Try the political quiz
@B8CT6ZB DisagreementsCounter Arguments7mos ago

Abortions aren’t about killing ‘babies’, they can be about saving the mother’s life, preventing that fetus from potentially being born into a place where they wouldn’t be taken care of or cared for. A mother having to abort her baby is a hard decision one she is making to protect the baby and herself in the long run.

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Social Issues?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Counter Argument?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

14 Replies

 @B8D4XG7Peace and Freedom from Kentucky  agreed…7mos7MO

I think they are right because in pro-life believes in an instance where the mother might be in risk of their life they think they should save the baby, but if they were actually faced with that in real life they would choose to save the mother because they aren't speaking from experience obviously because they've never had that pressure on them of a life or death of their spouse or family member.

 @B8D6R2H from Illinois  agreed…7mos7MO

Planned Parenthood saves mothers. If a woman is raped or has an ectopic pregnancy, Planned Parenthood can help her. It can save a woman's life. Cutting funding would be detrimental to women.

 @B8D2T9HRepublican from Virginia  agreed…7mos7MO

I think abortions should only be allowed to happen when the mothers life is at risk, rape or incest.

 @B8D4D8W from Alabama  agreed…7mos7MO

Abortion is something that can be done to save mothers but also keep babies that were going to die as soon as they came out of the womb from suffering through their short time on earth.

 @B8CZDXY from North Carolina  agreed…7mos7MO

Yes i agree since many people do not want to part with something that they have been expecting for a long time

 @B8CV33ZLibertarian from Texas  agreed…7mos7MO

I agree. Religiously it’s bad, but it is also a solution to a bad rape where there was no consent to the woman in question. She may have been drugged and got pregnant during the rape.

 @B8DCDRD from Texas  agreed…7mos7MO

No abortion kills babies and should not be allowed unless someone was raped or the mothers life is at risk.

 @B8DBZDV from Ohio  agreed…7mos7MO

I agree with this post. No woman has the goal of getting an abortion, its a scary and difficult decision, however it is hers to make and she should have all the resources to make it. And in a country that doesn't support children and is only "pro birth" and not "pro life" it is ridiculous that the government even thinks they have the right to take this healthcare away.

 @B8D9TX6Peace and Freedom from Florida  agreed…7mos7MO

yes i 100% agree with this statement. No one leaves their house excited to get an abortion it is most often traumatic to the mother and is a mentally challenging decision to make. Abortions were never about the life of a "baby" it has always been about controlling women and the declining birth rate in the united states.

 @B8D6VDJ from Kentucky  agreed…7mos7MO

I agree that it can be helpful for the mother however there's always an exception to the rule. But if someone were to be raped or a minor is caring a child they should be allowed to abort it if their life is in danger.

 @B8D6T6RDemocrat from Virginia  agreed…7mos7MO

I agree. It seems that right now, the government only cares when the baby is in the mothers uterus. Once its birthed, they couldn't care less. They cut medicare, planned parents, jump start, and all other policies in place to make life easy for mothers. The republican party do not care about people. They only care about getting rich.

 @B8D4RY4 from Kentucky  agreed…7mos7MO

If she was raped or it was unconsetial I see why they would otherwise its both of there choices not just the womens.

 @B8CW6ZP from California  agreed…7mos7MO

Planned Parenthood provides crucial health services beyond abortions. Denying funds hampers access to vital health services.

 @B8CZDQP from North Carolina  agreed…7mos7MO

It is about having the mothers be safe and have in events of children having to do it its about saving their lives and childhood. so I agree.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this disagreement.

@B8CT6ZB

Last activeActivity11 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias100%Active in
Answers  6 Education  2 Counter Arguments  2 Disagreements  2 Critical Race Theory in K-12 Education  1
PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies