Think With Your Brain, Not Your Gonads.

I recently had a short-lived discussion with a pro-choicer on here (and don't get me wrong, I know not all pro-choicers are like this girl), but I will admit that it has been a long time since I came across such blatant obsession with sex and complete disregard for birth control or human life. In short, she admits that the human in question is a baby/child/person, and yet she places sexual pleasure and animals above it.
These are her own words:

"You didn't listen to a word I just said, did you? If my "personal vendetta" was rooted in hatred, I'd be on your side, right up there with all the other people advocating that the mother must be forced into having a baby unless she is raped or her life is at stake. That's not fair. There are OTHER SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE MOTHER IS AT RISK IN OTHER WAYS. But pro-lifers disregard all the other situations and assume things are just black and white. They do not think about the mother's biographical life that she has already been living, with all of her relationships, hopes, dreams, goals, etc. And the fetus has NONE OF THOSE THINGS. By default, the mother's life is more important and she should have the right to choose what is best for her because it is HER BODY and nobody else's, and you or anyone else shoving their f****** hands into her uterus and telling her what to do with it is WRONG. 
I disagree that a mother should be forced to keep the baby if she isn't ready for one and/or isn't financially stable enough to raise one, even if she wasn't being careful. I think that if she isn't ready, she should be able to abort it should she choose to. 
I feel the need to add in something personal, because I think it will help you to see where I'm coming from. I'm a 20 year old girl in college, I've got a boyfriend, we're very happy, and we've been together for about 2 years now. I have been on birth control since before we started dating, and I've still got an implant in my arm. My dream of 5 years now has been to travel to Namibia to work with the Cheetah Conservation Fund and save the fastest animals on the planet. Now, I'm going to give you a hypothetical situation: Let's say that I have to stop my birth control because of financial issues, and I can no longer afford it. My boyfriend and I have been having sex the entire time we've been together, and we enjoy it very much. To stop doing it just because I can't afford birth control would be silly for us, and because it's so normal to us and it's in human nature, there's really no way to avoid it since humans are naturally sexual animals. And to buy condoms every time we wanted to do it would end up being almost as expensive as the birth control anyway. If I were to end up in a situation like that, and I were to get pregnant, I'd abort the fetus, but I wouldn't be doing it just for me or my future, though that would be part of the reason. I would also be doing it for an entire species that is nearly wiped out and can't afford to wait for people like me, the very few who care about other species, to raise a child before I go and help it to survive. Do you understand that? It really is entirely a matter of the situation at hand. Also, birth control fails and condoms break, so would you agree even if that happened to me that I should be forced to keep the baby at the risk of the survival of an entire species? Is that acceptable? You need to realize that the world is not black and white, situations are ridiculously complicated sometimes, and you cannot control other peoples' lives. You are a selfish and cold-hearted person if you believe you have control over someone else's life."



There are many problems with this argument, but since they are simply the logical ends of many pro-choice arguments, I think they should be addressed. I'll copy-and-paste her arguments and answer them below.



You didn't listen to a word I just said, did you? If my "personal vendetta" was rooted in hatred, I'd be on your side, right up there with all the other people advocating that the mother must be forced into having a baby unless she is raped or her life is at stake.

Here, right off from the start, we have name-calling and accusations. "Pro-lifers hate women," "pro-lifers only think about two situations," etc. Accusations and name-calling are the biggest signs in debating that shows the person has nothing useful left to say.

Funny, but the reason I had only mentioned life-threatening pregnancies and not the other situations was because that's what we had been discussing. This conversation took place on a stamp where life-threatening pregnancies were being discussed. To suddenly change the subject (when I proved to her that pro-lifers do advocate abortions if the mother's life is at stake) simply makes her look desperate and frustrated. Here, right off from the start, she is using yet another tactical error.

To drive the point home, no pro-lifer is "forcing" pregnancy on a woman. This girl is referring to pregnancies from consensual sex (which make up over 99% of abortions, I might add), so none of the women referred to were "forced" into having sex. These women chose to do it. The women are the ones who invited pregnancy into their lives, not pro-lifers. The answer is simple: if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, maybe she should avoid sex for the time being. It makes no sense to make a conscious decision to do something irresponsible and then blame pro-lifers for your troubles. In the real world, we have to take responsibility for our actions.




That's not fair. There are OTHER SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE MOTHER IS AT RISK IN OTHER WAYS. But pro-lifers disregard all the other situations and assume things are just black and white. They do not think about the mother's biographical life that she has already been living, with all of her relationships, hopes, dreams, goals, etc.

Buddy, life isn't fair. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

Again, she changes the subject away from life-threatening pregnancies, which is what we had been solely discussing, which is a huge tactical error as it displays her frustration and desperation.

Pro-lifers do not disregard all other situations, we weigh them in balance with human life. If a person views the mother and fetus as equal humans and thus have the same worth, it would make no sense to kill one unless the other's life was threatened by it. Relationships, hopes, dreams, goals, etc., pale in comparison when the (often brutal) execution of an innocent and defenseless human is taken into account. Yes, a fetus is human, whether or not you have attempted to dehumanize it by its location. If it's not a human, what is it? A dog that becomes human when it takes its first breath of air?

As hard as it may be for some people to accept, sometimes our hopes and dreams don't come true. That's the sad reality of life. Sometimes we have to take responsibility for our actions. As this girl was referring to consensual sex, if a woman doesn't want to risk having her "hopes and dreams" smashed (which may not even happen due to a pregnancy, anyway), maybe she should avoid inviting the possibility into her life.







And the fetus has NONE OF THOSE THINGS. By default, the mother's life is more important...

Whoa, whoa, what? A human's worth is determine by the stuff they have? A human's worth is determined by their environment and feelings? By this girl's logic, a homeless person is less important than a wealthy person, a handicapped person is less important than an able person, and a sad person is less important than a happy person. Do you see the trend in her thinking? Not only is she weighing human life against convenience, but she is stating that a human's value is determined by elements outside of their control. This is the same pattern of thinking that has led to such terrible things as the great genocides of the 20th Century, Nazism included.







By default, the mother's life is more important and she should have the right to choose what is best for her because it is HER BODY and nobody else's, and you or anyone else shoving their f****** hands into her uterus and telling her what to do with it is WRONG.

Swearing and other such emotional behavior during a debate is another huge signal that a person has nothing useful left to say.

Yes, it is her body...up until the point where her child's body begins. Yes, she did have the choice, and she acted irresponsibly and blew it. Actually, the only hands getting shoved into anyone's uterus are the abortionist's.

And just curious, but if you don't care what we think is wrong, why should we care what you think is wrong?






I disagree that a mother should be forced to keep the baby if she isn't ready for one and/or isn't financially stable enough to raise one, even if she wasn't being careful. I think that if she isn't ready, she should be able to abort it should she choose to. 

Note that she says "baby." Not fetus, not blob, not embryo. Baby. She is fully aware of what is temporarily inside the mother's body: a baby. And yet she is perfectly all right with killing it. I wonder if she would be comfortable killing a newborn for the same reasons.

Actually, there's no disagreement about a woman not being forced to raise the baby. There are adoption and foster care. Where we disagree is whether or not a woman should have the right to execute a defenseless baby (to use her own words) to sweep her irresponsible decision under the rug.






I feel the need to add in something personal, because I think it will help you to see where I'm coming from. I'm a 20 year old girl in college, I've got a boyfriend, we're very happy, and we've been together for about 2 years now. 

Yay.





 I have been on birth control since before we started dating, and I've still got an implant in my arm. My dream of 5 years now has been to travel to Namibia to work with the Cheetah Conservation Fund and save the fastest animals on the planet.

At least she's being halfway responsible. Birth control is not 100% effective, you do realize. It's only about 80% at its best. That means there is always a 20% chance that it will fail and she could end up pregnant and wanting an abortion. Now, we must also realize that abortions are generally very expensive. The price of an abortion could easily cancel a trip to Namibia. Tell me: how is it responsible to have sex if the cost of an abortion could crush your dreams?

It's a noble cause to want to go to Namibia to help cheetahs, though. There are only around 5,000 - 25,000 cheetahs in the wild, so they definitely need help. Is it responsible to risk them by having sex, though?

First of all, the idea that cheetahs can't wait for her is absurd. She says here that she's been making them wait for over 5 years. To bring the point home, cheetahs are already on a comeback without her help. Roughly 13 years ago, there were only around 35 - 200 cheetahs in the wild. Today, there are 5,000 - 25,000 (animals.howstuffworks.com/enda…). That's still very low, but it's clear that cheetahs are on a comeback. They won't go extinct if one woman goes on maternity leave for a few months.







Now, I'm going to give you a hypothetical situation: Let's say that I have to stop my birth control because of financial issues, and I can no longer afford it.

The answer is simple: don't have sex. If she can't afford birth control chances are she won't be able to afford an abortion, much less a good one in Namibia, and she'd most likely end up in a back-alley clinic in Africa. Is that what she wants? Risking her hopes, dreams, goals, and her very life just to kill her baby?

Or, if she can't keep her body under control, she could sterilize herself. Sterilization is about 99.95% effective, so it's a pretty safe bet, and it would solve the long-term problem in Namibia.






My boyfriend and I have been having sex the entire time we've been together, and we enjoy it very much. To stop doing it just because I can't afford birth control would be silly for us, and because it's so normal to us and it's in human nature, there's really no way to avoid it since humans are naturally sexual animals.

Okay, first of all, doing something that you can't afford is what's commonly known as stupid.

Hold up: the entire time? What did they do when they first met, say two words and then make out? Granted, I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but do you see where this girl is coming from? She coming from her obsession with sex. In fact, she can't even conceive of holding off on sex during a time when birth control is beyond her reach. She says it's "silly." She even admits that she can't avoid sex. That is what's known as an addiction, my friends. It is extremely unhealthy and dangerous to be a slave to anything, much less something that could give you STDs or ultimately destroy your "hopes and dreams." No wonder she equates herself to an animal.

Would she be happy if her boyfriend cheated on her? After all, he's just a sexual animal. It's not as if he has any control over his body.

Is there a reason her boyfriend couldn't buy her birth control if she couldn't afford it? Is he so much of a deadbeat as to have sex with her and then turn a blind eye to her problems? Sounds like all he cares about is getting into her pants. Sounds like he needs to be dumped.

It's clear that this girl is not fighting for cheetahs or for women's health, she's fighting to have her boyfriend's penis stuck up her vagina to squirt blood products into her body. Sorry for the crudity, but such is the true nature of sex.







And to buy condoms every time we wanted to do it would end up being almost as expensive as the birth control anyway.

Now, I'd like the reader to note something very dangerous here. Nowhere does she make any attempt to prevent sexually-transmitted diseases. Arm implants are very effective at preventing pregnancy, but they do nothing to prevent STDs, and STDs are far, far, far more dangerous and costly that pregnancy. Condoms can prevent STDs, although they can break and therefore the risk is always present, abortion or not, but this girl doesn't care about STDs. This girl is clearly not thinking critically. She wants sex, she wants sex now, she wants sex the way she likes it, and anyone who disagrees is a bigot for all she cares.







If I were to end up in a situation like that, and I were to get pregnant, I'd abort the fetus, but I wouldn't be doing it just for me or my future, though that would be part of the reason.

I understand what she's saying, but I don't understand how it's logical. Does she realize abortions are not cheap? She acts as if she can pop over to the local abortion clinic in Namibia and have it done safely for cheap or for free.







 I would also be doing it for an entire species that is nearly wiped out and can't afford to wait for people like me, the very few who care about other species, to raise a child before I go and help it to survive.

Note that she uses the word "child." Not fetus, embryo, blob, or cells. Child. We are not discussing an unborn blob of cells, we are talking about a child, which is undeniably a person no matter where you are coming from. She is willing to sacrifice a child's life for animals, and those animals would not even be hurt by her carrying to term. This is the clearest example yet of how low a regard this girl holds human life in. To this girl, animals are more important than people.

First of all, this girl has completely forgotten an option that is open to every parent: adoption. She wouldn't have to raise the child. Cheetahs would need to wait only 9 months. They can certainly wait 9 months, seeing as she's been making them wait for over 5 years.

On top of that, the idea that cheetahs can't wait for her is absurd. She's been making them wait for over 5 years. To bring the point home, cheetahs are already on a comeback without her help. Roughly 13 years ago, there were only around 35 - 200 cheetahs in the wild. Today, there are 5,000 - 25,000 (animals.howstuffworks.com/enda…). That's still very low, but it's clear that cheetahs are on a comeback. They won't go extinct if one woman goes on maternity leave for a few months.

She believes the cheetah species can't wait for her, and yet she's been making them wait for over 5 years, she said. Obviously the cheetah species could wait a few months if one woman had to go on maternity leave. On top of that, how would raising a baby (provided she chose to raise it and not give it up for adoption) cause the entire cheetah species to go extinct? Do you see how extreme she's gotten? Conservation workers have children all the time. It's possible to work around children and help endangered species at the same time. It can even be extremely beneficial to the species' long-term survival, seeing as she could instill a deep love and/or appreciation for cheetahs in her child from birth. To say that the cheetah species will magically vanish from the planet's surface due to one child's birth is ridiculous, and is an extremely black-and-white way of viewing the situation.

On top of all that, she's assuming that she has to raise the child before she goes and helps cheetahs. No one is forcing her to raise the child. There options such as adoption, foster care, and there is always the chance the child's father might want to raise his child. ...Unless he's a deadbeat and only cares about getting into her pants. This is a classic pro-choicer error: they assume the mother must raise the child.





 It really is entirely a matter of the situation at hand. Also, birth control fails and condoms break, so would you agree even if that happened to me that I should be forced to keep the baby at the risk of the survival of an entire species? Is that acceptable?

Again, she says "baby." She knows what we are talking about. A baby. A child. And yet she wants to kill it.

First of all, the idea that cheetahs can't wait for her is absurd. She's been making them wait for over 5 years. To bring the point home, cheetahs are already on a comeback without her help. Roughly 13 years ago, there were only around 35 - 200 cheetahs in the wild. Today, there are 5,000 - 25,000 (animals.howstuffworks.com/enda…). That's still very low, but it's clear that cheetahs are on a comeback. They won't go extinct if one woman goes on maternity leave for a few months.

The survival of the entire species does not hinge on one woman going on maternity leave. That is simply ridiculous. And she accuses pro-lifers of seeing only in black-and-white. Conservation workers have children all the time. It's possible to work around children and help endangered species at the same time. It can even be extremely beneficial to the species' long-term survival, seeing as she could instill a deep love and/or appreciation for cheetahs in her child from birth. To say that the cheetah species will magically vanish from the planet's surface due to one child's birth is ridiculous, and is an extremely black-and-white way of viewing the situation. On top of all that, she's assuming that she has to raise the child before she goes and helps cheetahs. No one is forcing her to raise the child. There options such as adoption, foster care, and there is always the chance the child's father might want to raise his child. ...Unless he's a deadbeat and only cares about getting into her pants. This is a classic pro-choicer error: they assume the mother must raise the child.

Does she realize that abortions cost a lot of money, especially in a place like Namibia? That money could go to helping cheetahs instead of helping a woman have a convenient lifestyle. It does not make sense to spend money on an abortion when it could be spent on helping a critically endangered species survive, especially not when she is not required to raise the child and people like me are willing to fund her pregnancy. That's what welfare and WIC are for.

There are literally dozens of options open to women in crisis pregnancies (many of which allow the mother to take back her child if she so chooses), including (but not limited to): pregnancy shelters, women's shelters, women with children shelters, adoption, child support, foster care, WIC, food stamps, welfare, "workfare," not to mention the hundreds of pro-life families who will and have opened their doors to women and girls in crisis pregnancies. It's worth noting that while pro-lifers run many pregnancy shelters, not a single pregnancy shelter is run by pro-choicers. Explain the "choice" offered there.









You need to realize that the world is not black and white, situations are ridiculously complicated sometimes, and you cannot control other peoples' lives. You are a selfish and cold-hearted person if you believe you have control over someone else's life.

No, the world is not black-and-white. Cheetahs will not vanish off the face of the planet if she carries to term. They're already on a comeback without her, not mention that she's been making them wait for her for 5 years.

Who is she to talk about controlling people's lives? She knows and admits that the human she wants to kill is a baby/child/person, and yet she wants to kill it. In what way is killing someone to protect her convenience less cold-hearted and selfish than asking a woman to temporarily carry a baby to term, a baby which she chose to invite into her body? She says I shouldn't have control over someone else's life, and yet she fights to take ultimate control over a someone else's  life.