A slightly different abortion thread.

[PutYourHeartsUp]

This is just my opinion. Attack it all you want, I probably won't respond to attacks. It was just something I was thinking about with all the pro-life/pro-choice stuff.

I, personally (meaning this is SOLELY my opinion, at the current time), think that in order to truly, *truly*, be "pro-life" then you don't think abortion is acceptable under ANY circumstance including but not limited to: threat to the mother, rape, severe deformities, etc.

Then I also think that there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion, because being pro-choice doesn't mean you necessarily condone abortion...it means you support women having that choice to make for themselves. I consider myself pro-choice, but would I ever personally have an abortion unless absolutely necessary? Probably not. To me, it just means I respect that everyone has to make that decision for themselves. Pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean you think it's okay to use abortion as birth control (i.e. getting pregnant a lot, being careless with protection etc).

Personally, I think there should be a third category for the people that label themselves as pro-life but then say it's okay in certain circumstances.

[Jocelyn.]

Pro-life people that have "exceptions" (being at risk to mother, product of a rape...) are just in denial of being pro-choice. I agree that you can't have it both ways. If you think abortion is ok in certain circumstances you are agreeing that women have the choice to have an abortion.

I agree with your statement about pro-choice vs. pro-abortion as well. I don't exactly like abortion, and who would? I would get one if necessary and respect anyone's decision to get one... but I don't run around telling women who have no money, no father to their child, and an abusive personality that they should really just abort their child (even if I may be thinking it...)

Its a necessary evil and even though pro-lifers fight for the unborn, I think abortion protects just as many lives from being shattered by preventing unwanted children who are at great risk of neglect and abuse and of the mental stability of the parents who may have chosen to keep a child they didn't want out of regret.

[Boobies]

To be honest, I don't agree with 'I, personally (meaning this is SOLELY my opinion, at the current time), think that in order to truly, *truly*, be "pro-life" then you don't think abortion is acceptable under ANY circumstance including but not limited to: threat to the mother, rape, severe deformities, etc.' and 'Pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean you think it's okay to use abortion as birth control (i.e. getting pregnant a lot, being careless with protection etc).'
To me, if you're saying pro-life is you can never accept an abortion is then you should also be saying that pro-choice honestly don't care about the reason. You should both be as flexible as each other.

It's like you can be a Christian, but there are different levels of how Christian you are, you get the hardcore Christians, and then you get the ones that don't go to church, it's the same thing here really.

[Brandon]

This kind of subject brings up a lot of biases. It's a very controversial topic and will probably continue to be controversial for a long time. With biases come potential over-generalizations (from what I've noticed). For instance, the example you mentioned, just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean that they're pro-abortion. But a person who is pro-life could stereotype a person who is pro-choice as a woman who smokes pot, has tattoos all over her body, nose ring, and had a five some without protection and ended up getting pregnant. At the same time, someone who is pro-choice may think that someone who is pro-life is obese, a religious hypocrite, and authoritative over her children. If you're pro-choice, you're incapable of taking responsibility for your actions and you probably got pregnant because you're a whore, while if you're pro-life then you're an obese woman who is frustrated with the world and think you're better than everyone else. At least, that's what I get from people's arguments offline and online. I think both terms are too broad and don't cover everyone's belief regarding abortion so I definitely think that there should be a 3rd option that should have both pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints.

[losing touch.]

i'm pro-choice, but definitely not supportive of using abortion as birth control (which some girls i know seem to..)

i think it's difficult to define 'pro-life.' i mean.. if the mother will probably die/is at serious risk by carrying on with the pregnancy would they make an exception there? it's tricky because would you rather lose two lives or lose one? i suppose by definition there shouldn't be any exceptions but talking about it and being in the situation are VERY different things.

the reason why i'm pro-choice is because everyones situation is different. i will not judge someone and tell them they are wrong for having an abortion when i know nothing about their life.
i think sometimes pro-life supporters underestimate just how difficult it must be for a woman/girl to go through with an abortion. it's not something most people will just decide to do for fun. it must be an incredibly difficult thing to deal with. what they don't need is someone judging them and trying to force their usually religious based beliefs onto them.

went off on a tangent there, sorry. but yes essentially, i agree that there are different levels or pro-choice and pro-life. i'm sure some people who consider themselves pro-life could have some exceptions.

[Cosmo]

Pro-Life can also be called Anti-Choice.

I find the idea that anyone can find abortion wrong in ALL circumstances disgusting. I could not respect a person that thought that under all circumstances, including rape and possible death of the mother, abortion was unacceptable and that the baby somehow mattered more than the mother.

[dr2005]

This reminds me of my debate with Brandon about the pointlessness of labels such as "pro-choice" and "pro-life" - because they are so inherently vacuous and ill-defined, you can apply any definition you want to them and hence result in debates like this. Abortion is one of the few topics of debate I know of where whether a person is in favour of or against the matter at hand is not actually considered in the terminology. I'm one for calling a spade a spade and would be much happier if we dropped "pro-choice" and "pro-life" into the dustbin of history. It'll probably never happen but it would be nice.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

My view on these categories is simple. Ditch all them because they're so ambiguous, people begin debating others thinking their view is a certain way when in in reality it may not be. The end result is people have to slow down and carefully outline what their views are. So to make it simpler, eliminate those terms and take the time to just say what your view is. Adding a third, fourth or even a fifth category I think is just going to compound the problem some more. Problem with the third category proposed of "saying it's OK in some circumstances" is ambiguous because which circumstances? Likely ones are rape, immense disapproval, health risks to oneself, health risks to continue with the fetus, etc... . It still brings about confusion and guesswork as to which ones. More importantly, reasoning for those particular ones isn't captured in such a category either.

[TheBabyEater]

I get what you're saying. Unfortunately, unless people all unanimously decide to actually be accepting of other people and their views, the argument will never be over, and there will always be misconceptions about both sides.

But, I guess if we were all accepting of others beliefs and values and decisions, we would all be Pro-Choice

[emma01]

I actually agree with what Matthew said about Pro-Life being like Anti-Choice...I think Anti Choice kind of means that you don't think women should choose to have abortions, unless they really have to (like after being raped, or if the mother will die) I understand in these situations women dont HAVE to abort, but opposed to just because they dont want a baby...it's more of a need than a want.

[Guile]

I think everything always includes a degree of logic to it, and doesn't need a specific label. Would you say, "I support workers rights"? Okay, let's assume you support worker's rights, that doesn't mean you believe workers should all get to decide their own pay, benefits, hours, and choose who gets fired, everything includes an element of logic to it.

[Jaden89]

I understand where you're coming from, you're absolutely right.

That being said I am pro-life. I believe that a child has as much right to live as anyone no matter the circumstances. I won't argue with anyone about rather a child is alive from the point of conception on or any of that because to be honest, it's pointless, everyone has there own view on the world and I find abortion sickening and heartless in any case.

[ShimmeringFaerie]

Originally Posted by Jaden89

I understand where you're coming from, you're absolutely right.

That being said I am pro-life. I believe that a child has as much right to live as anyone no matter the circumstances. I won't argue with anyone about rather a child is alive from the point of conception on or any of that because to be honest, it's pointless, everyone has there own view on the world and I find abortion sickening and heartless in any case.

So you're saying that if the mother would die or risk death if she didn't get an abortion, you would find it sickening and heartless?

[Fictional]

I call myself pro-life, because I believe that abortion is wrong, unless there's a serious threat to the mother and/or the baby. I don't see that as hypocritical, because in my view, if the mother or the baby is going to die should the pregnancy be carried to term, then I feel that the woman should have the choice to abort. If she was unable to, then she and/or could potentially die, which would be a loss of life. I don't see that as being in denial about being pro-choice, I see that as genuinely believing that it's wrong to waste life.


(Sorry, I know I haven't explained myself very clearly )

[PutYourHeartsUp]

I see why people feel how they do, but I definitely think the labels need to go.

I also don't get how I know so many people pro-life BUT they're also for the death penalty! If every life is so important, then why be FOR killing anything?

[Boobies]

Originally Posted by TranquilChaos

I also don't get how I know so many people pro-life BUT they're also for the death penalty! If every life is so important, then why be FOR killing anything?

There's a difference between killing someone who's screwed up several peoples lives and done grave crimes and killing a child (as we're talking about pro-life) that hasn't been given a chance O.o

[PutYourHeartsUp]

Yeah, but if EVERY life is worth something then it still wouldn't make sense. The pro-life people I personally know go on about how every single life is worth saving and every life is precious etc and every means every single one, criminals included. (I know it's a little off base from my original post but I think it's a bit relevant.)

[Fictional]

I have to say, I agree with you on that =/

[Cosmo]

Every smart person in the modern world should be Pro-Choice. The only variance would be under which (and there WILL be some) each individual thinks it should be allowed. Only a moron thinks abortion is wrong under all circumstances regardless of anything. Sorry, it's true. Pro-Lifers just want to remove choice, which itself is rather tyrannical. The two labels don't do much to lend any classiness to the debate though.

[Jocelyn.]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

So you're saying that if the mother would die or risk death if she didn't get an abortion, you would find it sickening and heartless?

Then if you get pregnant and are at risk of major health complications, don't ever find yourself at a catholic hospital then. Apparently they all find it sickening and heartless too. If you go to a catholic hospital they WILL choose the baby's life over the mothers. Its pure craziness.

I delivered my son at one of the best hospitals in the country. I was admittedly completely clueless that it was a Catholic hospital and had certain rules it had to follow. I'll take a slight cut in quality next time to deliver somewhere that follows my viewpoint. I wouldn't have been able to even get a tubal ligation there if I requested one!

Oh well, sorry for going off on such a tangent.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by ball&chain

Then if you get pregnant and are at risk of major health complications, don't ever find yourself at a catholic hospital then. Apparently they all find it sickening and heartless too. If you go to a catholic hospital they WILL choose the baby's life over the mothers. Its pure craziness.

If a pregnant woman's life is in real and present danger, and the necessary action to save their life will result in the death of a foetus, a Catholic hospital will carry out the procedure and they are permitted by the Church to do so. A hospital which does otherwise is in breach of its duty of care, to say nothing of being clueless of Catholic doctrine in this area.

Originally Posted by ball&chain

I delivered my son at one of the best hospitals in the country. I was admittedly completely clueless that it was a Catholic hospital and had certain rules it had to follow. I'll take a slight cut in quality next time to deliver somewhere that follows my viewpoint. I wouldn't have been able to even get a tubal ligation there if I requested one!

I would have thought the welfare of yourself and your unborn child would be the foremost concern rather than whether they follow your "viewpoint". I may not approve of all the practices undertaken by the NHS but I'm still going to use them.

[Jocelyn.]

If a pregnant woman's life is in real and present danger, and the necessary action to save their life will result in the death of a foetus, a Catholic hospital will carry out the procedure and they are permitted by the Church to do so. A hospital which does otherwise is in breach of its duty of care, to say nothing of being clueless of Catholic doctrine in this area.

"...WILL choose the child's life over the mother's" may have been an exaggeration and I apologize. Although, these are some interesting reads regarding catholic hospitals and performing life-saving abortions:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...pital-abortion

http://reproductiverights.org/en/pre...g-emergency-ca

http://www.ansirh.org/_documents/lib...jph10-2008.pdf

I personally still wouldn't trust one to handle my next pregnancy.

I would have thought the welfare of yourself and your unborn child would be the foremost concern rather than whether they follow your "viewpoint". I may not approve of all the practices undertaken by the NHS but I'm still going to use them.

Of course its important that I agree with their practices (and just for the record, in the area I live in a "cut in quality" doesn't mean much... the other hospitals around here are outstanding as well). I don't want to be concerned about what procedure doctors will and won't perform because their ethics committee doesn't agree and wants me rushed to a hospital 90 minutes away that does. I also will choose a tubal ligation next time around as well. Two children is my limit, and I don't need a hospital telling me otherwise due to their particular religious beliefs.

[Cosmo]

The mother matters more than the child..
If the hospitals can save either the mother or child, it should be the mother every time..

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by TranquilChaos

Yeah, but if EVERY life is worth something then it still wouldn't make sense. The pro-life people I personally know go on about how every single life is worth saving and every life is precious etc and every means every single one, criminals included. (I know it's a little off base from my original post but I think it's a bit relevant.)

This also means police should have no lethal weapons because no killing people (criminal or not) wouldn't be right. It means the armies should toss down their weapons, people shouldn't become P.O.W.s, etc... . If you want to go to absolute extremes, it means non-human animals shouldn't be killed. I'll admit that one is going a bit off the mark with the thread topic but the previous ones mentioned would apply to those same people saying death penalties shouldn't occur.

[Strife]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Pro-Life can also be called Anti-Choice.

Then to be fair we have to call pro-choice anti-life. XP
I'm personally pro-life, but I'm sick of debating this topic with people IRL so i will avoid it here.
About the categories: i don't see how more categories will get rid of the issues. People still differ as they won't fit into the EXACT requirements. Look at how many divisions of Christianity there are, yet so many don't fit. Or labels, etc.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by Strife

Then to be fair we have to call pro-choice anti-life. XP
I'm personally pro-life, but I'm sick of debating this topic with people IRL so i will avoid it here.
About the categories: i don't see how more categories will get rid of the issues. People still differ as they won't fit into the EXACT requirements. Look at how many divisions of Christianity there are, yet so many don't fit. Or labels, etc.

Anti-life is not the group's objective. Anti-choice is the group's objective. Key difference.

Just one example I'd like you to answer: Is abortion acceptable if the mother will die if it is not performed?

If your answer is yes, you are pro-choice.

[Marguerite]

I understand people saying that they are pro life but are for abortion if the mothers life is in danger. The idea (in theory) is about the sanctity of life, and not just saving unborn children. So when it's a situation were it's the mother or unborn baby, I can see why they would choose the mother (I think most people would).

However it annoys me to no end when people say 'I'm pro life but am for aborting in the case of rape'. That makes no sense. Is it not still a child if it is a product of rape? If you see abortion as 'murder', then is it really alright to 'murder' someone because of something they have no control over? If you say the woman will have mental and emotional problems if she keeps it, what about adoption? If you say it's not fair on her to have to go through with it because she had no choice in getting pregnant, is it okay for people to abort if the condom broke?

Or is what you are really saying that pregnancy is a punishment for having sex and people shouldn't be able to take 'the easy way out'? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

I think people are hung up on the idea that people need to be 'responsible' and can't admit to themselves that in some way (small as it may be) they do support abortion. For example, I saw a thread on here the other day with a girl in her 20s asking how to induce a miscarriage because she wasn't ready to have a baby but 'didn't believe in abortion'.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Banning a legal system where a mother can terminate a pregnancy fails to recognise that it is stripping women of rights. A pregnancy is also something that not even communists (I am not anti-communist, for the record) believe should be owned by the state, and by preventing any form of abortion, they are essentially stating that women who fall pregant have no rights to determine the course of their own life for nine months in that respect. It is quite anti-feminist in this aspect.
I would also like to mention that a feutus is by no means a form of human life, simply cells, so early-term abortions can easily be defended. Futhermore, if we wanted to change the defintion of "human" to include those that lack vital feautures in utero, what's to stop us inlcuding other look-alike forms of life?
People also neglect the fact that this is far mre humane than other options people will adopt if abortion was made illegal.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

I would also like to mention that a feutus is by no means a form of human life, simply cells, so early-term abortions can easily be defended. Futhermore, if we wanted to change the defintion of "human" to include those that lack vital feautures in utero, what's to stop us inlcuding other look-alike forms of life?

I never can read such things with a straight face. We're all multi-cellular organisms like the fetus only we have more. A fetus is a form of life in general because it grows with a certain pattern not needing outside sources to form that pattern. Outside sources provide resources for the pattern to form. If it isn't human, then it means when you plant a tomato seed, the seed is not of a tomato plant. That's moronic because it'll form a tomato plant. A fetus is a human and will develop into a larger human. Perhaps it may end up with defects, if so, it's still a human. If you say it's not a human, then why, other than the nonsense about fetuses being cells (as opposed to us being something else)?

As for changing the definition of "human", that term is defined currently by genetics and evolution. If we did change the definition to what you're suggesting, it means we could say a tomato, sheep or tree are all humans. What would be the purpose of doing something that silly? If we ever decided to look back on evolution, we'd be smacking ourselves upside the head for something that moronic.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

I never can read such things with a straight face. We're all multi-cellular organisms like the fetus only we have more. A fetus is a form of life in general because it grows with a certain pattern not needing outside sources to form that pattern. Outside sources provide resources for the pattern to form. If it isn't human, then it means when you plant a tomato seed, the seed is not of a tomato plant. That's moronic because it'll form a tomato plant. A fetus is a human and will develop into a larger human. Perhaps it may end up with defects, if so, it's still a human. If you say it's not a human, then why, other than the nonsense about fetuses being cells (as opposed to us being something else)?

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

As for changing the definition of "human", that term is defined currently by genetics and evolution. If we did change the definition to what you're suggesting, it means we could say a tomato, sheep or tree are all humans. What would be the purpose of doing something that silly? If we ever decided to look back on evolution, we'd be smacking ourselves upside the head for something that moronic.

So know we can sell tomato seeds without allowing them to develop into a plant as actual tomatoes? Moreover, using the logic you stated above, we shouldn't cut off and dispose of gangerous limbs because they're of humans. Or self-harmers should be arrested because they're destroying human skin, something that contains a cellular pattern of ours. And just like those things I stated, fetuses are, by all means and purposes, not alive as an individual. This is purely scientific, by the way. I'm not trying to destroy anyone's personal beliefs.
I also subscribe to evolution VERY exclusively, and do not like being deemed "moronic" either.
And at this point I'd also like to bring up the point of our overpopulated state. Purely for sicussion.

[Boobies]

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

And just like those things I stated, fetuses are, by all means and purposes, not alive. This is purely scientific, by the way. I'm not trying to destroy anyone's personal beliefs.
I also subscribe to evolution VERY exclusively, and do not like being deemed "moronic" either.
And at this point I'd also like to bring up the point of our overpopulated state. Purely for sicussion.

But a foetus is alive... scientifically speaking of course...

And also, what's the point of bringing up overpopulation? that could just as easily be used as an argument for culling certain parts of society...

[Fictional]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

This also means police should have no lethal weapons because no killing people (criminal or not) wouldn't be right. It means the armies should toss down their weapons, people shouldn't become P.O.W.s, etc... . If you want to go to absolute extremes, it means non-human animals shouldn't be killed. I'll admit that one is going a bit off the mark with the thread topic but the previous ones mentioned would apply to those same people saying death penalties shouldn't occur.

Are you being sarcastic in saying that? Because that's exactly what I - and several of my friends - believe should happen... but then, I'm pro-life...

[Double X]

I don't think there always needs to be absolutes for an argument. You can take a moderate stance. There are Republicans that are moderate, but they are still Republicans...

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by God.

But a foetus is alive... scientifically speaking of course...

And also, what's the point of bringing up overpopulation? that could just as easily be used as an argument for culling certain parts of society...

Not individually so.
Sperm exist in men and they're alive. So should we ban not donating them, or imprison those who, ahem, "spill their seed"? Sperm about as advanced, if not more advanced, than a fetus.

[Boobies]

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

Not individually so.
Sperm exist in men and they're alive. So should we ban not donating them, or imprison those who, ahem, "spill their seed"? Sperm about as advanced, if not more advanced, than a fetus.

The sperm point is irrelivent...
If if you want to provide proof as to why a foestus isn't alive I may start taking your side of the argument, but at the moment it's a pointless statement.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by God.

The sperm point is irrelivent...
If if you want to provide proof as to why a foestus isn't alive I may start taking your side of the argument, but at the moment it's a pointless statement.

Please explain to me, how is it irrelevant in any sense? I find it perfectly legitimate.
I'm also not trying to prove that one isn't alive, just that we can kill any other form of cellular group in ourselves, like skin, and it sparks no controversy. And why should it?

[PutYourHeartsUp]

I'm just curious, why do you call it a foetus?

And I've thought about the sperm thing too. Does that mean women should not be allowed to have periods and NOT get pregnant? (however, I made this point when people brought up the POTENTIAL for life, that a fetus shouldn't be terminated because it has potential for life. But so do sperm and eggs)

[Cosmo]

One of the problems with the whole 'potential for life' thing is that it's such a weak argument in general.

I am choosing not to have sex right now. Therefore, I am wasting the potential for life of my sperm.

If a man is hit by a car, that's removing the potential for life.

If a person dies, that removes the potential for life.

Not getting pregnant is removing the potential for life.

Using any form of any contraception is removing the potential for life.

I know there are some okay arguments out there for pro-life, but the potential for life one is pretty weak.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

Please explain to me, how is it irrelevant in any sense? I find it perfectly legitimate.
I'm also not trying to prove that one isn't alive, just that we can kill any other form of cellular group in ourselves, like skin, and it sparks no controversy. And why should it?

Neither sperm not egg cells are viable on their own - they possess only 23 chromosomes which therefore makes them incapable of growth and/or cell replication, or any metabolic process for that matter. They simply carry genetic material and act as fuel for fertilisation. Remove a sperm or egg cell from the confines of your body and it will do nothing whatsoever. The same can't really be said of a foetus - it will certainly do something for however long it survives outside the uterus.

On the "potential life" point, reductio ad absurdum only works if it follows the logical implications of an argument, and I would not say any of the implications advanced are particularly logical. Citing absurd consequences is all well and good, but you need the logical pathway in the first place.

[PutYourHeartsUp]

I'm still curious as to why you spell it foetus.

But sperm has the potential for life, even if it needs an egg. It has the potential to be a life if it joins with an egg.