Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Ashmoria]

Here is how I look at it:
Keeping the most humans alive in a sustainable way is my goal. If a fetus is not a human then there is no question about the legal status of abortion. If a fetus is a human then abortion is decreasing the number of living humans. So criminalizing abortion is the way to go because it would decrease the number of abortions and save more human lives, right? You would think that but women would resort to illegal abortions, many of which can end up killing them. So by criminalizing abortion, you have decreased the number of abortions and increased the amount of women dying, which would result in a net loss of human life. Therefore criminalizing abortion is not the way. To decrease abortion, the need for an abortion should be reduced. Some get an abortion because of financial problems. Others, because they feel they are not ready or because of the social stigma of being an unmarried pregnant woman or other unlisted reasons. To reduce these needs financial aid should be available and so should psychiatric help. There should also be a campaign to reduce the social stigma. However, all of these would not end all abortions. Therefore, the need for an abortion would be decreased even more if contraceptives and more comprehensive sex education was available. After all, a woman that isn't pregnant doesn't need an abortion. In conclusion, it doesn't matter if a fetus is a human or not. Criminalizing abortion would bring only more death.

Did I miss anything in my argument?

I don't think so. the first thing that sprang to my mind (because its the first point) is "well then choose to define a fetus as not a person and we're all fine".

I find that the anti-abortion crowd IN GENERAL is not interested in making life easier for women. they want to tell women what they can and cant do and leave it to them to suffer the consequences of not toeing the line. there are many ways we can reduce abortion--the full implementation of obamacare is a huge one--that the prolife conservatives won't even consider.

[Izzyshipper]

Which is why I qualified my answer, as well as providing my own personal ethics about it. Pro-life means to oppose abortion, not necessarily remove a woman's legal choice.

no. the key element of "pro-life" is to be in favor of restricting a womans right to choose abortion. few pro-choice people LIKE abortion (which doesn't mean that most aren't happy that women can freely choose abortion) but the key element to being "pro-choice" is not wanting to restrict women's access to abortion.

Well which is why I chose an amalgamation of the two. I don't believe for example this right extends to the full nine-months of pregnancy and that reasonable restrictions should apply about the age of the fetus.

[Socialist Czechia]

Creator of this thread is wrong.

Fetus is not a person, therefore it can't be murder.

Seriously, unconscious mixture of few cells doesn't count as 'human being'. So again, it can't possibly be a murder by any definition of it.

We can debate, though, when exactly it can be declared as a human being: when fetus is alive on it's own, with beating heart and already functional brain.

And yes, I call it 'IT'.

[The Military Department of Freedonia]

No person has the right to kill another innocent person without that other person's consent.

Self defense is illegal?

Provoking someone into having to defend themselves is "consent" to be killed, in the practical eyes of the law.

[Ashmoria]

My religion says a child is a gift from God(I'm a Christian) and a life from the moment its parent was born(since it was an egg). Then, someone can tell me that they are an Atheist, there is no God, therefore my response is invalid and is void from the debate. So when trying to fnd the right answer, you will find out when you die.

and that is an excellent reason for you to not get an abortion or advise anyone else to get one.

and I hope you never find yourself in the position of millions of other Christians who had to change their mind when circumstances became more important than theory and life more important than after life.

[Socialist Czechia]

Personally, I think religious people in fact doesn't want to protect life, as they claim it, but they are more deeply disgusted by fact, that their existence depends on decision of another human being: their mother.

By fact, that she could simply go to clinic and they wouldn't exist. By fact, how it's easy to not exist. That there's no deep stuff about their creation, nothing special, just mammal mating and decision based on mortal whim.

[The Military Department of Freedonia]

Creator of this thread is wrong.

Fetus is not a person, therefore it can't be murder.

Seriously, unconscious mixture of few cells doesn't count as 'human being'. So again, it can't possibly be a murder by any definition of it.

We can debate, though, when exactly it can be declared as a human being: when fetus is alive on it's own, with beating heart and already functional brain.

And yes, I call it 'IT'.

You fail to understand the medical terminology if you think a fetus is a "mixture of cells". The developmental stages go egg, zygote, fetus, baby. I assume you know what an egg is. A zygote is what the egg is called once fertilized (This is when the egg is really a human cell. After this it rapidly develops). The next level is a fetus, which is when the lifeform is recognizable as a miniature baby. Then, of course, a baby is what is born.

I don't like using "it" as a pronoun to describe unborn babies, but I do it out of practicality because I'm to lazy to always say "unborn baby".

[Socialist Czechia]

Creator of this thread is wrong.

Fetus is not a person, therefore it can't be murder.

Seriously, unconscious mixture of few cells doesn't count as 'human being'. So again, it can't possibly be a murder by any definition of it.

We can debate, though, when exactly it can be declared as a human being: when fetus is alive on it's own, with beating heart and already functional brain.

And yes, I call it 'IT'.

You fail to understand the medical terminology if you think a fetus is a "mixture of cells". The developmental stages go egg, zygote, fetus, baby. I assume you know what an egg is. A zygote is what the egg is called once fertilized (This is when the egg is really a human cell. After this it rapidly develops). The next level is a fetus, which is when the lifeform is recognizable as a miniature baby. Then, of course, a baby is what is born.

It's still the same. Few cells, still not a big deal - 'Fetus' can be still tiny, with nothing which could be called mind or own life - with no beating heart, with not functional brain, it doesn't live on it's own.

It's not exactly alive until that. So we are where I started. It's not alive on it's own, therefore it can't be a person. Some religions are able to recognize such difference.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Creator of this thread is wrong.

Fetus is not a person, therefore it can't be murder.

Seriously, unconscious mixture of few cells doesn't count as 'human being'. So again, it can't possibly be a murder by any definition of it.

We can debate, though, when exactly it can be declared as a human being: when fetus is alive on it's own, with beating heart and already functional brain.

And yes, I call it 'IT'.

You fail to understand the medical terminology if you think a fetus is a "mixture of cells". The developmental stages go egg, zygote, fetus, baby. I assume you know what an egg is. A zygote is what the egg is called once fertilized (This is when the egg is really a human cell. After this it rapidly develops). The next level is a fetus, which is when the lifeform is recognizable as a miniature baby. Then, of course, a baby is what is born.

I don't like using "it" as a pronoun to describe unborn babies, but I do it out of practicality because I'm to lazy to always say "unborn baby".

You missed blastocyte and embryo, just an FYI. It's not a fetus until 8 weeks LMP.

[Socialist Czechia]

You missed blastocyte and embryo, just an FYI. It's not a fetus until 8 weeks LMP.

OK, we can call it generally 'proto-human creature'

[The Military Department of Freedonia]

Personally, I think religious people in fact doesn't want to protect life, as they claim it, but they are more deeply disgusted by fact, that their existence depends on decision of another human being: their mother.

By fact, that she could simply go to clinic and they wouldn't exist. By fact, how it's easy to not exist. That there's no deep stuff about their creation, nothing special, just mammal mating and decision based on mortal whim.

You, sir or madame, are incorrect. I, as a Christian endorse life, except in cases of self-defense or capital punishment for those who murder others (The Bible makes these two exceptions.). It's more than "mammal mating". I have a practical reason, as well as my religious objections as well. If we begin to disregard human life at the womb, then where do we disregard it next? Don't be naive and presume that you could stop people from pushing more radically in that regard, especially when there are those who think we should exterminate people based on their age or use of resources (think about the society in "Logan's Run") because of their radical environmental views (They practically worship the environment as a god.).

[KirbyFluffle]

Did I miss anything in my argument?

Just from a sheer math standpoint, I'm not sure if your logic is sound. You say criminalizing abortion would produce a net-loss of human lives, but I'm sure doing so would reduce the number of abortions somewhat, and the argument assumes the "humanity" of fetuses, so you would have to do a study to determine the ratio of women's lives lost relative to fetuses saved.

My guess would be it would go the other way.

I also take slight issue (not just with you but with a lot of people) using the term "human" or "alive" to mean "person." Because a fetus is alive (it consists of living cells), and human (they aren't chimpanzee cells), but these facts alone mean very little. They make it no more a person then a kidney is a person. So in the future maybe try to keep that in mind. Just a little pet peeve on my part.

I think you missed the part where I said:

If a fetus is not a human then there is no question about the legal status of abortion.

I kept that in mind.

After rereading, my apologies. I meant to put person instead of human.

[KirbyFluffle]

Just from a sheer math standpoint, I'm not sure if your logic is sound. You say criminalizing abortion would produce a net-loss of human lives, but I'm sure doing so would reduce the number of abortions somewhat, and the argument assumes the "humanity" of fetuses, so you would have to do a study to determine the ratio of women's lives lost relative to fetuses saved.

My guess would be it would go the other way.

I also take slight issue (not just with you but with a lot of people) using the term "human" or "alive" to mean "person." Because a fetus is alive (it consists of living cells), and human (they aren't chimpanzee cells), but these facts alone mean very little. They make it no more a person then a kidney is a person. So in the future maybe try to keep that in mind. Just a little pet peeve on my part.

Just an FYI - Criminalizing abortion does not lower the number of abortions. Women who have a lot of money leave the country, women who have some money find a private doctor or nurse who is willing to help, and women without money risk their lives. The few amount of women who won't have an abortion specifically because of the law will turn out to be fewer than the number of women who greatly injure themselves or die.

It would lower the amount of abortions by an almost negligible percentage.

[The Military Department of Freedonia]

You fail to understand the medical terminology if you think a fetus is a "mixture of cells". The developmental stages go egg, zygote, fetus, baby. I assume you know what an egg is. A zygote is what the egg is called once fertilized (This is when the egg is really a human cell. After this it rapidly develops). The next level is a fetus, which is when the lifeform is recognizable as a miniature baby. Then, of course, a baby is what is born.

It's still the same. Few cells, still not a big deal - 'Fetus' can be still tiny, with nothing which could be called mind or own life - with no beating heart, with not functional brain, it doesn't live on it's own.

It's not exactly alive until that. So we are where I started. It's not alive on it's own, therefore it can't be a person. Some religions are able to recognize such difference.

Not existing on his/her own should not be the criteria for human life. Humans are better than all other beings and were made as such by God. I don't know why we don't take advantage of this fact and preserve our own species at every developmental stage.
Also, if you are not pro-life, then you are pro-death. Since when is the word "choice" the the opposite of "life"?!

[Ardavia]

It's still the same. Few cells, still not a big deal - 'Fetus' can be still tiny, with nothing which could be called mind or own life - with no beating heart, with not functional brain, it doesn't live on it's own.

It's not exactly alive until that. So we are where I started. It's not alive on it's own, therefore it can't be a person. Some religions are able to recognize such difference.

Not existing on his/her own should not be the criteria for human life. Humans are better than all other beings and were made as such by God. I don't know why we don't take advantage of this fact and preserve our own species at every developmental stage.
Also, if you are not pro-life, then you are pro-death. Since when is the word "choice" the the opposite of "life"?!

I want to point out that the position of "pro-life" endorses enslaving women as incubators.

And that abortions aren't about killing fetuses. They're about ending pregnancies.

[KirbyFluffle]

Not existing on his/her own should not be the criteria for human life. Humans are better than all other beings and were made as such by God. I don't know why we don't take advantage of this fact and preserve our own species at every developmental stage.
Also, if you are not pro-life, then you are pro-death. Since when is the word "choice" the the opposite of "life"?!

I want to point out that the position of "pro-life" endorses enslaving women as incubators.

And that abortions aren't about killing fetuses. They're about ending pregnancies.

Ending pregnancies kill fetuses. Which are not people. So it isn't murder.

[Mefpan]

It's still the same. Few cells, still not a big deal - 'Fetus' can be still tiny, with nothing which could be called mind or own life - with no beating heart, with not functional brain, it doesn't live on it's own.

It's not exactly alive until that. So we are where I started. It's not alive on it's own, therefore it can't be a person. Some religions are able to recognize such difference.

Not existing on his/her own should not be the criteria for human life. Humans are better than all other beings and were made as such by God. I don't know why we don't take advantage of this fact and preserve our own species at every developmental stage.
Also, if you are not pro-life, then you are pro-death. Since when is the word "choice" the the opposite of "life"?!

You know what, I don't even care. I'm entirely fine with being pro-death if it means that people who are alive and wandering this world right now get to choose how they want to live their life. No amount of fallacious edgy name-calling can change that.

[BK117B2]

It's still the same. Few cells, still not a big deal - 'Fetus' can be still tiny, with nothing which could be called mind or own life - with no beating heart, with not functional brain, it doesn't live on it's own.

It's not exactly alive until that. So we are where I started. It's not alive on it's own, therefore it can't be a person. Some religions are able to recognize such difference.

Not existing on his/her own should not be the criteria for human life. Humans are better than all other beings and were made as such by God. I don't know why we don't take advantage of this fact and preserve our own species at every developmental stage.
Also, if you are not pro-life, then you are pro-death. Since when is the word "choice" the the opposite of "life"?!

Yeah, the whole 'pro-life' in this regard is really a misnomer. When discussing the legality of abortion, the real contention is between the pro-choice and anti-choice camps

[Socialist Czechia]

Not existing on his/her own should not be the criteria for human life. Humans are better than all other beings and were made as such by God. I don't know why we don't take advantage of this fact and preserve our own species at every developmental stage.
Also, if you are not pro-life, then you are pro-death. Since when is the word "choice" the the opposite of "life"?!

There's no life with no death. Death is same part of life like it's start. It's just end. Just like that. Nothing more, nothing less. And sometimes, there's end before there is even mind or beating heart. Before there is even a person.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

It's still the same. Few cells, still not a big deal - 'Fetus' can be still tiny, with nothing which could be called mind or own life - with no beating heart, with not functional brain, it doesn't live on it's own.

It's not exactly alive until that. So we are where I started. It's not alive on it's own, therefore it can't be a person. Some religions are able to recognize such difference.

Not existing on his/her own should not be the criteria for human life. Humans are better than all other beings and were made as such by God. I don't know why we don't take advantage of this fact and preserve our own species at every developmental stage.
Also, if you are not pro-life, then you are pro-death. Since when is the word "choice" the the opposite of "life"?!

Since you decided that living people don't have control over their bodies, and are basically walking shelves for organs for you to make use of.

Also, try not to bring your imaginary friend into an argument, it makes you look like a loon.

[Sun Wukong]

Citation.

Because I'm positive it would have a nonzero effect on the number of women seeking abortion.

•Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is high, at 29 and 32 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and Latin America, respectively—regions where abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. In Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the abortion rate is 12 per 1,000.[1]

If you're going to draw correlation, that would seem to indicate that making abortion illegal makes it more common, which I could believe. Still a nonzero effect.

• Where abortion is legal on broad grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is illegal in most circumstances, it is generally unsafe. For example, in the United States, where abortion is legal on broad grounds, induced abortion results in 0.6 deaths per 100,000 procedures. In Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, abortion results in 30 and 460 deaths per 100,000 procedures, respectively.[2]

Yes. And?

[Sun Wukong]

Just from a sheer math standpoint, I'm not sure if your logic is sound. You say criminalizing abortion would produce a net-loss of human lives, but I'm sure doing so would reduce the number of abortions somewhat, and the argument assumes the "humanity" of fetuses, so you would have to do a study to determine the ratio of women's lives lost relative to fetuses saved.

My guess would be it would go the other way.

I also take slight issue (not just with you but with a lot of people) using the term "human" or "alive" to mean "person." Because a fetus is alive (it consists of living cells), and human (they aren't chimpanzee cells), but these facts alone mean very little. They make it no more a person then a kidney is a person. So in the future maybe try to keep that in mind. Just a little pet peeve on my part.

I think you missed the part where I said:

If a fetus is not a human then there is no question about the legal status of abortion.

I kept that in mind.

After rereading, my apologies. I meant to put person instead of human.

I did not. That was the part I was referring to. Because a fetus is a human. It's not a person, but it's definitely human.

[Divitaen]

It's still the same. Few cells, still not a big deal - 'Fetus' can be still tiny, with nothing which could be called mind or own life - with no beating heart, with not functional brain, it doesn't live on it's own.

It's not exactly alive until that. So we are where I started. It's not alive on it's own, therefore it can't be a person. Some religions are able to recognize such difference.

Not existing on his/her own should not be the criteria for human life. Humans are better than all other beings and were made as such by God. I don't know why we don't take advantage of this fact and preserve our own species at every developmental stage.
Also, if you are not pro-life, then you are pro-death. Since when is the word "choice" the the opposite of "life"?!

You are in favour of forced pregnancy, a form of rape by the government. You are forcing a woman to be an artificial womb and have something grow in her uterus against her free will. That is no more or no less degrading than sexual assault.

[Italios]

It's still the same. Few cells, still not a big deal - 'Fetus' can be still tiny, with nothing which could be called mind or own life - with no beating heart, with not functional brain, it doesn't live on it's own.

It's not exactly alive until that. So we are where I started. It's not alive on it's own, therefore it can't be a person. Some religions are able to recognize such difference.

Not existing on his/her own should not be the criteria for human life. Humans are better than all other beings and were made as such by God. I don't know why we don't take advantage of this fact and preserve our own species at every developmental stage.
Also, if you are not pro-life, then you are pro-death. Since when is the word "choice" the the opposite of "life"?!

Since abortion isn't murder.

[Socialist Czechia]

It's still strange how Christians are so strict about 'human life already from conception' stuff.

Even Buddhists are not so strictly against it. At least, surely not all of them.

Confucianism recognizes human being only when it achieves 'personhood' - it's recognized person, with names, status etc. that's why Chinese people were always very liberal about abortion, since common view there is, that person exists from birth, and not before.

Jews, even most orthodox jews, thinks that life of mother is always more important, especially when there is mother's life at stake, even most fundamentalist Jews who doesn't like abortions generally thinks he must protect HER life.

And so much debated Islam? For muslims, being inside woman have no soul until fourth month. Until that, it's generally ok to get rid of it. Especially when mother has more children. They argue that the mother can have other children, whereas the child cannot make up for losing the mother.
(Of course, there are certain passages about protection of children in Quran which seems to be explicitly against abortions, but it's a mistake - it was written against ancient tribal practice to just bury unwanted newborn babies to sand)