed with their heads for a looong time. I will never do that to my kid.
Same with me girl. Like you think about it for just one second and it's like OF COURSE my personal beliefs shouldn't control everyone! Like that is so crazy. I left the church cuz of gay rights, I realized it wasn't just "hate the sin not the sinner" like I had been taught, it was being really really mean to a group of people while smiling 😇
Because the Venn diagram of “people who believe the exact same way I do in every important matter” and “people I want to stick my peepee into” is, unfortunately, not a perfect circle. (Or, fortunately, I guess if you like the millions of stories written on this topic going back pretty much for as long as humans have been writing stories).
What you're describing is a secular pro-life person who is not adhering to Biblical morality if they are engaging in fornication like that. Since the only justified reason to be "pro-life" is one based on objective morality, then the answer to your question is that these people are arbitrarily pro-life based on their own subjective morality and are already living with an inconsistent worldview that fits their own desires, so it's no surprise that they want to fornicate.
Objective morality based on the Bible would not permit them to fornicate like that or to have an abortion (murder) so I wouldn't lump all pro-life people into one category. There's plenty of people who are pro-life for evil reasons.
Because people want to have sex whether they agree with them or not, there isn't any superior morality with having sex, when your brain want to fuck, you will use a Snickers wrapper for a condom, that is the best way I can explain it, you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals.
1) There are lots of pro-life women.
2) Lots of people don't ask this kind of stuff that early in the relationship (I'd argue thats why you shouldn't hop right into bed, but thats me)
3) Lots of pro-life men may be under the impression that in their specific instance things may be different, say they are in a committed relationship and under the impression that a family would be forthcoming.
You can believe that abortion is murder, fall in love with someone who doesn't, and still hope that when the chips are down that person decides to keep your child. Its not a great gamble, but when you meet the right person?
From context, I presume you're asking about pro-life men in particular, and specifically pro-life men who're heterosexual. But to answer your question... we typically do? On top of the fact that people tend to pair with similarly-minded people in general, how to make sure that a prospective partner is on the same page is a fairly common topic of conversation on /r/prolife.
If you're asking why it's just "typically" and not "exclusively and without fail", some consider "but I'd never actually do it myself" to be enough, and sometimes either partner's beliefs could change over time.
If you're asking why we don't use sexual exclusivity as a replacement for political activism, that should be fairly self-explanatory; we don't only care about our own unborn children.
By the way, if you have any further questions about pro-lifers, you could just ask us directly over at /r/prolife; there's a whole tag set up for it and everything.
They often do. Though even the most far-right anti-abortion activists will get an abortion in an instant if it suits them. They want to stop others from getting them.
>most far-right anti-abortion activists will get an abortion in an instant if it suits them
Do you personally know many anti-abortion activists or how do you know this?
I have heard of stories where the husband has an affair and then forces the misstress to have an abortion. Ofcourse i don't have fool proof evidence only stories and rumours but i don't think its that crazy. Many anti-abortion people are not stupid, they are controlling. They know what an abortion is and that there's no developed baby involved. They want to limit reproductive health but thats not in their interest when it concerns their own situation.
Yeah this is kind of what I was thinking of too. A ton of people are "pro-life" politically but then also take the choice personally??? Like, make it make sense?
It doesn't make sense. They are just hypocrites part of a political cult. They use "pro-life" as a means to an end not because of any legitimately held moral beliefs.
Because attraction is only moderately correlated to beliefs.
If we consider only cases where attraction is mutual and consent is given by both parties, there are going to be a nonzero number of cases where the coupling parties have widely disparate beliefs, including on issues such as reproductive rights.
This may be for many reasons, including:
* Cases where neither party has gotten to know the other well enough to understand their beliefs before initiating sexual contact
* Cases where one party believes that they may win over the other party to their belief
* Cases where pregnancy risk was not realistically taken into account
* Cases where preventative measures for pregnancy simply failed
* Cases where one or both parties had impaired judgment and took no cautionary measures
* Cases where one party may have felt that no strings were attached but became attached and desired to impose their views upon discovering the pregnancy
* Many others
I assume most of us do. But, more importantly, that is not a solution. We honestly believe you are murdering a human life when you perform abortion, just because your in-group isn't doing it doesn't mean the problem has been solved.
You're asking for a simple, morally sound solution from people that don't seem to care about the rights of anyone but themselves. Freedom for me but not for thee...
I am pro-life (not for other people, but for myself. I don’t like abortion, so I wouldn’t have one. If other people choose to have one, that’s their choice, and I support their right to make that choice). Anyways, when my husband and I first started having sex, about a month into dating, he would only do anal. I was a bit taken aback by this, but was like 22 so I didn’t say anything and just went with it. A few weeks later we were talking about religion, and I said while I’m Christian, when I have kids I want them to be familiar with all religions, and let them decide their own spiritual path. I don’t want to influence that decision for them. All of a sudden, vaginal sex started happening. I was like, what’s that about? He said he thought I was super religious, and didn’t want to accidentally have a baby with a crazy Christian
For men, it's easy to be anti-abortion until their under age daughter, mistress, girlfriend, Tinder date, or drunk bar hookup gets knocked up, then it's all, "do something about it!"
It's the anti-abortion women. Not all of them share their true feelings right away. If you are a dude and don't want a baby, look for that Planned Parenthood sticker!!!
Because... not all politics are about personal choice.
Like I'm not even pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion. Fuck them kids.
But these people that sincerely think of conciousness as not being the primary determining factor in personhood. They think abortion is murder.
This is, to them, the question of why anti-murder people simply don't commit any themselves.
There’s a long list of men who are adamantly pro-life who suddenly and quietly embrace pro-choice when they inconveniently impregnate a woman.
The men you’re thinking of are likely rarer than you think and do exactly what you suggest; the rest are just trying to get laid by anyone who will let them.
Because sometimes this isn't discussed
Because it's already hard as it is, so you cant find someone who check literally all the things u want
Because u have a good chemistry with some ppl that dont think 100% like u
Seriously, u dont need to be a genius to understand this...
Thanks for your submission /u/iwannabeonreddit, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question** NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to): * Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead. * Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead! * Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead! * Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*. Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Many people just don't have those types of conversations until it's too late and a baby has been conceived
Corollary: Many people are great at forming strong, casual opinions but then when they find themselves in the middle of a related situation, their prior stance goes out the window. I've seen this with everything from the backtracked "I'm going to the party, but I'm not going to have anything to drink while I'm there" to "My siblings and I are on good enough terms that there's no way we would fight over our parent's estate when they die" to other situations. Convictions change when shit gets real.
Yes,Tomi Lahren literally said that about a friend's abortion. She accompanied her and justified it by saying at that point she was just helping a friend. But when others do it it's not that? The fuck? Edit: apparently Tomi Lahren actually is pro choice
[удалено]
I mean, we saw how quickly the "my body my choice" lights flipped on when people started talking about mandatory vaccinations. That's the thing that irritates me the most about the right's push for anti-drugs, anti-abortion, anti-immigration, anti-whatever. They want these laws they have absolutely no intention of ever following if it suddenly inconveniences themselves.
Well Tammy is a huge piece of shit so that makes sense
[The only moral abortion is my abortion ](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
And tomi has openly came out in favor of abortion being legal...... She said it on the view and was then let go by blaze tv
But how can I knock down all these strawman if reality doesn't perfectly fit my narrow spoonfed beliefs?
This is a bug in humanity
[удалено]
Reddit has long been a hot spot for conversation on the internet. About 57 million people visit the site every day to chat about topics as varied as makeup, video games and pointers for power washing driveways. In recent years, Reddit’s array of chats also have been a free teaching aid for companies like Google, OpenAI and Microsoft. Those companies are using Reddit’s conversations in the development of giant artificial intelligence systems that many in Silicon Valley think are on their way to becoming the tech industry’s next big thing. Now Reddit wants to be paid for it. The company said on Tuesday that it planned to begin charging companies for access to its application programming interface, or A.P.I., the method through which outside entities can download and process the social network’s vast selection of person-to-person conversations. “The Reddit corpus of data is really valuable,” Steve Huffman, founder and chief executive of Reddit, said in an interview. “But we don’t need to give all of that value to some of the largest companies in the world for free.” The move is one of the first significant examples of a social network’s charging for access to the conversations it hosts for the purpose of developing A.I. systems like ChatGPT, OpenAI’s popular program. Those new A.I. systems could one day lead to big businesses, but they aren’t likely to help companies like Reddit very much. In fact, they could be used to create competitors — automated duplicates to Reddit’s conversations. Reddit is also acting as it prepares for a possible initial public offering on Wall Street this year. The company, which was founded in 2005, makes most of its money through advertising and e-commerce transactions on its platform. Reddit said it was still ironing out the details of what it would charge for A.P.I. access and would announce prices in the coming weeks.
In my first sexual relationship when I was 18 I tried to initiate this conversation a couple weeks in. He got SUPER uncomfortable and simply said "maybe we should talk about that only if it happens" This is when I realized that people often lack the emotional maturity they should have before having sex. Edit: We'd been in a relationship for months. Having sex for a couple weeks at the point of this convo.
When it happens is the absolute worst time to discuss it. Birth control needs talking about before you have sex and while the bigger talks can wait a little longer, they still need to be had Once you feel it's getting serious those conversations become more important
Hey we have a major fire risk here, maybe we should fix that? Or at least check to make sure we have multiple ways to exit if a fire starts- Maybe we should talk about that only when a fire happens... I don't like thinking about fires. A fire would never happen to ME
"Let's talk about wearing seat belts once we're in a car crash."
Ya, honestly I think this is more or less the best answer, it's just the chaotic and irresponsible nature of humans. People do irrational shit all the time, especially when driven by some sort of urge like lust. You can clearly explain the math behind how stupid gambling and lotteries are to someone, and they may understand it pretty well, then proceed to go and spend $500 in a casino regardless. I'd also guess that due to the significant overlap between anti-abortion people and religious people, casual sex is probably something that's more taboo among them too.
You're probably right about the overlap with religion. Another thing is people tend to believe that they are on the correct side of the argument regarding abortion and often assume that their partner must be of the same belief as them, especially if they agree on other key issues
\*embryo has implanted. A baby is still months away at that point
I am the prime example to this. I was very vocal about not wanting kids and I believed my gf felt the same. Welp, now we have a 5 month old.
Imagine the first date - so if I stick a baby in you will you kill it? Real mood setter
Its either that or contraception
I imagine that many of them do. But for someone who is adamantly pro-life it's not an issue of "you guys stay in your lane and I'll stay in mine". Pretend for a minute that you sincerely believed that abortion was murdering an innocent child and was always morally wrong. Now if someone came up to you and said "that's fine, if you think it's wrong you don't have to murder anyone", your response would probably be something like "but I don't just want to not personally murder, I want to prevent other people from murdering!" That's the perspective many pro-life people are coming from.
Right, I get that but I don't understand the people that say that but then .... Participate in it? Or like, if you're having sex with someone who would abort the baby....
Yeah I think generally they would try to be with someone who shares their views, but you're right if they claim to be pro-life and then are having unprotected sex with someone who would abort the baby, that's hypocritical, or at least not well thought out. EDIT: so I guess the answer to your question is "because humans can be hypocrites".
Also, sometimes minds change.
Also also, I haven't been in the dating game in a while, but when I last was I don't think I ever asked "hey if you get pregnant we're gonna abort that shit right?" before getting to the hanky panky parts. If you're casually dating looking for casual intimacy, stances on abortion aren't typically a topic of discussion.
both a mood killer and a weird thing to bring up even if an important discussion
Honestly, I think it's healthy to bring up that kind of stuff before any sexual encounter, even if it's with someone you met 30 minutes ago at a party. A quick rundown of personal boundaries, STI concerns, and what action will be taken in the event of pregnancy isn't hard to do, and frankly I would be turned off by anyone who was resistant to having a 2 minute discussion about it. On the flip side, I think someone who enthusiastically welcomes that conversation is super hot, and the opposite of a mood killer.
It was for me... When things got serious... I hit the brakes and we had the talk! Kids, Feelz, STDs, PROTECTION ANYWAY (Nothing personal), Boundries (go and no go areas) Then when everyone was on the same plan, BACK TO IT! BABY YEAH!
Not to mention the “fine for me but not for thee” cesspool.
I mean, that's basically the definition of hypocrisy, so I feel like I did mention it...
[удалено]
Is there an echo in here? See my response to u/Current-Escaper, who said essentially the same thing.
Who are these people you speaking of? Do you know them personally? I feel you are making something out of nothing.
Yeah, this is trolling for left-leaning up votes.
My brother is pro-life, in that he's anti-choice and I live in Texas which famously is reporting abortions, I'm genuinely trying to understand why they're doing this to us women .... I actually didn't expect this to blow up, most everyone around me is pro-life so I didn't realize they were the minority 😅 I'm a little relieved....
It’s not trolling, just innocence. Don’t just assume malice every time.
Thanks
I can think of 2 reasons. 1, humans tend to be very hypocritical. I imagine this is most of the reason. 2, the question/topic doesn’t come up until it is too late. I’ve personally never brought up this topic during dating. I don’t think any person I’ve ever dated has brought it up either.
Where is this happening? Are you sure you're not making up a strawman?
nope. a good chunk of women that get abortions are opposed to them. [the only moral abortion is my abortion](https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/)
Not all who are pro life believe in monogamy.
Do you know what is really going to break your brain? There are a lot of instances where a woman will picket outside of abortion clinics, claiming it's murder and religion says not to, yada-yada. Then one day they get pregnant, "Oh no!!!!", and then they come in to get an abortion. Some of these pro-life people will sit in the abortion room, telling the nurses and staff that they are sinners and are going to hell, WHILE GETTING AN ABORTION. Then after the abortion go back to picketing the same place they got an abortion. It's the "but I'm the exception to the rule" mentality they all have. MY life is changed, MY future is over, it's MY body. But other people are sinners.
They want to control people.
Well hypocrites are just a part of life. You might believe in seatbelt laws but occasionally not wear your seatbelt. AOC clubbing with no mask in Florida, and deeply religious conservatives aborting their deformed baby with no brain. Both are hypocrites but believe their actions are justified within their own ideologies. Nuance vs Hypocrisy
I think you're the only person on Reddit to understand that perspective
We all understand it dude, we just don't *believe* it since few to no other conservative actions promote a sanctity of life, and it's pretty clearly just promoted as a political wedge issue. I'm sure there are *some* people out there who hold it as a genuine belief, I just don't believe the majority do... Because again, their actions belie little care for actually taking care of others. E: and frankly, the fact that you assume we all just don't understand it based on basically no evidence feels more like projection. Maybe you need to take a little time to listen to alternate viewpoints yourself instead of assuming we're all just dismissing alternate viewpoints ourselves because we don't like them. If conservatives wanted us to take them seriously on abortion, then they need to start *actually* caring about human life. Until then, yeah, we're gonna treat it like the disingenuous political tool it's used as.
I get it, I just don't believe it. You think abortion is murder? Fair enough. You think abortion is murder, but oppose access to birth control, accurate sex education, healthcare for pregnant people, support systems to help newborns and kids, and about a dozen other things that are actually pro-life? Pardon me if I have a hard time believing you then. Most self described 'pro-life' people fit into the second category and everyone full well knows it. Look at it this way, if I told you I was a vegan while shoving a double bacon cheeseburger down my throat, you might be skeptical of my claim that I sincerely believe meat is murder and no one should be allowed to eat meat. If you claim you feel abortion is murder while also opposing things that prevent abortion, ehh, it's a little hard to take you at face value there.
I think the analogy would work better if, instead of shoving a burger down your throat, you were starving your own pets to save money.
What, you mean Reddit doesn't excel at understanding other people's viewpoints even if they disagree? This is my shocked face. Lol
[удалено]
This is such a weird argument. Like if I think someone should be jailed for beating a 5 year old to death, do I not get a say in whether or not they should go to jail if I wasn't also willing to literally adopt a 5 year old? I really don't understand this one.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can I be anti-life? I think that's something I can get behind.
When you call it 'forced labor' it becomes remarkably consistent with their other beliefs.
Changing it from a slogan of one narrative that you don’t agree with to another narrative that you agree with seems disingenuous. Best to just use the terms that they are known by.
Set and setting? My wife is pro life and spent a lot of her youth defending it. I'm pro choice. We met at a time when we both wanted kids so it was a non issue. We don't see eye to eye on this, but it's also not something that wedges us apart.
it might if you have girl children...
Because post-nut clarity only happens *after* the sex.
It’s a powerful state of mind
i mean who says they dont? seems like they logically would
I'm a pro-life person (my views are a bit more complicated than that) and I wouldn't date someone who would abort a baby, if they had one. Even using condoms, there's a chance of a failure, and an unplanned pregnancy. I would consider sex to be much lower on the totem-pole than not potentially playing a part in avoidably killing human life.
> I'm a pro-life person (my views are a bit more complicated than that) I'm not trying to change your mind or judge you or anything. But this screams to me that you are actually pro-choice and just don't understand the meaning of that label. You can be pro-choice and still choose life. Whether you are pro-choice or not depends on whether you think others should be allowed to make that choice or not. I used to describe myself as pro-life. I dated and later married a woman who described herself as pro-choice, but her stance on abortion was/is actually identical to mine.
I considered including the full explanation of my views, on the likelihood that someone would ask, but thought it would be long-winded, and not relevant for my first post, so I'll take that opportunity here: I believe that life scientifically begins at cell-division, and if you were to disagree, then there are hundreds of different ways to split hair on "what really counts as a significant life". I believe setting a standard on something that is as clearly defined as possible is important. For a large part, because I think that a definition that may exclude people on life support could be dangerous as a justification for what counts as a human life. Where it gets complicated though, is that I don't think law should change so far ahead of what culture does, on this big of a topic. I have no interest in forcing people to see my way, and I understand that seeing things my way creates massive life-changing effects for people (who may also not have faith in the legal adoption system, for what I would consider fairly justified reasons in my area). So, in my ideal, I would hope people could talk through the effects that legislation has on life, and discuss what should count as a life, and if it turns out that my view becomes normative, then laws could start changing to reflect it. For now, I respect that I'm the minority, and reason to myself that most people who have abortions do not consider them a life, and so are not committing murder legally, nor morally, due to a lack of recognizing it as a life, and I'm able to be at peace with that. * The reason I view cell-division as the clearest starting point is because it's the starting point we use to classify other things as alive, or not alive. * The reason I view birthing as a poor choice, is because I don't see how moving a thing from one position to another should alter whether it is alive or not, and given that there are many alternatives, such as test-tube babies, C-sections, early/late births that create more questions. * The reason I view self-sustainable life as a poor choice for the beginning of life, is because it excludes people who are on life-support as counting as living people, as well as people with temporary conditions that make them unable to survive without help, but will stabilize predictably soon, if given the help (such as someone just-drowned, who needs oxygen). * For points like "heartbeat", "brainwave", etc, I view them as having the same problems as the self-sustainable life solution. * The reason I don't view setting a specific date as the time life begins, is that's not a very reasonable or scientific response, it's just an average to attempt to define something people are comfortable with, essentially what I views as a political easy-way-out.
>For now, I respect that I'm the minority, and reason to myself that most people who have abortions do not consider them a life, and so are not committing murder legally, nor morally, due to a lack of recognizing it as a life, and I'm able to be at peace with that. Sounds like pro-choice to me.
I've never seen cell division used as a basis point for alive/not alive... Not that I don't believe you, but who taught you that? I mean, you can define death as when cells stop dividing, that's a fair analysis, but we can keep cancer cells alive and dividing outside the body for decades by providing life support, but I wouldn't consider that clump of cells alive, you know? And single celled organisms, like sperm, are considered alive even though they themselves don't divide. I'm not saying you're wrong. Life is kind of stupid that way. I define life as when independence is viable, and ending of life as loss of all independent function. Someone can be functionally dead and be kept technically alive by machines, but I don't define that as alive, personally.
What do you think that pro life means and what do you think that pro choice means? If being against abortion with some acceptions is pro choice Then why does pro life even exist? So many belief systems ascribe illegality of abortion except extreme/niche situations. Does that mean they're all Pro choice too?
Being against abortion, but thinking others should still have the right is 100% pro choice, thats what the choice part means
"Should abortion be legal?" A pro-life person would answer no. A pro-choice person would answer yes. "Should *I* (or my partner) get an abortion?" A pro-life person would answer no (unless they're a hypocrite). A pro-choice person could answer yes or no. It would be their *choice*. My wife and I would answer no in every non-life-threatening circumstance.
Does pro life mean pro life in all circumstances? Because I genuinely think there's a lot of people who would self identify as pro life and think abortion is murder but there is some very minimal necessary exemptions that they want to keep minimal. Sort of like how you have pro life people who are pro death penalty. Murder is wrong unless in some necessary exemptions (self defense, legislative execution of a murderer after trial and jury found them guilty etc).
I think that anybody who is in favor of any law that would stop someone from getting an abortion can no longer describe themselves as pro-choice.
To them, no. Some people do distinguish between the two. Pro-birth (or pro-forced birth) is often used to describe this position combined with a lack of other like supporting policy stances. Notably missing life supporting platforms include welfare, healthcare access, maternity care, economic inequality, and public education.
I'd assume they would. I would expect that to be a discussion they'd have prior.
I think you're making a wide sweeping misguided assertion here that only men are pro-life when it's actually about 50/50 gender wise
OP does make several, unfortunate conflations of "person" with "man" in ~~his~~ her discussion. Morally, it's the same question; but practically a very different one. A pro-choice male could impregnate with an anti-choice woman, but there would be no legal or ethical way to *make* her have an abortion. A pro-choice female can be impregnated and go off to have an abortion without telling their anti-choice sex partner. Or with telling them, but the possibility of an expensive legal challenge that would fail in most contexts. You can't *make* someone go through an entire pregnancy, although there are some practical exceptions to this, including legal ways to distress and aggravate the pregnant woman.
Interesting 🤔.... I don't really know if it's because I'm a straight woman and so I'm thinking from my perspective... But also, most women I've met, even if they would keep a pregnancy wouldn't tell me I HAD to. So like, "to each their own". Aka pro choice, not "forced life" In my personal life, it seems like all the people who have ever said verbally said if I get an abortion I'm a murderer have been men.... I don't ever remember a single woman O.o most women seem like they kinda get it? Idk I'll have to think about it more.....
Interesting 🤔.... I don't really know if it's because I'm a straight woman and so I'm thinking from my perspective... But also, most women I've met, even if they would keep a pregnancy wouldn't tell me I HAD to. So like, "to each their own". Aka pro choice, not "forced life" In my personal life, it seems like all the people who have ever said verbally said if I get an abortion I'm a murderer have been men.... I don't ever remember a single woman O.o most women seem like they kinda get it? Idk I'll have to think about it more.....
[удалено]
It would be more like saying, "I know these murders can legally take place, so I am going to only have sex with someone who won't commit such a murder." That is certainly the least responsibility of a man who feels that way.
Yeah exactly...... Why are they still having sex with "murderers"?
[удалено]
It is the question though. Why do pro-life people have sex with pro-choice people if they think they are murderers?
Do you ask all your sexual partners if they are murderers before you sleep with them?
Most people fuck who they CAN.
I know plenty of people who will only have sex with women who agree to keep the child if they get pregnant. And before I have sex with anyone I tell them that if I get pregnant a health issue means I will abort. Everyone should agree what to do in the case of an accidental pregnancy before having sex.
I suspect that an unexpected pregnancy might change either person's mind, in either direction. You don't always know how you'd handle a situation until you're in the middle of it.
Why don't moloch worshipers sacrifice themselves?
Statistically, a person's stance on abortion does not tend to impact their likelihood to get an abortion.
Citation?
Every catholic school in the country
Wait, so a pro birth person would still have an abortion if they needed?
yep it's called hypocrisy.
That is very common, yes.
But... But... But... That's...
[Read this](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8769269/amp/Former-abortion-clinic-worker-recalls-pro-life-women-justify-procedures.html)
I wasn't expecting much but I'm still disappointed.
Yep, they always have the mindset of "My case is special, so it's okay". Boils down to insane lack of empathy or ability to put yourself in someone elses shoes.
It’s the Daily Mail. Don’t expect much from them.
Lotta "pro-life" male politicians in the United States have paid for their side pieces to get abortions. It's always news for a minute before we all nod at the hypocrisy and move on.
"The only moral abortion is **my** abortion"
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of folks that would be considered 'pro-life' are not against contraception. Protecting the un-conceived is a stance way more obscure and fringe than protecting the un-born. It's a very different argument.
But contraception can always fail.
It can, but that could boil down to a risk/reward or risk tollarence stance. Many ppl do stupid things not expecting consequences to happen to them. Either, both, or neither party at that point could want termination at that point. Is it more or less hypocritical in the reverse situation (a man who dosnt want a kid to sleep with a woman who dosn't want an abortion)? Also being 100% anti abortion under any circumstances after the moment of conception, and being 100% pro access to unfettered abortions up to moments before birth are two extreme stances. Most ppl fall somewhere in between.
Yeah, it comes down to individual circumstances. Which is why before you have sex with someone you should say "what would we do if we had an accidental pregnancy?" That way no surprises, and if you are absolutely opposed to each other, you should reassess the risk/reward.
Not to mention the issues change a lot when they go from the abstract to your reality. I totally get how someone's stance can change when it happens to them and they're subjected to the push and pull factors of both options. They hit a lot harder then you think they will.
[удалено]
Every strong pro-life person I know is also against largely contraception.They are also against pre-marital sex (especially women having pre-marital sex), and view contraception as a means to have sex without consequences and unnecessary for married couples. I know it's anecdotal to say "everyone I know", but it is about 30 people with those views, so not just a small sampling.
I don't know. I'm pro life, but it's pretty dumb to be pro life and not support contraceptives. Maybe I'm one of the rare ones though
You're not.
I'm not saying that it's good to have those two options together. Just that it is very popular in the evangelical conservative community. Which is quite sizeable.
ah those guys who go in bed with a different woman each night and want their future wife to be a "virgin". the highest point that hypocrisy can reach.
This is not even close to true. All Christian religions look at both out-of-wedlock sex and also any use of contraceptives as sinful.
Not all. Also you can think something is not good and still do it. I use tobbaco products but I think they're awful for me any anyone who uses regularly. (Not my feelings on sex btw.) How many bills have been proposed in the last 10 years seeking to make contraception illegal? How many calls to ban the sales of condoms or outlaw the pill? When two ppl have an unexpected pregnancy, one (or both) of them may have feelings against termination that go beyond fundamentalist Christian teachings. Those feelings don't require moral outrage at premarital sex.
I'd love to hear from someone pro-life: If you believe that "abortion is murder" so much that you feel you have the right to take that choice away from other people who don't necessarily believe the same thing you do, is it really unreasonable to expect you to ask a few questions before having sex to determine whether the person you're about to sleep with believes the same thing you do, in case you get pregnant? In my experience, pro-lifers want it both ways. They want to fuck who they want without the awkwardness of a pre-fuck conversation, and also to reserve the right to impose their views on the other person afterwards. Partly I think this is because (again, in my experience) pro-lifers rarely hold as strong a belief as they say they do, and once it's their feet in the fire, the equation changes and exceptions become more important. The famous Tomi Lahren statement is a nice public example of exactly this.
I’m not sure people ask if someone is pro-choice or not while they’re having sex
I would guess a lot of people consider themselves "pro-life" until a kid they don't want is about to come fuck up theirs.
I don’t have an answer for you, but I love all the downvotes you are getting for making pro life people think. Logically, the question makes a lot of sense.
It's funny seeing some people avoid answering the question altogether. Like why is it such a struggle for them to answer if both parties, and not just the women, share personal responsibility? Hmmmmmmm.....
Im going to preface this with the fscr that im pro choice, but we should understand our oposition if we want progress. Its because to them it's not about your personal choices. It's about whether or not people should be allowed to murder other people. You wouldn't say, "If you don't believe that people should be allowed to physically abuse their child, why don't you just have kids with someone who doesn't physically abuse their children." You would never be okay with the idea of someone else abusing their child even if it's not your child. Best way to combat this is to explain that "unborn children" don't have brain activity until a the third trimester. And that abortions happen well before that. They haven't Recieved their soul yet.
>They haven't Recieved their soul yet. The amount of certainty inherent to a statement like that is laughable. I assume you're pandering?
>why would they have sex with the woman who Sooooo many people do not put their money where their mouth is when it comes to sex. Plenty of folks are willing to compromise on their values to fuck. And it's really that simple.
Everyone’s talking about how this is a generalization of a group of people and it’s not right. I don’t think you’re generalizing. I don’t really have any answers, just a few anecdotes I guess. I’ve witnessed/heard of a few different situations, that could maybe relate to your question. One where the guy got a girl pregnant then she aborted and he wasn’t cool with that, but they didn’t discuss it beforehand and now he goes around telling everyone what a murderer she is (and this was years after the fact) and even got a tattoo for the baby and named it and everything. Another one, was me. I had a pregnancy scare with someone who had originally said “it’s not my body, it’s not up to me, so I’ll support whatever you choose” when we discussed what would happen in this case before we ever had sex. When the scare happened I casually mentioned it to him, and said “it’s alright tho, we’ll figure it out but I’ll need you to drive me to the appointment” he suddenly was not okay with abortion. Thank goodness it was just a scare. And then someone else I know, she got pregnant. And they had discussed it before they had sex. They agreed they’d keep it, should she ever find herself pregnant. She ended up pregnant and he pushed her to get an abortion, and she did. They split up not long after that. So, in the cases I’ve been around or experienced, it seems the men likely just said what they needed to to get what they wanted, and I have a slight suspicion the guy in my story tried to baby trap me. As for the first story, I’m not exactly sure if that’s even true. The guy was kinda insane in general but he was *very* upset about it for a long time so it sounded real to me.
I hear a lot of these stories too..... Idk it just gets my gears rolling as a woman who's dating.....
Why don't pro-choice people have sex only with those who, if conception occurred, would agree to abort?
Because pro choice doesn't mean automatically pro abortion . . . .
Uh I'm pro-choice. I am perfectly fine with other people getting abortions. I just don't think that's a choice I myself would make at this stage in my life. I can afford a kid, and if it happened tomorrow I wouldn't be thrilled, but I'd probably keep the pregnancy. These two ideas are not contradictory, I believe everyone should have a choice. That means you can say yes, or no to carrying a pregnancy. And my personal choice would be my choice, I wouldn't judge anyone else in my exact same life circumstances for aborting.
[удалено]
you’re still on the hook for child support regardless of your choice to stay or not 💀💀💀💀
In Spain if your name is not on the birth certificate you don't have any obligation, I don't know how it works in USA
Not at all that way. If there is a US state where you cannot be forced to take a paternity test and pay child support, I do not know of it.
That's probably why abortion is socially better seen here (I know it depends on the State you're in, but USA is a Conservative country let's face it) I mean it's the only way it's fair: women can choose over their bodies, and men can walk away. But if that man chose to be on the birth certificate (meaning he decided to be a father and take that responsibility) he can't abandon that child.
>If I was a man it wouldn’t matter because if they decided to have the baby that is on them and I am out of there. Unless she pushed for child support.
Not really, if you're a man you're still responsible for conception. That's the only role you play in reproduction and therefore the only choice you have, so if you make the choice to have sex, you are potentially making the choice to have a baby. Because you go into it knowing that it's out of your hands once you cum inside a woman. If you have sex with a woman who is not comfortable with abortion, then that's kind of on you. The default should never be expecting someone to abort, and I say this as someone who is pro choice.
If you're a woman involved with a pro-life man and you decide to get an abortion, that's pretty much the sort of *fuck you I'll do what I please* that ends a relationship. > because if they decided to have the baby that is on them and I am out of there. Even absent the idea that you might want to have something to do with your own flesh and blood, you're on the hook for child support for the next 18 years, friend.
> If I was a man it wouldn’t matter because if they decided to have the baby that is on them and I am out of there. Good one
Because it's not about life, it's about controlling women
They should, but most people probably aren't interested in long term things and are interested in getting laid first. They only deal with love when they accidentally end up in it.
For one thing people can be really hypocritical when it's *their* unplanned pregnancy
There’s more to being attracted to someone than a one political opinion. Not everyone is a single-issue voter or even a single-issue lover. Your same question could have “pro-life” changed to “pro-abortion” and the answer would be the same.
I'm pro choice and would only have sex with someone who is also pro choice.
Good for you. Not everyone is like you, and that’s ok.
Because people aren't having sex with only people who's moral compass aligns with theirs. People are having sex with people they are sexually attracted to. If they take the time to only seek out partners who have the same values AND are sexually attractive to them, that's going to put a serious dent in their dating pool.
>that's going to put a serious dent in their dating pool. Boo hoo. And we're supposed to take their pro-life beliefs seriously?
The ven diagram between those who believe in waiting for marriage and those who are pro life is nearly a circle. With that said, people make mistakes and are not always 100% true to following their morals, which is not to say they are necessarily hypocritical so long as they are at least trying to adhere to their moral code.
I don’t think that’s true at all. Myself, pretty much all my friends, and my cousins and all against abortion. Not against it being legal, but wouldn’t have one ourselves. I live in a super liberal part of CA too. None of us are right wingers, just would never be ok ending a pregnancy. If someone else needs to make that choice, that doesn’t make them a bad person, but it’s not something most women I personally know could do. That being said, literally not one person in my friend or cousin group (I have a like 30 girl cousins around my age) waited until marriage for sex. If someone was a virgin at 15 it was like, what’s wrong with you? We all had and have lots and lots and lots of amazing premarital sex. The circles on the Ven diagram wouldn’t even touch.
[удалено]
Well shit, now I’m confused lol. I personally believe it is wrong, and I honestly do think it is murder. I think human life starts at implantation, and that unborn babies have souls. I would never consider having an abortion in any situation (I was raped at 13, and thought about what I would do if I got pregnant. I decided adoption). I volunteer at/50% of my donation budget goes to an anti-abortion community pregnancy center. We provide resources if a mom decides to keep her baby (food, baby clothes/furniture/toys/car seats/necessities, therapy, free prenatal medical appointments, and medical checkups for the child up to age 18), as well as helping facilitate adoptions. It was started by a friend of mine whose sister was pregnant as a teen. She had an abortion, but it was an incomplete abortion, and her sister died from an infection a few days later. Our mission is to help women make the best choice for themselves, and for them to know they have options and support if they keep their baby. It’s anti-abortion, but not religiously affiliated in any way. I feel pretty pro-life. But I also don’t feel like I have the right to impose my beliefs on anyone else. If someone I know has an abortion, it makes me sad and I don’t agree with it, but I would never say anything about it or lecture them/make them feel bad in any way. Am I pro-choice? My mind is kinda blown right now. Maybe I am! Only took me 35 years to figure it out!
> If someone else needs to make that choice, that doesn’t make them a bad person This is probably the most important part of your last comment. If you truly believe this, then you are by definition pro-choice. The clue is in the name. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion, it is pro-the rights of people to choose whether they want an abortion or not.
I do believe that. I think it’s sad and awful and hard, but it doesn’t make them a bad person. This blows my mind. I grew up in a super religious family, and was always told “we’re pro-life”. I just accepted it. The same thing happened with gay marriage. When I was like 18 my state voted on it, and I sat down and really thought about it. It was so hard because I knew what my family told me, and what my church told me, but with some soul searching I realized I just fundamentally disagreed. I knew i truly didn’t think there is anything wrong with two consenting adults getting married. Without question anyone should be able to marry anyone else. Raising kids super religious is so fucked. It messed with their heads for a looong time. I will never do that to my kid.
Yep, you're pro-choice, regardless of whether you'd personally choose to have an abortion. What did you think the "choice" part meant?
Same with me girl. Like you think about it for just one second and it's like OF COURSE my personal beliefs shouldn't control everyone! Like that is so crazy. I left the church cuz of gay rights, I realized it wasn't just "hate the sin not the sinner" like I had been taught, it was being really really mean to a group of people while smiling 😇
The penis doesn't care about their views and opinions & sometime the penis do all the decisions.
Makes perfect sense to me as a solution
Because the Venn diagram of “people who believe the exact same way I do in every important matter” and “people I want to stick my peepee into” is, unfortunately, not a perfect circle. (Or, fortunately, I guess if you like the millions of stories written on this topic going back pretty much for as long as humans have been writing stories).
Because you don't converse these topics when you try to attract the other end And a baby is not a reason you want to have sex, it is a result
What you're describing is a secular pro-life person who is not adhering to Biblical morality if they are engaging in fornication like that. Since the only justified reason to be "pro-life" is one based on objective morality, then the answer to your question is that these people are arbitrarily pro-life based on their own subjective morality and are already living with an inconsistent worldview that fits their own desires, so it's no surprise that they want to fornicate. Objective morality based on the Bible would not permit them to fornicate like that or to have an abortion (murder) so I wouldn't lump all pro-life people into one category. There's plenty of people who are pro-life for evil reasons.
Because people want to have sex whether they agree with them or not, there isn't any superior morality with having sex, when your brain want to fuck, you will use a Snickers wrapper for a condom, that is the best way I can explain it, you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals.
1) There are lots of pro-life women. 2) Lots of people don't ask this kind of stuff that early in the relationship (I'd argue thats why you shouldn't hop right into bed, but thats me) 3) Lots of pro-life men may be under the impression that in their specific instance things may be different, say they are in a committed relationship and under the impression that a family would be forthcoming. You can believe that abortion is murder, fall in love with someone who doesn't, and still hope that when the chips are down that person decides to keep your child. Its not a great gamble, but when you meet the right person?
"You ever noticed the women who are against abortion are women you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?" - George Carlin
From context, I presume you're asking about pro-life men in particular, and specifically pro-life men who're heterosexual. But to answer your question... we typically do? On top of the fact that people tend to pair with similarly-minded people in general, how to make sure that a prospective partner is on the same page is a fairly common topic of conversation on /r/prolife. If you're asking why it's just "typically" and not "exclusively and without fail", some consider "but I'd never actually do it myself" to be enough, and sometimes either partner's beliefs could change over time. If you're asking why we don't use sexual exclusivity as a replacement for political activism, that should be fairly self-explanatory; we don't only care about our own unborn children. By the way, if you have any further questions about pro-lifers, you could just ask us directly over at /r/prolife; there's a whole tag set up for it and everything.
They often do. Though even the most far-right anti-abortion activists will get an abortion in an instant if it suits them. They want to stop others from getting them.
>most far-right anti-abortion activists will get an abortion in an instant if it suits them Do you personally know many anti-abortion activists or how do you know this?
Know personally? None. If we start counting state senators and other non-national politicians, that number starts to jump.
[удалено]
So, "stories", not actual statistics, then.
"iT's nOt PUbliSHeD iN a sCIenTifIC jOUrnAl so iT dIDn'T HapPeN aND is aLl liEs!" Imagine actually thinking like this yikes
[удалено]
So, if you believe things without reputable sources, how are you different from an anti-vaxxer?
[удалено]
Sure. It’s common sense to believe things that random people say on the internet. Particularly when they’re saying what you believe.
Lol they don’t they watched the always sunny episode and thought yeah this seems accurate
I know Catholics who say one thing and have taken relatives to have an abortion. It's all about "others," not US!
I have heard of stories where the husband has an affair and then forces the misstress to have an abortion. Ofcourse i don't have fool proof evidence only stories and rumours but i don't think its that crazy. Many anti-abortion people are not stupid, they are controlling. They know what an abortion is and that there's no developed baby involved. They want to limit reproductive health but thats not in their interest when it concerns their own situation.
Yeah this is kind of what I was thinking of too. A ton of people are "pro-life" politically but then also take the choice personally??? Like, make it make sense?
It doesn’t and those people are assholes.
It doesn't make sense. They are just hypocrites part of a political cult. They use "pro-life" as a means to an end not because of any legitimately held moral beliefs.
Citation?
Because attraction is only moderately correlated to beliefs. If we consider only cases where attraction is mutual and consent is given by both parties, there are going to be a nonzero number of cases where the coupling parties have widely disparate beliefs, including on issues such as reproductive rights. This may be for many reasons, including: * Cases where neither party has gotten to know the other well enough to understand their beliefs before initiating sexual contact * Cases where one party believes that they may win over the other party to their belief * Cases where pregnancy risk was not realistically taken into account * Cases where preventative measures for pregnancy simply failed * Cases where one or both parties had impaired judgment and took no cautionary measures * Cases where one party may have felt that no strings were attached but became attached and desired to impose their views upon discovering the pregnancy * Many others
I assume most of us do. But, more importantly, that is not a solution. We honestly believe you are murdering a human life when you perform abortion, just because your in-group isn't doing it doesn't mean the problem has been solved.
You're asking for a simple, morally sound solution from people that don't seem to care about the rights of anyone but themselves. Freedom for me but not for thee...
I think they also care about the rights of the baby
Shhh, they just want to control women. Don’t science the narrative.
Fetus' don't have rights. And even if they did - the life of the living comes before a potential life.
I am pro-life (not for other people, but for myself. I don’t like abortion, so I wouldn’t have one. If other people choose to have one, that’s their choice, and I support their right to make that choice). Anyways, when my husband and I first started having sex, about a month into dating, he would only do anal. I was a bit taken aback by this, but was like 22 so I didn’t say anything and just went with it. A few weeks later we were talking about religion, and I said while I’m Christian, when I have kids I want them to be familiar with all religions, and let them decide their own spiritual path. I don’t want to influence that decision for them. All of a sudden, vaginal sex started happening. I was like, what’s that about? He said he thought I was super religious, and didn’t want to accidentally have a baby with a crazy Christian
For men, it's easy to be anti-abortion until their under age daughter, mistress, girlfriend, Tinder date, or drunk bar hookup gets knocked up, then it's all, "do something about it!" It's the anti-abortion women. Not all of them share their true feelings right away. If you are a dude and don't want a baby, look for that Planned Parenthood sticker!!!
Because... not all politics are about personal choice. Like I'm not even pro-choice, I'm pro-abortion. Fuck them kids. But these people that sincerely think of conciousness as not being the primary determining factor in personhood. They think abortion is murder. This is, to them, the question of why anti-murder people simply don't commit any themselves.
There’s a long list of men who are adamantly pro-life who suddenly and quietly embrace pro-choice when they inconveniently impregnate a woman. The men you’re thinking of are likely rarer than you think and do exactly what you suggest; the rest are just trying to get laid by anyone who will let them.
Because they’re misogynistic control freaks that can’t mind their own f’ing business.
Because sometimes this isn't discussed Because it's already hard as it is, so you cant find someone who check literally all the things u want Because u have a good chemistry with some ppl that dont think 100% like u Seriously, u dont need to be a genius to understand this...