Pro-choice or not(Women only)

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks for that vidoe MartMoose . I mean, its SO true what he's saying!!
All this concern for the unborn but once you reach this world you're irrelevant to these people(pro-lifers).
Mikomi:if you havent done so already, goto the Politics forum and watch that video clip I posted which is a South Park episode about abortion .

Honestly, I'd find it even more tragic if another billion were added to our growing population. I don't consider it a death in most stages. I worry more about the children born into situations that live wishing for death. Maybe I just don't value life enough, but it seems that greater suffering= a greater tragedy. Now I know not every possibility for a child that doesn't come to be is bound to have ended in misery.

But I fail to understand this attitude some people carry- that after conception there is immediately this independently conscious entity with hopes and feelings, that eagerly waits to greet the outside world and embrace the gift of life- only to be horribly betrayed by its mother's decision to kill it.

It seems like there is some serious anthropomorphizing that goes on behind this viewpoint.

Mikomi wrote:
"Abortions done because of rape and severe fetal birth defects account for less than 2% of all abortions. This means the other 98% of abortions are done due to lack of or inadequate birth control, or women being unaware of how the reproductive process works."

First, I question your statistics - since only approximately 10% of rapes are reported, there is no reason to believe that medical providers performing abortions would have an accurate account of the number of procedures that stemmed from assault. But even accepting the 2% as true, the 98% is a totally illogical conclusion. You have failed to consider the reality that the health of the mother is also a legitimate concern for both the parents and the medical providers. In fact, contrary to the Catholic Church's position on abortion, there are religions which consider the life of the mother to be more important than that of an unborn fetus. Therefore, if carrying a fetus to term would jeopardize the woman's life or health, a religious woman would be REQUIRED to have an abortion. Your 98% figure does not allow for ANY abortions performed to preserve the health or life of the woman. Clearly, a significant number of abortions are performed for those reasons, and it is irresponsible and misleading to suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, your implication that the lack of or inadequate birth control is somehow a lapse on the part of the woman is unreasonable: there is no fully safe effective birth control available to women. The most effective forms of birth control are not safe for all women, and the safest forms have significant failure rates. Even the most effective forms of birth control (which have significant health risks) have some failure rates, so unplanned and potentially dangerous pregnancies can result.


Mikomi wrote:
"In case you couldn't tell, I'm pro-life. I am not against terminating pregnancies where the child has a fatal birth defect, where the mother's life or health is at risk or when the mother is too psychologically unstable or otherwise handicapped to withstand the physical and emotional toll of a pregnancy."

Be careful about your use of terminology! "Pro-life" doesn't allow for all those exceptions! When they talk about passing legislation, and worse yet, constitutional amendments, they aren't worrying about the woman's emotional health, or even physical health. Sometimes, they don't even care about her life. If you mean you don't like the idea of people using abortions as a substitute for birth control, few people do. That's mostly false propaganda, as is the 80% regret statistic.

I'm pro-choice, I feel that it is a person's right to choose. But I don't think I could personally have an abortion no matter what the circumstance is.

I agree with you, there are very few exceptions that i'd consider abortion and those would be if medically it would be a risk to my life as well as the baby.

pro choice 84%
pro life/ anti choice 16%

I am absolutely pro-choice. I do not see a fetus as "worthless tissue" but in this very cruel world a woman's life could be destroyed by an unwanted pregnancy, and it would be devastating to the advancements that women have made in society to remove the right to abortion.

In an ideal world I would be pro-life, but this is not an ideal world.

Pro-life and always have been.

The error those who are "pro-choice" make is to argue from the particular to the general, i.e. there are maybe 1-2% of cases where you can totally sympathise with the person who has an abortion, i.e. rape, a case where the baby is so disabled it would not be capable of independant life, or to save the life of the mother. That DOESN'T mean it should be legal for every person in any circumstance.

I'll give you an exact analogy:

A woman has been beaten up by her bullying husband for years and years, & one day she snaps & kills him.

Womens groups campaign for her to be let off because the guy deserved what he got & anyone would have done the same.

The result is that murder then becomes legal, and it is left to the person's individual conscience whether they can live with having murdered someone or not.

After a few years have elapsed, the murder rate has gone through the roof, because "It must be OK, because everyone does it". People routinely murder their bosses & colleagues, just to get a promotion.

Sorry but that is EXACTLY what has happened with abortion, & it is wrong, wrong, wrong!

Women do have the right to choose - whether or not to HAVE SEX. Not about what to do about the consequnces afterwards. The bottom line is that before having sex with a guy, a woman should think "If I got pregnant by this guy, would I want to keep the baby?" If the answer is "no", why are you having sex with him?

(In fact that is the exact criteria I use for deciding if I want to have sex with someome or not, which is why I don't sleep around!)

Abortion is as old as old can be. Historically they used herbs and tinctures and other devices to bring on a miscarriage. It shows that women over time immemorial have chosen to terminate their pregnancies, regardless of the reasons.

Before abortion was legalized it was horrific. Women died, were outright murdered by butchers who worked in unclean conditions, sometimes with nothing buy a coat hanger. They would bleed out, get infected, or the least of which is suffer the indignity these places suffered upon them.

Some women were forced to carry these unwanted pregnancies to term...either forced to give them up, which created a whole generation of traumatized mothers and children, or forced to look after them in less than ideal circumstances...poverty, abuse, neglect.

There are already millions of children in the foster system that the system cannot properly care for. Shall we add more?

You're all right in your own ways. A life is precious. It is a potential human being that is worth untold wonder. However, don't you think that a woman has a right over her own body? Shouldn't we allow her that choice? I know that no one governs my body, except myself. That means over everything.

Should we go back to those horrible days of butchery and death? Obviously women believed they deserved a say over their own bodies....shouldn't we make it at least safe?

Pro-choice.

We had a scare with our son many years ago. The blood tests suggested something was wrong, possibly a brain problem and we were asked if we wanted to abort the fetus. I was young and idealistic then and because we did not know how much damage or even if there was actual damage, I refused an abortion.

I am much older and life has been quite challenging, if I were in the same position now (unlikely at my age) then I might think differently, firstly, I would want to know how much damage there was and what kind of life the child would have for me to make a decision either way.

With my life as an aspie and my son very likely on the spectrum and all the times of desperation I have had, I would have to think very carefully before bringing a brain damaged child into the world. I really would.

Of course my attitude is based on what has happened to me in this life, like the person I married and the eventual divorce etc. The lack of family support for all kinds of reasons and having one very NT child and one child who is most likely an aspie.

For some reason I feel as though you made the right decision not to abort the fetus that became your son. I remain tentatively pro-choice But I am becoming more and more opposed to 'selective abortion' for eugenic purposes. If the fetus has a lethal genetic disease that will cut its life short before reaching adulthood then aborting it is more humane. Lemme put it this way: I support a womans right to choose whether or not she wants to have a child, but I DO NOT support a womans "right" to choose what kind of child she wants to have.

Techically speaking, the child is a parasite (for better or worse), feeding off the mother until the umbilical cord is cut. (It may be a very cute parasite, but it's still a parasite.) The child is not a biologically separate individual until the cord is cut. Then you can consider the rights of the child separate from the rights of the mother. Untiil that cord is cut, if there is a conflict between mother and child, someone has to lose. So who counts more?

I think part of the problem with this debate is that so very few people understand psychological health logically. When it's you, you understand it intuitively, but to reason about other people and what they need to be ok inside seems to be very hard for a lot of people. The mother is really the only one who can decide just how much she can take, and as a self-organizing, self-regulating system, she needs to be the one to decide. It's how people are designed. If you take away the ability to self-regulate, people short-circuit inside, regardless of how it looks to others.

As another poster in this forum said, they were raped by their own father and forced to abort. Not every woman has the right to choose whether or not to have sex, unfortunately.

If you read my post properly, I did include rape as one of the "difficult cases". While abortion is ALWAYS morally wrong, in these circumstances it is an understandable decision for a traumatised person to make. (Not that I could bring myself to do it even then - I'd have the child adopted if I couldn't handle keeping it).

As for the child being a parasite & having no rights until it is separate from the mother, sorry but that is complete and utter BS!! !! ! It is propaganda spouted in order to try & convince people to accept the pro-choice argument, and unfortunately the majority of people are so gullible that they have fallen for it. (Maybe because it is "convenient" in that it allows them not to feel guilt?)

As soon as the egg has been fertilised by a sperm, a GENETICALLY UNIQUE individual has been created who from that moment on has exactly the same right to life as any other person. Why should it be murdered just because the mother, say, "wants a career"?

How can she live with herself, knowing that she has only gained the lifestyle she has through murdering another human being?

Sorry if you don't like what i am saying, but from where I am sitting, what I say is so obviously and self-evidently true I find it impossible to understand how anyone can ever disagree with it.

Your logic is thoroughly flawed. If it has "exactly the same right to life as any other person," that would not include the right to live by extracting the nutrients from another person's body, or to survive at the expense of another person's health. A fertilized egg is not a person, it is potential; in fact a huge number of fertilized eggs spontaneously miscarry for a multitude of reasons. Are we to start trying to save them, as we would do a person? Should they have health insurance? Life insurance?

I am a mother, I wanted my children. I suffered a miscarriage - and "suffered" is the correct term. But that does not give me, or anyone else the right to tell another woman what she should do if she is pregnant and cannot carry to term because of circumstances beyond her control: her health, the fetus' health, the circumstances (including rape) of conception. It's her body that goes through the risks and damage of pregnancy and childbirth, not mine. She is the person, the CURRENTLY INDEPENDENTLY LIVING person, who must be considered first and foremost. It is a decision that should be made PRIVATELY between her and her doctor.

A miscarriage is a tragic natural event.

An abortion is a deliberate decision to kill another person.

The two are not the same thing.

A person's genetic makeup, i.e. what makes them unique, is determined at the moment of fertilisation. Whether or not that fertilised egg implants & develops into a baby is a a natural event, not one that we should decide.

By having sex, a woman is (usually) making a conscious decsion to risk getting pregnant (the size of the risk being determined by what, if any, precautions are taken).

If the possibility of pregnancy, taking into account the degree of risk, is unacceptable to her, i.e. meaning that she would decide to have an abortion if she got pregnant, then she should choose not to have sex.

That is the message that should be taught to our children in schools. The real problem here is the "permissive society" that teaches our children that it is OK to have sex whenever & with whoever they want, and if they do get pregnant, well then they can always get rid of it.

The baby (NOT "potential baby"! !! !!) has EQUAL rights to the mother, not fewer rights, (or more rights as you seem to think I am arguing). Thus if it is an issue about saving the life of the mother, and the pregnancy has to be terminated, it should be done in such a way as to save the baby as well - surely this is what would always happen anyway if the baby was a wanted one? If this is not possible, then if the mother died, so would the baby, meaning that the baby would die either way - thus the choice is of saving one life or neither.

And no, it is most definitely NOT a "private decision between a woman and her doctor". Why does any woman have the right to expect someone else to commit a murder on her behalf? A doctor's job is to preserve life, not to end it, and no doctor should have to be put in this situation.

Abortion violates another person's right to life. That is why it should be illegal.

The one thing I really find impossible to stomach is how may aspies have fallen for the propaganda. If I expected anyone on this earth to agree with my views on this subject, it would have been the people on here.

I am really grieved & disappointed in you all from the bottom of my heart.

This is one of the reasons I'm pro-choice. Even if abortion was illegal, people would still do it, and it would put people in danger.

It's a personal choice. I sympathise with people who are pro-life, and completely understand their points about murder. But people should have the choice. If they feel that they can cope with the moral implications, then that's their decision. This goes for doctors and such who are involved in the procedure as well - they need to be able to decide if they can do it or not.

I don't agree with foolish children using abortion as a form of contraceptive. I do agree with abortion where the parents have actively tried to avoid pregnancy, or where rape or a serious illness is involved.