Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Jonjor]

Their child, their choice.

[Soufrika]

George Carlin once said:

"Pro-life" conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.

I am pro-life in that I am willing for my tax dollars to go towards helping mothers who otherwise might not be able to support their children. I want those kids to have a life, not an existence.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

George Carlin once said:

"Pro-life" conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.

I am pro-life in that I am willing for my tax dollars to go towards helping mothers who otherwise might not be able to support their children. I want those kids to have a life, not an existence.

But what if mothers just don't want to go through with a pregnancy?

[Soufrika]

George Carlin once said: I am pro-life in that I am willing for my tax dollars to go towards helping mothers who otherwise might not be able to support their children. I want those kids to have a life, not an existence.

But what if mothers just don't want to go through with a pregnancy?

If a woman chooses to abort, it's her choice, and I respect it. Doesn't matter if she sees a doctor or grabs a coat hanger; she'll do it if she really wants to. See, I'm pro-life as opposed to pro-birth.

[Luminesa]

But what if mothers just don't want to go through with a pregnancy?

If a woman chooses to abort, it's her choice, and I respect it. Doesn't matter if she sees a doctor or grabs a coat hanger; she'll do it if she really wants to. See, I'm pro-life as opposed to pro-birth.

I've never heard this opinion before. Can you possibly explain?

[Neutraligon]

If a woman chooses to abort, it's her choice, and I respect it. Doesn't matter if she sees a doctor or grabs a coat hanger; she'll do it if she really wants to. See, I'm pro-life as opposed to pro-birth.

I've never heard this opinion before. Can you possibly explain?

...I used it earlier in this very thread

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I've never heard this opinion before. Can you possibly explain?

Basically it's pointing out that not being in favor of forcing women to give birth against their will doesn't make them anti-life.

[Godular]

If a woman chooses to abort, it's her choice, and I respect it. Doesn't matter if she sees a doctor or grabs a coat hanger; she'll do it if she really wants to. See, I'm pro-life as opposed to pro-birth.

I've never heard this opinion before. Can you possibly explain?

It has been mentioned several times before in this very thread.

It is more pro-life to be in favor of allowing the woman to determine when and how she becomes a parent rather than forcing it on her, as it improves the quality of life of the mother and the child that would be born to a mother that is damned good and ready for parenthood. It is also better to allow her the unhindered option, because if she is truly determined to terminate the pregnancy even if it is illegal to do so, she will find a way to do it, and mayhap risk an agonizing death in the process.

I still wonder why, against all the arguments that have been thrown against your position, you continue to stick with your 'pro-life' stance essentially on the argument that it is 'icky'.

[Luminesa]

I've never heard this opinion before. Can you possibly explain?

It has been mentioned several times before in this very thread.

It is more pro-life to be in favor of allowing the woman to determine when and how she becomes a parent rather than forcing it on her, as it improves the quality of life of the mother and the child that would be born to a mother that is damned good and ready for parenthood. It is also better to allow her the unhindered option, because if she is truly determined to terminate the pregnancy even if it is illegal to do so, she will find a way to do it, and mayhap risk an agonizing death in the process.

I still wonder why, against all the arguments that have been thrown against your position, you continue to stick with your 'pro-life' stance essentially on the argument that it is 'icky'.

'Icky'? That seems like a straw man, to me. It's not simply that it's 'icky'. The entire moral line behind bodily sovereignty is illogical. It's:

1.) Inconsistent: Because if you say 'my body, my choice' during the pregnancy, then you can't say anything to a person who decides to abandon their child after the pregnancy, or we don't even have to have a child involved. We could have a person who is shooting heroin and dying of an overdose, which is terrible and tragic. And so we have a sort of...splice.

2.) Unethical: 'My body, my choice' cannot work with everything, because not only would it be unethical to say 'my body, my choice' when the baby is not even part of the woman's body, it would be unethical on a different level to say 'my body, my choice', when one doesn't want to get involved with a person who is dying from a heroin addiction because it would make the person uncomfortable.

3.) Unreasonable: We're not 'autonomous' beings, because, as a writer wrote once, we did not even get here on our own. We didn't just 'pop' up in this universe one day. I mean we all came from someone else, and I don't even have to say God, for all the atheists on the forum who might see this (you don't necessarily have to be Christian to be pro-life, and you don't necessarily have to be atheist to be pro-choice...BOOM!). I mean we all came from a mother and a father. Or even if you're a baby who was created through IVF, you came from somebody's egg and sperm.

There's lots of other reasons, of course, why I'm against abortion, but this seems to be the dominant pro-choice argument, so I'm just presenting some insights from what I have read and considered. So, no, you can't just say I'm against abortion because it's 'icky'.

[Desperate Measures]

But what if mothers just don't want to go through with a pregnancy?

If a woman chooses to abort, it's her choice, and I respect it. Doesn't matter if she sees a doctor or grabs a coat hanger; she'll do it if she really wants to. See, I'm pro-life as opposed to pro-birth.

That's respectable.

[Desperate Measures]

It has been mentioned several times before in this very thread.

It is more pro-life to be in favor of allowing the woman to determine when and how she becomes a parent rather than forcing it on her, as it improves the quality of life of the mother and the child that would be born to a mother that is damned good and ready for parenthood. It is also better to allow her the unhindered option, because if she is truly determined to terminate the pregnancy even if it is illegal to do so, she will find a way to do it, and mayhap risk an agonizing death in the process.

I still wonder why, against all the arguments that have been thrown against your position, you continue to stick with your 'pro-life' stance essentially on the argument that it is 'icky'.

'Icky'? That seems like a straw man, to me. It's not simply that it's 'icky'. The entire moral line behind bodily sovereignty is illogical. It's:

1.) Inconsistent: Because if you say 'my body, my choice' during the pregnancy, then you can't say anything to a person who decides to abandon their child after the pregnancy, or we don't even have to have a child involved. We could have a person who is shooting heroin and dying of an overdose, which is terrible and tragic. And so we have a sort of...splice.

2.) Unethical: 'My body, my choice' cannot work with everything, because not only would it be unethical to say 'my body, my choice' when the baby is not even part of the woman's body, it would be unethical on a different level to say 'my body, my choice', when one doesn't want to get involved with a person who is dying from a heroin addiction because it would make the person uncomfortable.

3.) Unreasonable: We're not 'autonomous' beings, because, as a writer wrote once, we did not even get here on our own. We didn't just 'pop' up in this universe one day. I mean we all came from someone else, and I don't even have to say God, for all the atheists on the forum who might see this (you don't necessarily have to be Christian to be pro-life, and you don't necessarily have to be atheist to be pro-choice...BOOM!). I mean we all came from a mother and a father. Or even if you're a baby who was created through IVF, you came from somebody's egg and sperm.

There's lots of other reasons, of course, why I'm against abortion, but this seems to be the dominant pro-choice argument, so I'm just presenting some insights from what I have read and considered. So, no, you can't just say I'm against abortion because it's 'icky'.

I don't understand the heroin parts.

[United facist States of America]

I'm pro choice a woman can do what she wants with her body.

But unlike some claim fetuses are alive. But it is not thinking much less self aware. Since bacteria are alive but they do not think fetuses are also alive but can Not think either. You can kill a fetus but it does not think just like a bacterium.

[Desperate Measures]

I'm pro choice a woman can do what she wants with her body.

But unlike some claim fetuses are alive. But it is not thinking much less self aware. Since bacteria are alive but they do not think fetuses are also alive but can Not think either. You can kill a fetus but it does not think just like a bacterium.

It wouldn't matter if the fetus could think. It wouldn't matter if the fetus could shoot rainbows from it's eyes while humming gospel hymns and referred to itself as Mr. Fluffykins. Women have a choice and it's a legitimate one.

[Ifreann]

I'm pro choice a woman can do what she wants with her body.

But unlike some claim fetuses are alive. But it is not thinking much less self aware. Since bacteria are alive but they do not think fetuses are also alive but can Not think either. You can kill a fetus but it does not think just like a bacterium.

It wouldn't matter if the fetus could think. It wouldn't matter if the fetus could shoot rainbows from it's eyes while humming gospel hymns and referred to itself as Mr. Fluffykins. Women have a choice and it's a legitimate one.

Though, I'd expect most women to want to keep Mr. Fluffykins the rainbow shooter.

[United facist States of America]

I'm pro choice a woman can do what she wants with her body.

But unlike some claim fetuses are alive. But it is not thinking much less self aware. Since bacteria are alive but they do not think fetuses are also alive but can Not think either. You can kill a fetus but it does not think just like a bacterium.

It wouldn't matter if the fetus could think. It wouldn't matter if the fetus could shoot rainbows from it's eyes while humming gospel hymns and referred to itself as Mr. Fluffykins. Women have a choice and it's a legitimate one.

Exactly. It's essentially as smart as a bacterium and unless someone finds it unjustifiable to kill a bacterium the argument that it's alive won't work.

[Luminesa]

'Icky'? That seems like a straw man, to me. It's not simply that it's 'icky'. The entire moral line behind bodily sovereignty is illogical. It's:

1.) Inconsistent: Because if you say 'my body, my choice' during the pregnancy, then you can't say anything to a person who decides to abandon their child after the pregnancy, or we don't even have to have a child involved. We could have a person who is shooting heroin and dying of an overdose, which is terrible and tragic. And so we have a sort of...splice.

2.) Unethical: 'My body, my choice' cannot work with everything, because not only would it be unethical to say 'my body, my choice' when the baby is not even part of the woman's body, it would be unethical on a different level to say 'my body, my choice', when one doesn't want to get involved with a person who is dying from a heroin addiction because it would make the person uncomfortable.

3.) Unreasonable: We're not 'autonomous' beings, because, as a writer wrote once, we did not even get here on our own. We didn't just 'pop' up in this universe one day. I mean we all came from someone else, and I don't even have to say God, for all the atheists on the forum who might see this (you don't necessarily have to be Christian to be pro-life, and you don't necessarily have to be atheist to be pro-choice...BOOM!). I mean we all came from a mother and a father. Or even if you're a baby who was created through IVF, you came from somebody's egg and sperm.

There's lots of other reasons, of course, why I'm against abortion, but this seems to be the dominant pro-choice argument, so I'm just presenting some insights from what I have read and considered. So, no, you can't just say I'm against abortion because it's 'icky'.

I don't understand the heroin parts.

It's the idea that you can't logically restrict the ideology of 'bodily sovereignty' to just pregnant women.
I'm not defending it, I'm just analyzing how it works. The whole idea of the 'my body, my choice' thing is, "I don't wanna do this because it will make me feel uncomfortable," or something along those lines. I'll try to clarify it better, maybe:

Okay, heroin is uncomfortable. Knowing someone who has a heroin addiction is inherently uncomfortable, because heroin is so deadly and bad for you. However, let's say you don't want to get involved. In other words, one should get involved, and try to help this friend, or at least try to help him to get rehab, but let's say one person says, "I don't wanna help them because it's an uncomfortable situation." Thus, "my body, my choice". Would it or would it not be unethical to decide not to help a friend with a heroin addiction along the lines that doing so would be uncomfortable to you?

[Luminesa]

I've never heard this opinion before. Can you possibly explain?

...I used it earlier in this very thread

I haven't been keeping up on this thread in a while, sorry. I'm on, like, five different forums a day.

[Roklan]

'Icky'? That seems like a straw man, to me. It's not simply that it's 'icky'. The entire moral line behind bodily sovereignty is illogical. It's:

1.) Because if you say 'my body, my choice' ... We could have a person who is shooting heroin and dying of an overdose,

2.) 'My body, my choice' cannot work with everything, ...like handling... a person who is dying from a heroin addiction because it would make the person uncomfortable.

3.) Unreasonable: We're not 'autonomous' beings, because, as a writer wrote once, we did not even get here on our own. We didn't just 'pop' up in this universe one day. I mean we all came from someone else, and I don't even have to say God, for all the atheists on the forum who might see this (you don't necessarily have to be Christian to be pro-life, and you don't necessarily have to be atheist to be pro-choice...BOOM!). I mean we all came from a mother and a father. Or even if you're a baby who was created through IVF, you came from somebody's egg and sperm.

There's lots of other reasons, of course, why I'm against abortion, but this seems to be the dominant pro-choice argument, so I'm just presenting some insights from what I have read and considered. So, no, you can't just say I'm against abortion because it's 'icky'.

I don't understand the heroin parts.

I believe I do understand the heroin parts. It's illustrating the point by taking it to the extreme.
1) is saying your body is not solely your choice, because you should not damage it on purpose by taking heroin overdose. Meaning there are limits (should/could be) to what you may do with your body.
( Frankly, I don't see why you could not overdose your body with heroin, if you are not involving/damaging someone else, eg. by expecting someone to drag you out of your pit or you don't have obligations, like children, who depend on you)
2) similar case : Luminesa suggest heroin addicts should be handled even against their will ... though I am not sure about my interpretation here?

3) ok, no heroin here but, umm, maybe interesting point here. Maybe we can agree it's not so much about mothers "body" as about determination to carry on with her child development, needs, life. In pro-choice world, should not a father have the same choice? I know father has a choice to "run away" which is much easier done, than in womans case. But that is not same choice level.

[Desperate Measures]

It wouldn't matter if the fetus could think. It wouldn't matter if the fetus could shoot rainbows from it's eyes while humming gospel hymns and referred to itself as Mr. Fluffykins. Women have a choice and it's a legitimate one.

Though, I'd expect most women to want to keep Mr. Fluffykins the rainbow shooter.

He is a likable squirt.

[Ifreann]

Though, I'd expect most women to want to keep Mr. Fluffykins the rainbow shooter.

He is a likable squirt.

Gospel hymns are getting a little old, but I suppose he has plenty of time to expand his repertoire.

[Desperate Measures]

I don't understand the heroin parts.

It's the idea that you can't logically restrict the ideology of 'bodily sovereignty' to just pregnant women.
I'm not defending it, I'm just analyzing how it works. The whole idea of the 'my body, my choice' thing is, "I don't wanna do this because it will make me feel uncomfortable," or something along those lines. I'll try to clarify it better, maybe:

Okay, heroin is uncomfortable. Knowing someone who has a heroin addiction is inherently uncomfortable, because heroin is so deadly and bad for you. However, let's say you don't want to get involved. In other words, one should get involved, and try to help this friend, or at least try to help him to get rehab, but let's say one person says, "I don't wanna help them because it's an uncomfortable situation." Thus, "my body, my choice". Would it or would it not be unethical to decide not to help a friend with a heroin addiction along the lines that doing so would be uncomfortable to you?

It might be good to help the friend but I shouldn't be forced to.

[Luminesa]

I don't understand the heroin parts.

I believe I do understand the heroin parts. It's illustrating the point by taking it to the extreme.
1) is saying your body is not solely your choice, because you should not damage it on purpose by taking heroin overdose. Meaning there are limits (should/could be) to what you may do with your body.
( Frankly, I don't see why you could not overdose your body with heroin, if you are not involving/damaging someone else, eg. by expecting someone to drag you out of your pit or you don't have obligations, like children, who depend on you)
2) similar case : Luminesa suggest heroin addicts should be handled even against their will ... though I am not sure about my interpretation here?

3) ok, no heroin here but, umm, maybe interesting point here. Maybe we can agree it's not so much about mothers "body" as about determination to carry on with her child development, needs, life. In pro-choice world, should not a father have the same choice? I know father has a choice to "run away" which is much easier done, than in womans case. But that is not same choice level.

1.) Exactly! (Well, except for that last part. I mean, people don't live in a vacuum, if you know what I mean. If I take heroin, someone else is going to be hurt, one way or another, by my taking this. Not to mention, of course, that a heroin overdose is disgusting and awful.)

2.) Well, not quite forcing the person, but if you know this person is in dire need of help, and you know that the best thing for them would be to go to rehab, it's your responsibility, as the friend, to do whatever you can for the ailing person.

3.) Do you mean, "Should a father have the same choice to abandon the child?"

[AquilaJordyn]

-wall of text-

A lot of the studies you've cited are old and proven to be wrong. Also, you're playing appeal to authority by quoting multiple influential people who don't really matter. Here's a quote by someone just as signficant;

"No." -Me

A biased but respectable site that addresses some (not all) of your concerns:
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canad ... once.shtml

A non-biased essay that logically sorts through problems suggested by pro-lifers (even the human from conception theory):
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil ... homson.htm

"At 19 weeks pregnant I found out my baby had spina bifida very severely. We decided on medical termination. My husband and I went to a clinic a week later where we were harassed by protestors. I am furious that the 35 foot rule is gone. I cannot imagine if someone would have shouted "Be a man and get her out of here" in my husband’s face that day. It was bad enough to hear 35 feet away. It was my right to have an abortion and save my baby and my family emotional and physical pain.

I was robbed of a healthy baby and a way of life and dreams for the future but also robbed of my rights, my control over my body, my control over my medical records and my control over my grief. The experience taught me to be angry and how it is to feel powerless because no one will help me. I ended up in an abortion clinic when I least expected it but most needed it. Not everything is easy but sometimes it is what's right."

I would please ask you to fully read and try to comprehend all of these sources and keep an open mind. Things have changed since the 1960's and 70's.

sorry for the late response. No i did not use old study's. While there are a number of older ones, there are also more recent ones, and unlike your's many of mine were biased for prochoice, but found the opposite to be true. I included a ronald regan quote because i like it, and Susan b Anthony opinion absolutely matters. Saying her opinion doesn't matter on women's rights issues is like saying Thomas Jefferson's doesn't on the constitution, or mlk on minority rights. they authored it. lastly, im sorry some protectors harassed the woman. When my church does protest, our priest specifically says to everyone not to talk, not to harass. we just pray.

[Desperate Measures]

He is a likable squirt.

Gospel hymns are getting a little old, but I suppose he has plenty of time to expand his repertoire.

Just needs a little guidance and nudging in the right direction, yeah.

[AquilaJordyn]

“I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” – Ronald Reagan
ProLife and proud of it. I only am ok with abortion in the case of life or death and rape. However, well over 90% of all abortions arent such cases. More importantly, I have never been given any evidence that would suggest it has ever helped "empower woman". Women still make up a minority in fields like law, in our congress. they still make less then men. where this "liberation" ive been told of? Not to mention the laundry list of side effects, from depression, hemorrhaging, death, nausea among them, all proven by study's in Ireland, America, Canada, England, China, and Denmark, most of those studys actually wanted to disprove the depression was caused by abortion, but ended up finding it was caused by abortion, and that there are at least 20 other possible side effects, both long term and short term. plus an 80% higher chance of breast cancer. or the fact a fetus is a human. Its a stage of development, like a toddler. Saying it isnt would be like suggesting an unborn elephant isn't an elephant. what? does its dna change suddenly? or the numerous testimony's of abortion doctors saying the baby responded to the surgery. Or the testimony's of women who were prochoice until they had one, not the least of which is "jane Roe" Norma mccorvey, who is now a very prolife catholic convert. or that the group most likely to be prolife is young women. or that the founder of planned parenthood repeatedly stated, both in text and recorded video, her intentions were to eliminate minority's, not help women. she talked to kkk members. she hated jews, african Americans, Hispanics, Asians. 70% of abortion clinics today are in minority neighborhoods, more minority baby's were aborted in Newyork city than born in 2011, the whole purpose of planned parenthood was, and still is, to make a purely white america, while not outwardly racist now, it still accomplishes Margaret sangers goal. or that her partner in crime and her shoved norma into the abortion, which happens to young women who get pregnant. and that that woman's daughter is now "President" of Planned parenthood, and makes 400k a year, yet I, a devout catholic, must abide by the hhs mandate. Abortion is as sexist as "women belong in the kitchen". You put a burden on the man, your natural bodily functions create a hassle, create an annoyance, an expense. a man shouldn't have to pay child support. That is what abortion says. The only person involved it helps, with no negative consequences is the man, no child support, no need to mature. It isn't some liberation. The actual fact of abortion is its sexist, contrary to the baseless statements made of it helping women. Me being pro-womens rights is precisely the reason I am against abortion. I am going to college as a political science major, and wish to lobby for women's rights, as well as fight against domestic abuse in Washington. So I didn't get my opinion because I want to bring down women, I have a sister, a mother, cousins, aunts. What i want is to not kill them. I want to help them, set up support systems. My church in Connecticut has therapy for women who had abortions, We have houses for the mother and child to stay in if they keep it. there are literally church groups offering to pay for bills for a year of they keep the baby across the country. But no, we prefer helping the old rich guys out, and not choosing an effective support system, that is all cost, no profit. The only reason I think abortion is ok in life or death situations or rape is for one, I can understand the logic in not wanting the abusers child. though personally, in the long run, you'd be better off giving it off for adoption. and As for life and death, Im not sure Im really worthy to say who dies and who lives, and by that, i mean i know im not worthy to tell a woman she should die instead of the child. This is a controversial issue. But the reason these issues are controversial is no one seems to know the truth. I have never met a pro-choicer with a legitimate reason to support abortion, ive never heard "80% of women who had an abortion made 10% more then they did before" or "since abortion, women have attained equal pay as man". no they haven't, and the gaps only been decreasing because of women entering college in droves, and working hard. All ive heard is "well i wouldn't get one, but i don't care if someone else does". Indifference isnt a good reason to keep a barbaric, ancient practice, abortion goes against the most basic, ancient code of doctors developed in ancient Greece "do no harm". or "Im not sexist". as previously stated, if you support abortion, you either need to do more research, or are, in fact sexist. Sexist against women. Synopsis: I am against abortion because: science shows it flawed, Its sexist, racist,, on the whole, is useless, a single week is the difference between the child feeling pain and not, and I have a very refined and effective nazi-copier radar. and as for the sad fact most of the people who voted on this said pro choice- Moral Principles do not rely on a majority vote. wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. right is right, even if nobody is right, fulton J. sheen. Thankyou, and good night America. Oh, and some words from the Heroine of Women's rights. “Sweeter even than to have had the joy of children of my own has it been for me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so that their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them.” – Susan B. Anthony

If you're gonna copy-pasta, spoiler that horsecrap.

Edited to spoiler the copy-paste so that load of deluded tripe doesn't get repeated more than it has to. I READ that crap. I want my brain cells back.

well i like pasta, but no copying. sorry about the length.