Pro-Life / Pro-Choice

[Kester]

Yes I know we already have a thread about this, but it was last touched nearly a year and a half ago, and we now have a lot more members. Also some of the people who had already posted in it might have changed their opinions since then. So my question is, which, in your mind, is right and why?

Should a woman have full choice, or none at all?

[zim]

This is a subject which I'm divided on, I used to be pro-choice, but after doing a lot of research, I saw the true gruesomeness of abortion and could see where the pro-life camp were coming from. I now believe a solution is somewhere in between, obviously saying that a child that is a week away from being born is not "living" yet is ludicrous. I don't know where the line should be drawn, I'm not a doctor, maybe after the baby's heart is beating for itself inside the womb, I don't know. my 2c.

Pro-choice people, open your mind a bit and don't hide away from the ugly side of abortion, search for "aborted baby" in google images and you'll get what I mean.

[vincian]

Personally, I think that abortion is a harsh reality, no matter if it's lawful or not. As long as it's regulated, and there are safe and clean clinics available, women who are seeking abortions arn't going into back alleyways with rusty coat hangers.

So yeah, abortion sucks, but when you boil it down, it's a cold answer of math. Two deaths are worse than one.

[Russell]

I think it should be limited. A woman can get an abortion if they were raped or if the father of that baby also agrees on an abortion. A woman shouldn't have full decision making capability, if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't she still has to have it.

[intooblivion]

dJcebIEOkhY&feature=related

Bscly.

[vincian]

I think it should be limited. A woman can get an abortion if they were raped or if the father of that baby also agrees on an abortion. A woman shouldn't have full decision making capability, if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't she still has to have it.

I don't know... not that I am taking a side, but to be fair, I personally believe that the woman should have a bit more say, do to the massive effects of pregnancy on the body.

However, this goes both ways. If the father doesn't want to keep the child, but the mother does, well, she should go ahead and have the child.


Once again, your not going to convince people one way or another. It's just a fact that people get abortions, whether you want them to or not.

[rtanger]

If the woman became pregnant against her will, be it through rape, abuse, what have you, an abortion should unquestionably be allowed. I'm no lady, but I just can't imagine the psychological, let alone physical ramifications of carrying what is essentially a product of evil, a forced invasion of their own body, and then additionally having to deal with others saying that ending that potential life would make them evil as well...wow that would suck...

In other situations, I'm kind of torn. In some ways, I think some lives are better ended than being born into an uncaring, unloving existence where they'll be ignored and abused, and only so many children can languish in foster homes.
On the other hand, I don't think a life should be ended solely for the convenience of the ones who conceived it. In some situations, it's only right to man up, and face the responsibility you brought into this world.

So, I guess essentially, there needs to be room to examine each on a case-by-case basis. Abortion should never be 100% illegal. Just my take.

[Wasabi]

Although, if abortions were made completely illegal, world populations would increase even faster than they currently are, putting more strain on Earth's resources.

[KindGalaxy]

My wife had an abortion, before I met her, she said she wouldn't do it again and the reasons she did do it was all revolving around the father-to-be who was apparently an asshole.
I accept abortion, for me personally I don't see the point because I am at a point in my life where I could support a child or two but there are many families out there, due to economic reasons, that really should not have a baby.
The cost of raising a child his over $200,000 in its lifetime, on average, that's alot of money if you and your partner are just sitting on minimum wage with only two incomes.
The number one thing to consider is will the child have a good life.
I'm Christian and most in my Church accept abortion, and honestly if you don't want kids; use a damn condom, use birth control, and if you're the bloke then pull out before you finish; if you're really that paranoid. People get abortions because they don't want children, but if you take precautions then the decision to have an abortion or not should never come up.

[Taikis]

Aborted 9 week fetus (Graphic nature, please click at your own risk) (http://anti-abortion.info/images/aborted_9_week_fetus.jpg)

Choice comes with responsibility.

[Black Op]

I think that the decision to have an abortion is a personal one where the mother has as much say as she wants. While I probably would settle for adoption in the event I produced an unwanted baby, it is not in my power or that of anyone else's to decide what a mother can do or not do with a fetus incapable of surviving on its own. However if a fetus is developed enough to live outside the womb and feel pain, than obviously abortions should be done only in extreme medical circumstances (which is basically the stance current US abortion laws take).

In my opinion, the reason this issue has persisted for so long is because this is the last vital chance for conservative, puritanical aspects of society to dictate women's lives. Women have already achieved considerable rights, and thus freedom from old and outdated traditionalist norms. However with abortion, these "Puritans" can keep the moral zeitgeist from progressing by resorting to graphic imagery to gross people out and make them think twice about abortion. Frankly I despise it when they use this tactic; shouldn't we abolish war because people die in gruesome and painful ways without their consent? Of course the pro-life side couldn't be bothered with that; their main motivation is making sure that the status quo remains no matter what.

[lskennedy]

I think it should be limited. A woman can get an abortion if they were raped



Well heres the thing, if my memory serves me correctly, Rape victims who get pregnant (mind you reported raped females)get pregnant less then 1% of the time, because the all powerful "Morning after" pill is included in a rape kit that doctors immediately use on victims. So the argument for rape should be a small one, not as large as people make it out to be. But still, i say choice, i have seen the pictures, heard the stories. I think it all depends

In Kindgalaxies point, that is one reason NOT to have a child, if you cant give it a safe, healthy, and loving life, then dont risk it.

In another arguement, ui cant remember who's, but they said "One week from being born", 1, for health reasons, you cannot get an abortion after 3 months of being pregnant, so that should never happen, unless its with the rusty hangar theory.

Idk, oxford michigan gets really pissy once a year about abortion, with the whole red tape and what not. most of the guys i know where signs saying "NO uterus, no choice".

Idk, touchy subject.

[Atomic Waffle]

It's only removing the possibility of a child as it hasn't acheived enough brain function to be actually considered a living thing. It should carry no more ethical weight than killing a plant, as neither are actually sentient. You could apply the same logic to masturbation, saying that killing millions of innocent little sperm cells is evil and despicable. They're cells. You kill cells all the time without even thinking of it. They have no sentience, and are only the not even assured potential to be a child.

Women should have a choice in what they want to do with their own bodies, and it should be no one else's but theirs, in short.

[Kester]

I agree, it is definitely more the choice of the woman, than the man in a relationship. The harsh reality is, a man will find it much, much easier to walk away from a child than a woman ever will. The guy can always make it easier on themselves by saying things like, well it probably wasn't mine anyhow, or something else in the same vein. A woman can never do that. It'll have always been a part of her, and it would be almost impossible to walk away from that.

[Cobra951]

My brother said it best, and it has stuck with me. A woman may have the right to an abortion, but it's the most selfish, inconsiderate act she ever likely will commit.

I see no fundamental difference between a human fetus who needs the womb and umbilical cord for survival, and a fully developed human who needs air at 15 psi, a narrow range of temperature at the skin and food/water to survive. All creatures require a certain environment to survive. Shoot someone naked into outer space and see what happens. That's a bit like an abortion.

As soon as an egg is fertilized, a new life is entirely developing on its own. As I said, the womb is an environment and the cord is the source of nourishment. But all cell division and growth is the result of the genetic programming within the emerging human being. Without having to get spiritual, anyone who understands the process should appreciate it for the wonder that it is. To throw it away for convenience is a despicable act, even if a legal one.

[Kester]

Ok, I may not agree with your point, but I see where you are coming from. However, what about in the case of rape, or incest?

[MaxTheLimit]

I can't say that requiring the environment of life is really anywhere near the same thing as an abortion. Having a baby is very destructive to a womans body, leaving the earths atmosphere and habitat as is really isn't the responsibility of a single martyr.

I feel it is necessary for abortions to be legal free and controlled. Until the heart and brain become distinctive in development I hardly consider it a developed life. Women should not be forced to go through a pregnancy from rape, incest, great danger to themselves.

No woman ever comes out of pregnancy unchanged, and to demand that she subject herself because to building blocks of life have combined, it's no reason to say that it immediately is a full life warranting the numerous possible ill effects.

There is a limit to this of course. You cannot have abortions when important portions of development have started as then it simply becomes in humane. I don't consider destroying a collection of growing cells murder, in the same sense of killing a being with a nervous system, eyes brain and heart.

If it isn't regulated and controlled to remain legal then women WILL do it themselves. They will do it wrong, they will harm themselves, and worst of all, not fully abort the child, and create a life of misery.

Abortion wouldn't be needed if it were permitted to grow humans without a womb, and hurt a woman. then adoptions etc. would possibly be a more attractive option. But to ask a woman to risk their life/wellbeing/happiness for a small collection of cells is hardly fair. At least so far as I am concerned.

[Mad Scientist]

There are multiple issues in this question, but the key one is: at what point can the child be actually called "alive" it its development cycle? There is no true scientific consensus on this, as it is a very difficult thing to judge. Do you start with simple genetic viability? First heartbeat? First neural activity? The point at which the child could survive outside the womb?

Once the baby is classed as alive, there can be no choice. Abortion would be murder. But if the baby is not yet at that point, then abortion is perfectly viable

Personally, i do not class pure genetic viability as enough to be alive. The potential to be alive perhaps, but no more. My reasons for this belief are difficult to explain, but are still reasoned rather than asserted. If an argument here develops, then i will likely elaborate upon them, but otherwise, i will save you reading a lengthy essay.

And as for the general principle, even though i have seen first hand the unpleasant products of an abortion (there are some preserved specimens i once saw at a museum in poland. Gruesome in extreme, but still interesting), i would still be pro-choice where possible. The ability to have unprotected sex is not a tell of the ability to be a good parent, and considering the amount of criminals that come from single parent/high poverty backgrounds, i i know of some mothers who have wished they had realised this beforehand.

[[CBLA]Xenon]

Mad Scientist, perhaps 'sentient' would be a better choice of words, rather than 'alive'. All of my houseplants are alive (miraculously), but they're not sentient.

To my knowledge, anyway.

And that, is really part of the heart of the abortion debate is 1) how we define sentience, and 2) at what point does a living being (regardless of species) acquire sentience, if at all.

I suspect that until we can finally answer both those questions conclusively (because I really don't believe we have, yet), then the abortion debate can't really be concluded decisively.

[Mad Scientist]

Although i was sorely tempted to use the word sentient, i decided against it. A human doesn't really acheive sentience untill a couple of months after it has been born, as sentience is a faculty specific to humans, dolphins and some apes. There isn't really a word to describe the point of development that we are trying to describe, but we are talking about the potential to reach the stage of potentially being sentient, which in humans alone, is the potential to be sapient.

As that is a somewhat cumbersome phrase, i stuck with the word, alive, inaccurate though it may be.

[MaxTheLimit]

I too struggle with the exact phrase to describe the point at which a fetus becomes too developed for an abortion and the best I can come up with is...nothing. I have no word for it.

Personally I can't think of any legitimate argument based on currently available rational knowledge to really say abortion is wrong no matter what stage. The only real detractors are religious followers that argue the point based on their spiritual principals. Thankfully in western civilization for the most part laws are based on interpretation of knowledge we currently have nowadays, over intimidation of zealots.

Can we not agree that there is a point in the development cycle that it is considered not developed enough to totally throw away the idea of an abortion?

[redgrassbridge]

I am pro-choice. I think no woman should ever be forced by external influence to endure the physical and emotional suffering of pregnancy and make the emotional sacrifice of parenthood or adoption. I do not think a developing fetus is a human citizen with the same rights of anyone else or that it is independent from the custody of the mother.

However, I understand why pro-life people do. I can see why they see that the fetus is a human, with the capacity to feel pain and the potential to live a full life, and that abortion is murder. What more, I say that they should rally against this murder with every fiber of their being. They should yell and scream and make a fuss, and they should go to every length to stop an abortion that they would to stop a stabbing. But not until they do the same in front of every death row, in front of every slaughter house, in front of every drug raid and in front of every United States Army base. And until they are willing to devote each minute of their life to this cause, they should not dare to assume the stance of moral superiority and they should keep out of women’s lives.

[ninjalegend]

This one is extremely tough for me. I believe in choice. I would fight to the death for the right to do what I please with my body. My problem comes with the fact there should be two choices (one a potential). I'm with mad scientist on this one. When does it become him/her? The human (read:flawed) side of me says "At conception!", yet my rational side says "when it becomes aware". For those meat lovers out there, consider your diet. That animal can feel fear. Pavlov's dog proves those animals have the ability for trained responses. Yet we kill them and eat them everyday. I am in no means comparing humans to animals, but trying to display the reason for what I think. A human fetus before you can no longer abort it, has not even developed to that level. I guess I fall into the category of pro choice.

On a side note, why are people who are pro life not going after a huge killer of would be children. Cigarette smoking, alcohol, obesity, hard drugs, and other life style choices are a huge cause of misscarages. With the possible exception of hard drugs, I've never really heard anything about it from the pro lifers. Why are those choices OK. Because you did not know that arguing everyday with your man and screaming about bills or possible other father would lead to stress that could be life threatening to your would be kid? Or that boozing would be ok as long as you quit soon after the child was conceived?

[Black Op]

Why are people who are pro life not going after a huge killer of would be children.
When it comes down to it, the pro-life side are in it for the wrong reasons. It's no mere coincidence that the same people and organizations who are against abortion will also tend to speak out against birth control, stem-cell research, safe-sex education, homosexuality, and et cetera. You see, all the things I've mentioned that are opposed by these groups all share a common thread; they all interfere with how many people are born into the world. To people who are taught by their religions that procreation should be one of their main goals in life, anything which results in less procreation is sinful because if there's less people born, it means less souls who could be indoctrinated into a faith. In a culture that celebrates death as the passageway to a better life, death is not such a big deal if the person already has faith anyway.

Going back to the question at hand, it would be a mistake to say that pro-lifers were not against cigarette smoking, alcohol, obesity, and hard drugs, but they shouldn't be expected to realize that they can cause miscarriages as well. To people that were denied the ability to think critically for themselves due to indoctrinization proceedures, it's much easier for them to see how "abortion is murder". Just keep in mind that some pro-lifers actually hold their beliefs not because God commands them to do so, but for other secular reasons.

[Alex6969]

Personally, I would rather have a child be aborted than to live with parents who are addicted to drugs, homeless, and will either sell the baby for drugs or throw it in a dumpster. But then again, if my girlfriend got pregnant, I would say keep it since both of us are smart, well-to-do people.

I think it should be left up to the mother to decide, it shouldn't be the job of the government to make it illegal to choose what's best for the mother/baby. I am pro-choice, but will probably never use that choice. I think abortions should be done ASAP, like within the first month, there may be some reasons to wait, but I can't think of any. I think a fetus/baby is a person once they become sentient.

[Sersoft.corp]

I'm pro choice, if a mother keeps a child simply because the law has forced her to, the child will probably be treated badly, will realize that he/she is not wanted and in the worst case commit crime/suicide at some point.

Of course there's also adoption, but I think any mother should just have a choice, it's as simple as that.

[TheTaxidermist]

Here's my opinion, it's rather radical so don't blow up at me.

I've heard pro-choice people say "what if the baby grows up in a terrible home. Why should they have to suffer." Using that logic, we may as well go out and kill every person living in terrible conditions, this way they don't have to suffer through them. If you can't handle a child, you shouldn't be having unprotected sex.

I know the view is radical, but that's just how I view it and nothing will change my opinion on abortion, which is that it is wrong at all stages.

[Drukaree]

I believe in pro-choice. However, I would never want my baby's mother to have the abortion unless under the most extreme of circumstances (I'd vastly prefer adoption to abortion).

I believe that abortion should be an option for any woman who wants/is capable of going through it. However, I don't think that abortions should receive public funding in ANY capacity, unless the pregnancy is dangerous to the mother or the mother is a rape/incest victim.

Therefore, the option is available, but not mandatory and it doesn't receive public funding; therefore, anti-abortion people don't have to pay for them. Everyone is happy under this kind of system, why impose your values on somebody else?

[Black Op]

Here's my opinion, it's rather radical so don't blow up at me.
Thaks for sharing as I've got a radical opinion of my own. If the government decides that destroying the mere potential for life and sentience equates to murder, then that should mean that birth control should be outlawed too because it prevents the development of embryos from happening at all. Next we'll ban non-vaginal sexual practices because every sacred sperm cell that doesn't reach the vagina takes away the potential for life. Finally we could reach a point where all women become nothing more than child factories because every single moment that fertile women are not getting themselves pregnant, they're destroying the potential for future life.

Hmmm...... tough choice. Either we enslave all women so we can keep them pregnant as much as possible or we kill off all poor people. Nevermind the fact that abortion is a personal choice and not a government extermination or sterilization program. Nobody on the pro-choice is suggesting that poor people should be prevented from having babies, since having an abortion is a decision that only potential parents can decide on. That's where your scenario falls flat, since it assumes that allowing people to choose getting abortions that don't interfere with any rights of those already alive and sentient will somehow turn into government-enforced abortions that violate a whole bunch of human rights.

[Mad Scientist]

Here's my opinion, it's rather radical so don't blow up at me.

I've heard pro-choice people say "what if the baby grows up in a terrible home. Why should they have to suffer." Using that logic, we may as well go out and kill every person living in terrible conditions, this way they don't have to suffer through them. If you can't handle a child, you shouldn't be having unprotected sex.

I know the view is radical, but that's just how I view it and nothing will change my opinion on abortion, which is that it is wrong at all stages.


I belive this nicely highlights the way religion deals with these issues.

The religious objection to birth control, abortion, safe-sex education, homosexuality and the such like has a far simpler root. To put it simply, nearly all religion's reject sexuality to some degree. For whatever the reason, most religions look upon sex as something sinful that should be avoided. Of course, this cannot be a total prohibition, as little believers need to come from somewhere, so the stigmatisation is slightly more subtle. Most western religions have evolved the respons that the only true purpose of sex is for procreation, and that any other reason for it is sinful. This is why birth control, abortion, safe-sex education and homosexuality are villanised - because they promote forms of sexual expression without the premise of procreation.

However i'm not entirly sure where this anti-sexual movment began. The most likely cause i can see is that as the abrahmic religions began to form, many elements of their creeds are reactionary components to earlier pagan belief systems. In the same way that right wing views become popular in times of relative disorder, and socialist views are fermented by times of high class distinction, newly formed beliefs always seek to rebel against the establisment. As the establisments at the time were fairly hedonistic ancient civilisations (eg rome), it is only natural that early monotheistic belivers would preach abstinence.

As a result of this, any union that is not for the purpose of procreation, or any method of sexual practice that makes procreation harder (contraception, abortion) is usually looked down upon by religious believers.

[TheTaxidermist]

I belive this nicely highlights the way religion deals with these issues.


My opinion is not reflected by religion at all. It's just the way I feel personally. I do not object to birth control. It's different to take something that is already growing into a human being, then keeping it from becoming that. I just believe that if you can't handle a kid, or don't want a kid, don't even risk it in the first place. Either abstain, or use protection.

[Black Op]

It's different to take something that is already growing into a human being, then keeping it from becoming that.
There's one big problem with that line of reasoning. The religious fundies will claim that life begins the exact moment a sperm cell attaches onto an ovum, so under their logic the "morning-after pill" will go bye-bye. Indeed the fundies will not stop there; they will make sure to ban ANY sort of protection if they get their way. It may be nice to say that there's an ethical distinction between pregancy prevention and abortion, but fundies see no such difference.

If it comes down to declaring abortion unethical and preserving my rights, then I choose the latter no questions asked. If the fundies are successful in outlawing abortion, they will NOT STOP until they impose all their values and morals on society against everyone else's will Make no mistake, you can kiss birth control goodbye if the fundies have the precedent of making abortion illegal. These people will NOT seek compromise, so obtaining one is not in the best interests of preserving our freedoms.

[Mad Scientist]

My opinion is not reflected by religion at all. It's just the way I feel personally. I do not object to birth control. It's different to take something that is already growing into a human being, then keeping it from becoming that. I just believe that if you can't handle a kid, or don't want a kid, don't even risk it in the first place. Either abstain, or use protection.

[Sigh]

People always seem to search for implications that i do not make. If you read my previous post, you will find that i do not claim that your views are based on a religion, merely your views and religious views coincide at points, in the same way that i do not accept christianity, but i still belive murder and theft are not socially constructive activities.

Capisce?

[TheTaxidermist]

Well you can see how I would get that you were saying my views were based on religion. You quoted me and then immediately said:

I believe this nicely highlights the way religion deals with these issues.

That's why I thought you were implying that my beliefs are based purely on religion. But I understand now.

[ninjalegend]

However i'm not entirly sure where this anti-sexual movment began. The most likely cause i can see is that as the abrahmic religions began to form, many elements of their creeds are reactionary components to earlier pagan belief systems. In the same way that right wing views become popular in times of relative disorder, and socialist views are fermented by times of high class distinction, newly formed beliefs always seek to rebel against the establisment. As the establisments at the time were fairly hedonistic ancient civilisations (eg rome), it is only natural that early monotheistic belivers would preach abstinence.

I often wondered about this too. I speculate that a lot of these off codes were due to needs at the time. Like do not eat meat on friday to help slow meat consumption, or prevent gout. Keep the sabbath sacred to make sure there is no reason not to come to church. Maybe to cull sexual diseases could be a reason they made it so. Just a thought.