There has been a lot of media hubbub about Birth or Not, with pretty much everyone decrying the site as tasteless. A lot of people are even accusing them of being "Pro-Life trolls."

Honestly, I don't understand why someone would be offended by this. In both of the extreme camps of belief on abortion, outrage is unjustified.

If you believe that aborting a fetus is murder, then there is nothing inherently MORE wrong with letting people vote on murder versus simply committing murder. If anything, you should be happy with them for giving society an opportunity to save their child instead of simply murdering it.

If you believe that aborting a fetus is a medical procedure that should left up to the parents, then how is letting people vote on abortion any different then letting people vote on a type of cancer treatment, or elective cosmetic surgery? What about abortion is especially tasteless? Shouldn't you be happy with them for being publicly willing to declare their willingness to abort despite the stigma that will result?


So, basically, if their site offends you, can you explain to me why?

It's tasteless because it's not the mother or the parents making a decision to have the abortion. It's the Internet. The Internet does not and should never have a decision or say in whether YOUR child is to be aborted or not. I'm pro-choice. Which means a woman can choose whether or not she wants to keep the child. Or another way of putting it, a woman can choose whether she, personally, wants to be pro-life or pro-choice.

But yeah, this is pretty tasteless. And that's the nicest thing I can say about it.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
It's tasteless because it's not the mother or the parents making a decision to have the abortion. It's the Internet. The Internet does not and should never have a decision or say in whether YOUR child is to be aborted or not. I'm pro-choice. Which means a woman can choose whether or not she wants to keep the child. Or another way of putting it, a woman can choose whether she, personally, wants to be pro-life or pro-choice.

But yeah, this is pretty tasteless. And that's the nicest thing I can say about it.

So, would you have the same feeling if the medical procedure to be performed was elective cosmetic surgery? What about a particular type of cancer treatment? If she had instead made a site "Chemo or Not" where she asked people to vote on whether or not she should get chemotherapy, would you feel the same revulsion? Her right to control/choose her cancer treatment is the same as her right to control/choose her abortion procedure, (they both derive from the right to control/choose one's own medical treatments applied to their own body). If the offence comes from you disapproving of her giving up control of her medical choices to the internet, then logically you would feel the same anger at the "Chemo or Not" or "Fake Boobs or Not" websites. Am I wrong here?

Why are they even considering getting an abortion? This is certainly tasteless, but it's even more nonsensical. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

It's a pro-life troll.

Quote: Original post by Steve132

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
It's tasteless because it's not the mother or the parents making a decision to have the abortion. It's the Internet. The Internet does not and should never have a decision or say in whether YOUR child is to be aborted or not. I'm pro-choice. Which means a woman can choose whether or not she wants to keep the child. Or another way of putting it, a woman can choose whether she, personally, wants to be pro-life or pro-choice.

But yeah, this is pretty tasteless. And that's the nicest thing I can say about it.

So, would you have the same feeling if the medical procedure to be performed was elective cosmetic surgery? What about a particular type of cancer treatment? If she had instead made a site "Chemo or Not" where she asked people to vote on whether or not she should get chemotherapy, would you feel the same revulsion? Her right to control/choose her cancer treatment is the same as her right to control/choose her abortion procedure, (they both derive from the right to control/choose one's own medical treatments applied to their own body). If the offence comes from you disapproving of her giving up control of her medical choices to the internet, then logically you would feel the same anger at the "Chemo or Not" or "Fake Boobs or Not" websites. Am I wrong here?

If a woman wants to have the internet on whether she should have bigger boobs, then go for it. But don't pretend that deciding whether you should have a child --especially at 17 weeks, when it's obviously a human being-- is the same thing as giving your chest more bounce.

Any site where a person is letting the Internet decide to end life or start life is tasteless, to say the least.

According to: http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/birthornot.com

The domain "birthornot.com" was registered on May 17, 2010. Thats going on 28 weeks ago, yet they claim to only be in the 17th week of the pregnancy.

Really, this is nothing less than a pro-life publicity stunt.

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes

Quote: Original post by Steve132

Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes
It's tasteless because it's not the mother or the parents making a decision to have the abortion. It's the Internet. The Internet does not and should never have a decision or say in whether YOUR child is to be aborted or not. I'm pro-choice. Which means a woman can choose whether or not she wants to keep the child. Or another way of putting it, a woman can choose whether she, personally, wants to be pro-life or pro-choice.

But yeah, this is pretty tasteless. And that's the nicest thing I can say about it.

So, would you have the same feeling if the medical procedure to be performed was elective cosmetic surgery? What about a particular type of cancer treatment? If she had instead made a site "Chemo or Not" where she asked people to vote on whether or not she should get chemotherapy, would you feel the same revulsion? Her right to control/choose her cancer treatment is the same as her right to control/choose her abortion procedure, (they both derive from the right to control/choose one's own medical treatments applied to their own body). If the offence comes from you disapproving of her giving up control of her medical choices to the internet, then logically you would feel the same anger at the "Chemo or Not" or "Fake Boobs or Not" websites. Am I wrong here?

If a woman wants to have the internet on whether she should have bigger boobs, then go for it. But don't pretend that deciding whether you should have a child --especially at 17 weeks, when it's obviously a human being-- is the same thing as giving your chest more bounce.

Any site where a person is letting the Internet decide to end life or start life is tasteless, to say the least.

Ok, that makes sense. I had broken it down into "People who believe it is a human life and therefore believe that it is murder" and "People who believe it is not a human life and therefore believe that it is a medical procedure" which was an oversimplification. I did not anticipate any significant portion of the population being the other two possibilities: "I believe it is not human life but belive it is murder" and "I believe it is human life but believe it is a medical procedure" of which you appear to be the latter. That position on its own perplexes me a bit, however, assuming it makes sense to you, I do understand your outrage. Thank you for the answer.

Let me clarify my position since you're having a hard time understanding. Letting the Internet make decisions on life and death is stupid.

With that said, I didn't know that you could have an abortion at 5 months or even 4 months. Those sonograms clearly depict a human being. In my opinion, to abort that child is wrong. But at 1 month, when just it's a clump of cells, makes it, as you say, a medical procedure. So I'm okay with that.

I don't think I'd consider myself 'pro-life' as there are alot of ppl I think could die and the world would be a better place. So peg me down as anti-abortion.