Abortion?

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by dr2005

What I would give for this subject to be stickied and black-listed so we don't have to go through this every few months or so. We really have done this topic to death and a lot of this is just turning over old ground again - just as it was the last few times. As such, I'm going to repeat what I said last time, which is that the labels of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are in themselves illogical straw men - no one aside from the most dedicated troll is going to set themselves up as being "anti-choice" or "anti-life" which are the true opposites to both these positions. The sooner we throw these labels in the garbage, where they belong, the happier we'll all be I reckon. Or at the very least, we'll have got the debate back onto the actual topic of "abortion, yay or nay?"

Incidentally, there is a fairly specific definition of a living organism in biology, and by that definition life begins at fertilisation when cell division via mitosis commences. Hence, an embryo is alive from a scientific perspective and claims that it is not are with respect bogus. Whether it is a person or not is the true nub of the debate, and that is an ethical/legal problem rather than a medical one.



There's a slight flaw in this logic, which hopefully I can illustrate below:

You believe abortion should be a universally available right to all pregnant women. Fine - that's your prerogative. Myself and others do not agree with that position - that is our prerogative. However, in order for your position to be implemented, the state has to make provision for - and in a lot of cases fund - provision of abortion services, via taxpayer money. Even if a large percentage of the population does not agree with abortion, therefore, you are in effect demanding they foot the cost of implementing your beliefs. On a more personal level, as a taxpayer I am funding the provision of abortion services even though in a number of instances I do not agree with them. Where, therefore, is my choice? How is that not imposition of your beliefs upon others? Your belief that abortion should be a universal right is based on no greater level of empirical fact than mine, yet my objection is trampled over by default. That sounds less like pro-choice and more like pro-my-point-of-view, if you take choice in the strictest sense of the word.

I don't intend this to sound like a personal attack, I add in haste - it's more that the logic for me doesn't work. Both pro-choice and pro-life positions entail, in one way or another, the imposition of their beliefs upon wider society in one form or another.

I completely understand what you are saying. However there are some people out there who don't believe in surgery, yet their taxes help fund that. There are also people out there that don't believe in birth control, but there are instances where tax dollars go to that as well. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with everything their taxes pay for but we still give the choice.

To explain why I called Dani pro-choice: Pro-life to me is not agreeing with abortion, AT ALL and thinking that it should be made illegal. If you are against abortion then you are against it, while you may not be out pushing to make abortion illegal you would vote for it to be so if given the chance. If you don't think it should be illegal, if you are personally completely against abortion but recognize that other women are going to and should be able to do what THEY think is right then you are pro-choice.

[dani99]

Just because I know women are going to do what they want to do doesn't mean I'm pro-choice. I am against abortion, and I think it's sick. If I saw a women about to do an abortion, I would sit there and try to tell her the mistake she was about to make. Just because I've accepted that women are going to do what they want to do doesn't mean I agree with it, I actually despise it. I hate it.

I mean: ok, the world has accepted that there are real murderers out there (like, go break into someone's house and shoot them). Does that mean they agree with them? No. Do they think it's right? Most likely not. But the average person knows they can't stop it, so they just accept it's happening, although it's sick and twisted.

The only exception I see is when it's life threatening. If a women wants to risk her life to save her baby, then that's great. But if she doesn't want to die and gives up her baby, it's another. I'm pro-life, and it's a matter of who's going to live and who is going to die.

I don't agree with abortions for carelessness. I don't agree from failed protection. I don't agree with it for rape. I know rape is traumatizing and most women don't want to raise a baby of their attacker, but I think there should be no excuse to give up your child's life UNLESS your own life is at stake. Otherwise, that part should be up to the women. If she wants to live, she might have to risk her baby. If she seriously cares more for her baby than herself, then she'll give her baby a chance. What would I do in the situation? I don't even know. Part of me might get an abortion to save my own life, but the same time I'd probably want to die after an abortion anyways so I might give my own life.

But, unless for my reason, I strongly am against abortion. I think it's wrong. In certain situations, I understand why a woman may want to but in A LOT of cases, pregnancy is 100% preventable.

I can only speak for myself, no other women. I do wish more women would agree with me, but that's not the case, and I find it sad.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by dani99

Just because I know women are going to do what they want to do doesn't mean I'm pro-choice. I am against abortion, and I think it's sick. If I saw a women about to do an abortion, I would sit there and try to tell her the mistake she was about to make. Just because I've accepted that women are going to do what they want to do doesn't mean I agree with it, I actually despise it. I hate it.

The only exception I see is when it's life threatening. If a women wants to risk her life to save her baby, then that's great. But if she doesn't want to die and gives up her baby, it's another. I'm pro-life, and it's a matter of who's going to live and who is going to die.

I don't agree with abortions for carelessness. I don't agree from failed protection.

Your not understanding what I am saying. Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion. There are many people who are pro-choice who feel the same way about abortion that you do. But since you have said that you would NOT make abortion illegal, then it doesn't matter how much you hate abortion all that matters is that you recognize other women's right to CHOOSE abortion. That makes you pro-choice.

[dani99]

I don't see the right. I don't believe they should have a right. The only reason why I wouldn't make it illegal is because they would turn to the coat hanger back ally deal. I'm looking at two things: safe abortions or dangerous abortions. Legal or not, one or the other is going to happen. If I had to pick, I'd pick the safer side. But, if nobody thought of doing it the back ally way and it was abortions or no abortions (No coat hangers involved if it were illegal), then I would full out want it to be illegal. That doesn't mean I think women should have those certain rights to choose life or death for their child. I am just taking the better of the two negative choices.

[thebigmole]

Ok I get that. Let me ask you something. If a child gets in a car accident and ends up brain dead do you think that that child's parents should have the right to choose to turn off the machines? Or if a child has a disease and needs a risky surgery to live should that kid's parents have the right to choose not to take that risk and letting the kid die, or taking that risk and having the kid die sooner?

[dani99]

If a child was dying anyways, I think it would be humane to let them go anyways if there wasn't a chance of survival. It would be a waste to let them survive off of machines while they couldn't do anything in life anyways. Only if there was a glimmer of hope or a chance to live would I think it would be worth it.

[WhisperingSilence]

But what if the operation gives the child that chance of survival ? Like say a child had a whole in their heart and their is a heart donated that is a match and that heart is the childs only chance of survival would you let them have that chance to survive ? Or would you turn round to the child and tell them no ?

[dani99]

If there was a chance of survival through surgery then by all means, I would most definitely go through with that!

[MidnightMay]

I am prochoice. I wouldn't have one but another woman has her choice of it with out judgement. I think if a mother knows best then they know if they should or shouldn't have it. I don't agree with adoption is the only option or any of that. My question is why do so many people worry about other people's choices like this?? If it's not your life or choice to make why judge???

[Brandon]

I am pro-choice for several reasons:

1. Keeping abortion legal will promote regulated abortions. If abortions were to become illegal, abortions wouldn't just magically stop happening. As humans, we are very resourceful. If a teenager can get easy access to weed, then there's always a possibility that a teenager can get easy access to people who are willing to do abortions...which...may be a problem. Unregulated abortions is something that I'm against, so I will not be "pro-life" because that would mean that I support unregulated abortion. In which case...I'm definitely pro-choice.
2. Pro-life and pro-choice are both pro-choice, but towards different parties. Pro-choice are pro-choice to the mothers who carry the fetus, while pro-life are pro-choice to the babies. Essentially they are saying that a baby is more important than its own mother. To me, that's not cool. If I were a pregnant mother, I definitely wouldn't support a group who values a baby more than its mother.
3. With 5 seconds of research, I found that some adoption services are suffering because people aren't willing to adopt (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/r...check-adoption). If I loved my child, I would rather end it's life while still in the womb than to put it up for adoption, like an animal, only with the chance that it may or may not ever be adopted within a certain period of time.
4. From what I've experienced, pro-life are more ignorant than pro-choice. I've seen a lot more pro-life people say that pro-choicers don't care about killing a baby than I've seen pro-choicers say that all pro-life people are religious. Maybe it's a personal bias, but I'd rather be in the group who is less ignorant than the other group. I can understand why someone would be pro-life and can still disagree with it, but I would expect the same...understand why abortions would be done even if you don't agree with it.
5. It's her body.

I'm sure I could think of more, but I've seen the way that abortion threads go...I'd give it about 3 more pages of back and forth arguments until a moderator decides to close it when someone gets upset.

[dani99]

I'm not upset at all. I'm actually interested in what everyone has to say. A good debate can be very refreshing, sometimes. Anyways, back on subject - I understand that many adoption agencies are poor and failing, and many children either take years to find a home or don't find one at all. But that still doesn't wrap my mind around that it's ok to abort a child. It's one heart beat that's being stopped, and one life you'll never get back. I don't hate the mothers for doing what they think is right, but I do think it's a poor choice they make. I know it's a very serious issue and I know a lot of women who get abortions end up either depressed or very regretful - and like I said, you can't take it back.

I know it's a decision that MOST women don't take lightly, but even afterwords they might face regret. Although it's her body, the baby has it's own body, too, in some cases. By 7 weeks, it starts looking like something other than a blob of cells and has an actual body. By 10 weeks, it starts taking on a human looking image. A /majority/ of women don't find out they're pregnant until after the 3rd or 4th week. Yes, it's her body. But that thing growing inside her is not.

I'm pro-life, and while I do believe that you should be able to control your own body, abortion is a lot more than just the mother's body. Abortion affects the mother's body, and can affect her physiological state as well. In my own personal belief, the moment the child is conceived they have a soul, they are as much as a person spiritually, if not physically or mentally, as a full-grown adult.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by dani99

But those who take that option are taking away the child/fetus/baby's right to live.

OK, I'm going to quote this because if the profound nature it has in the pro-life community. If someone "takes away" their rights to live, and that should be punishable, would it be reasonable to sanction someone for wearing a condom? And should their partner also be punished for letting them? After all, that's disallowing a living thing from creating a "life" by fertilization, which requires all 46 chromosomes. Because that's a potential life.
There are soooooo many arguments against that statement, I just thought I'd introduce a less-than-frequented one. :P
Anyway, I'm pro-choice. Not primarily because I hold the belief that life does not begin at conception, although that certainly factors in. I'm a proponent to pro-choice because of women's rights. Hardly anyone chooses to abort on a whim. It's a hard decision, not taken lightly. But even more than that, who is anyone to tell a woman what she can do with her own body?
I haven't seen s convincing argument addressing that life behind at conception to date, and that has been another major reason I'm firmly pro-choice.

[dani99]

Well, no - because the egg/sperm alone isn't a human. So, you can't kill what's not there. But, if you abort a child you're taking away something that could be born into the world and live a life.

[Tomar]

But Danielle imagine if you were that baby, who was going to grow up in a very poor standard of living, with a mother that doesn't really love you, no money for the right food, No proper bed to sleep in, and you eventually get put into an adoption programme that is poorly funded and you get moved from home to home, surrounded by different people, no place to call home. Would you want a life like that? I don't mean to be upsetting it's just a reality for far too many people! I'm not against pro life, I appreciate life is very important and shouldn't be dealt without much thought but in some cases it is for the best, in my opinion of course!

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Impressive response time. :P
Yes, but that sperm and that egg COULD have been born into this world.
The question here isn't if an unborn child isn't displaying signs of life, it's whether it is alive as a human being.
If you wanted to impose sanctions on the potential of things occurring, you'd end up with situations like Missionary Report; actually being charged with something that has not happened yet. And before Dave jumps in, let me elaborate. :P If you wanted abortion outlawed, you'd first have to redefine, legally, what a "person is". That, in this instance, would have to be an adaption to the "human being" model. And as it stands, fetuses and other stages of development prior, are not considered "persons".

[dani99]

Well, I still don't know if I'd want to have been aborted. I don't know. I'm not in that situation.

On the other hand, like I said - I wouldn't want abortion to be illegal anyways because without it, people would go out of their ways to do it unprofessionally and it could be dangerous. Any form of abortion is sick - but I'd rather have the safe one over the other choice if it were to be illegal.

[thebigmole]

I'm not really a fan of the calling abortion "sick". Abortion is an INCREDIBLY difficult decision to make. It is an incredibly hard position to be in. And yes a lot of women have rough feelings about it for a while. And people calling the decision they made sick isn't helpful to them. It doesn't help them heal. Why should they continue to be punished for exercising their rights? Not saying you have to like abortion but I feel like sick is a over dramatic term.

[dani99]

I don't think that the women are sick or sick minded. I believe that the process and what it is doing to the fetus is sick. I mean, scrambling and cutting up a little baby and having the head crushed, then having the remains sucked out and all of the cut up pieces of the baby are thrown away. Baby dies, and a life is lost with no respect like a funeral.

That procedure isn't sick to you? I don't know what is.

[Coffee.]

Originally Posted by dani99

I don't think that the women are sick or sick minded. I believe that the process and what it is doing to the fetus is sick. I mean, scrambling and cutting up a little baby and having the head crushed, then having the remains sucked out and all of the cut up pieces of the baby are thrown away. Baby dies, and a life is lost with no respect like a funeral.

That procedure isn't sick to you? I don't know what is.

You are very passionate about this topic. So listen to Brandon's advice: Get yourself educated on it. You don't even know how abortions are done, yet you are going off on them. This isn't information to find at a pro-life propaganda site, look in a textbook. The majority of abortions these days are done before the skull is completely formed, and it is done chemically through pills. Do your research please, thank you.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by dani99

Well, I still don't know if I'd want to have been aborted. I don't know. I'm not in that situation.

On the other hand, like I said - I wouldn't want abortion to be illegal anyways because without it, people would go out of their ways to do it unprofessionally and it could be dangerous. Any form
of abortion is sick - but I'd rather have the safe one over the other choice if it were to be illegal.

Uh... That seems more pro-choice than anything.
Sorry, has this been a back and forward thing?

[Koharuchan]

Originally Posted by dani99

Well, I still don't know if I'd want to have been aborted. I don't know. I'm not in that situation.

On the other hand, like I said - I wouldn't want abortion to be illegal anyways because without it, people would go out of their ways to do it unprofessionally and it could be dangerous. Any form of abortion is sick - but I'd rather have the safe one over the other choice if it were to be illegal.

I believe that was way out of line. A lot of women who have had to go through abortions have had a terrible time. Think of the women who got abortions because they just had no other option, ones that really wanted that baby but had to give it up. If I had to get an abortion I would be DEVASTATED. And there are a lot of people on this site alone who have had to go through the difficult choice of having an abortion. To say that abortion is sick, especially on this site, could potentially upset a LOT of people. Think about what you're typing before you post it.

[dani99]

I know surgical abortions aren't the only way. But, medical abortions aren't any less disturbing. Either way, the fetus is normally disposed of or used for certain research, I believe. But, the fetus is aborted and just, like I said, disposed of. I know how abortions are done, and that is one of the procedures used. I know for earlier abortions, you take abortion pills and it technically "induces" a miscarriage. For those women who are in the early stages will have a medical abortion. Those who are over 8 weeks, I believe, are opt to have a surgical removal.

Yes, a lot of women do have abortions through pills, but there are also those who have it surgically removed. But, anyways, the left over body parts are considered "waste" and are usually disposed of. I think it's sad that they are just thrown away like that, and don't even get a proper funeral like most born people have.

Like I said. The women aren't sick. Their decisions aren't sick. The way it happens is sick. The thought of the baby dying is sick. I'm not attacking the people, I'm going after how upsetting it is how abortions are done, not the people who have them done.

[Tomar]

The word sick is a very strong word, I think some people who may have been affected in some way by abortion in the past and may find such strong wording upsetting or offensive. I hold no power on this site, however I think it would be a good idea just to think about how what you say may affect other people, not that you're not entitled to your opinion it just comes across a little strong!

[dani99]

To me, the process of eliminating a fetus is sick to me. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. What other words can I use to get the same meaning across? Bad? Too bland. I mean, the point I'm making is that it's a procedure that is hard for me to wrap my mind around and not feel like something is crawling in my stomach. Maybe sickening would be better, since it goes more towards me and not attacking a person. (Although, my intention wasn't to attack a person and I'm sorry if my poor choice of words offended anyone.)

Like I said - I have NOTHING against people who get abortions. Everyone makes mistakes, and I'm not here to judge a person as a whole for what they've done. I do still stand that I don't agree that a person must get an abortion. I do stand by when I say it makes my stomach hurt thinking about it. In my heart, I know I would never be able to do it and I don't understand how other women are able to. I'm sure it's not an easy choice, and my heart aches for both the mother and the child. If the world wasn't in the terrible condition it is now, I'm sure there would be less abortions.

Abortions to me are sad and heartbreaking. I don't think there could be a single reason that I would think about an abortion for myself unless my life was at risk - but even then, I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to live knowing that I let my child go like that.

Everyone is different. For a person who is pro-life, I'm open minded and understanding of other's opinions although I don't agree with them. My heart won't allow me to believe abortion could really ever be a good thing.

[Tomar]

Maybe you are lucky you have never had t worry where your next meal is coming from, or if you can sustain a roof over your head, but for a lot of women out there it is a reality and would you bring a baby into a world like that? Do you think that's fair on the baby?

[dani99]

To be honest, yes - I would. I would make do with what I had, even if what I had wasn't enough. I know it seems cold hearted and cruel, and I don't know that situation so I don't know how I'd really react. But, as far as I feel now, I still don't think I'd be able to do that.

[Tomar]

But you can't speak for everyone by saying it's "sick" sometimes it can be a greater benefit to the baby, in my opinion obviously.

[dani99]

Originally Posted by dani99

To me, the process of eliminating a fetus is sick to me. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. What other words can I use to get the same meaning across? Bad? Too bland. I mean, the point I'm making is that it's a procedure that is hard for me to wrap my mind around and not feel like something is crawling in my stomach. Maybe sickening would be better, since it goes more towards me and not attacking a person. (Although, my intention wasn't to attack a person and I'm sorry if my poor choice of words offended anyone.)

I changed my wording around, if you haven't noticed.

[MidnightMay]

Originally Posted by dani99

I don't hate the mothers for doing what they think is right, but I do think it's a poor choice they make. I know it's a very serious issue and I know a lot of women who get abortions end up either depressed or very regretful - and like I said, you can't take it back.

But who are you to try and judge them. If it's their choice then let them make it and if they regret it then they go through the guilt and the pain. Every action has a reaction does it not? Why are we spending so much time judging others choices? I have a friend who got one and it did hurt her but she knows it was the right choice for her. It didn't make her any less of a person.

[dani99]

Apparently people don't read well enough. I don't judge them, I just don't agree with them. I don't know how many times I have to say that.

[Henry Tyrell]

Originally Posted by dani99

Apparently people don't read well enough. I don't judge them, I just don't agree with them. I don't know how many times I have to say that.

Saying that women who have abortions are making a "poor choice" MEANS that you are judging them.

[Coffee.]

Originally Posted by dani99

I know surgical abortions aren't the only way. But, medical abortions aren't any less disturbing. Either way, the fetus is normally disposed of or used for certain research, I believe. But, the fetus is aborted and just, like I said, disposed of. I know how abortions are done, and that is one of the procedures used. I know for earlier abortions, you take abortion pills and it technically "induces" a miscarriage. For those women who are in the early stages will have a medical abortion. Those who are over 8 weeks, I believe, are opt to have a surgical removal.

Yes, a lot of women do have abortions through pills, but there are also those who have it surgically removed. But, anyways, the left over body parts are considered "waste" and are usually disposed of. I think it's sad that they are just thrown away like that, and don't even get a proper funeral like most born people have.

No, no, this is still wrong. Chemical abortions are not "disposed of" in the office, it induces a miscarriage, meaning it just induces a period. I guess if you consider on a tampon disposing of, as any other regular miscarriage would be, then yes, that is. But unless you consider every accidental conception your body gets rid of, either because of your birth control making it so the conception is unable to stick, or because you're miscarrying because the pregnancy was unhealthy, a death, you can't really consider this to be that graphic. Your body does similar things naturally. Some children are not healthy enough to live, and your body will get rid of them so that it doesn't waste the time to have a sick or dead baby. In some ways, women do the same things, but for emotional turmoil.

[chickenonsteroids]

Dani, where do you get your information from about abortion?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I completely understand what you are saying. However there are some people out there who don't believe in surgery, yet their taxes help fund that. There are also people out there that don't believe in birth control, but there are instances where tax dollars go to that as well. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with everything their taxes pay for but we still give the choice.

Neither of them are framed in terms of "choice" to the same extent as the abortion argument, though - the arguments for or against surgery are framed in terms of risk vs reward or life now vs potential afterlife (the latter one being that posed by Jehovah's Witnesses among others), while birth control (barring those methods which could be viewed as abortifacients) is more often objected to on moral grounds related to sexualisation of society etc. Abortion is thus far the only area in which the "pro-choice" argument has been applied so forcefully, despite the fact that framing it in terms of "choice" is inherently open to contradiction, as I argued in my previous post. Hence why I would quite happily ditch both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as positions in the debate.

Originally Posted by thebigmole

To explain why I called Dani pro-choice: Pro-life to me is not agreeing with abortion, AT ALL and thinking that it should be made illegal. If you are against abortion then you are against it, while you may not be out pushing to make abortion illegal you would vote for it to be so if given the chance. If you don't think it should be illegal, if you are personally completely against abortion but recognize that other women are going to and should be able to do what THEY think is right then you are pro-choice.

Again, this is why I find the labels completely and utterly meaningless - depending on how the person utilising them phrases their particular definition, they could end up co-opting the entire audience into their camp 1) without their consent (oh irony) and 2) irrespective of the fact that they may actually disagree on some fairly fundamental points. Examples: late-term abortions, legal limits on abortions, methods which should be allowed and exemptions in cases of rape or incest. People could adopt wildly opposing views on all of those topics, yet under your definition all would be classed as "pro-choice" - even if, to give one example, they would accept abortion being used only for ectopic pregnancies, rape or incest and in no other circumstances, which to my mind severely curtails the "choice" level. Hence, to me, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by ~Mr. Self Destruct~

Impressive response time. :P
Yes, but that sperm and that egg COULD have been born into this world.
The question here isn't if an unborn child isn't displaying signs of life, it's whether it is alive as a human being.
If you wanted to impose sanctions on the potential of things occurring, you'd end up with situations like Missionary Report; actually being charged with something that has not happened yet. And before Dave jumps in, let me elaborate. :P

I love the fact my responses are now being pre-empted.

Much as I admire the ingenuity of the argument, it is stretching the application of "potential life" to breaking point in my opinion. The sperm and egg cells, on their own, will not become anything more than sperm and egg cells until they eventually pass out of the body. Their "potential" is therefore conditional on external factors - in this case, the conscious choice by both persons to have sex - to even come close to being realised, and even then it's not guaranteed. To illustrate, a lump of aluminium oxide has the "potential" to become, amongst other things, part of a car engine, the components of a computer or a humble Coke can. (Other brands are available...) Without the intervention of several external processes, however - not least extracting the aluminium itself - it's going to remain a lump of aluminium oxide. It won't suddenly go "Tada! I'm a Coke can!". In contrast, the embryo is like a lump of aluminium which has gone through the early processes and is now being formed into the end product - barring further external intervention or latent defects, it will become that part of an engine, components of a computer or the Coke can. That end result is predetermined, and therein lies the difference.

It just dawned on me that I've compared a developing unborn child to a Coke can in production - that can't be a good thing.

[dani99]

In later abortions, they do dispose of them in that way. They are thrown away as "bio hazardous waste". In a way, medical abortions are disposed of, but not as trash. Disposal can be used in different ways. Someone told me that they do use the fetus (if it's further along) for stem cell research, but then throw them away.

And, for the next question - from numerous places. Teachers, people who've had abortions, my mom, ect.

[Palmolive]

Like I said - I have NOTHING against people who get abortions. Everyone makes mistakes, and I'm not here to judge a person as a whole for what they've done. I do still stand that I don't agree that a person must get an abortion. I do stand by when I say it makes my stomach hurt thinking about it. In my heart, I know I would never be able to do it and I don't understand how other women are able to. I'm sure it's not an easy choice, and my heart aches for both the mother and the child. If the world wasn't in the terrible condition it is now, I'm sure there would be less abortions.

I don't like how you say 'Everyone makes mistakes'. To some woman, this is not a mistake. It's what they want and while I personally, don't as such agree with abortions and personally don't think I would abort a baby myself, I don't think it's your place to generalize every abortion and claim that every woman who has an abortion has made a mistake. Human rights or what. We all have a right to our bodies. And yes, I can understand you being against it, because like I said, I don't exactly agree with it, but that's life.

I can understand that a 15 year old would want to abort their baby. I can understand that a women with a mental health illness would want to abort her baby. I can understand that a women with not a lot of money and struggling to even support herself, would want to abort her baby. I can understand why a woman who has been raped, would want to abort her baby. Woman should have a choice.

It's not a mistake, for everyone.

[Gingerbread Latte]

Honestly, I feel like pro-lifers think pro-choice means pro-abortion. It feels like they think anyone who is pro-choice wants to abort all the babies or something.

If you're pro-choice you yourself can still be AGAINST abortion. It just means you're not forcing your beliefs on other people. Pro-choice just means women who want to abort have access to safe and regulated abortions.

With that said I'm pro-choice (in case you couldn't guess). I'm fairly happy to say that I support a person's choice to have an abortion whatever their reason. Rape, baby will have a horrible illness or even just because the contraception failed. However, I do think women who use abortions INSTEAD of using contraception in the first place are very irresponsible but in that case I think the health authorities should educate them rather than punish them.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Nenya

Honestly, I feel like pro-lifers think pro-choice means pro-abortion. It feels like they think anyone who is pro-choice wants to abort all the babies or something.

That's the point of labels. Pro-life means supporting life...who the hell doesn't support life? That's obviously a no-brainer. So when someone says they're pro-choice, they are essentially saying that they are not supporting life. You would think that pro-life is the obvious choice until you think...hey, people should be given that freedom. Obviously the fetus is still in development. It's not like we're stabbing a knife into a 2 year old's neck. Sometimes, things happen and you don't want to deal with the problem unless you absolutely have to. You have the choice, so exercise that choice. After all, America was founded because of desire for a kind of freedom. Shouldn't it be the same to have freedom of choice? So both sides label each other to make powerful standpoints with valid arguments. Pro life...pro choice.

[dani99]

To me, it's a mistake so I have every right to view it as a mistake.

I know the difference. I understand that pro-choice is that you don't agree with abortion for yourself but you still think that any other person should be allowed to decide. I, however, don't think it's right. I don't think that it should be allowed, but it is. I value life.

I know that pro-abortion is that you believe that all women should get abortions. I know good and well of the differences between the two labels, thank you. I respect the right of opinion, although I don't agree. I don't understand abortion or why people would get them, but it's just how I was raised. I was brought up in a house where my mother always told me "People who abort their children are heartless idiots" and where I don't agree with THAT much, because that is a very rude way of putting it - I still think abortion is wrong.

I think my sympathy for the women and me accepting that it's going to happen no matter how much I hate it puts me on the border of pro-life and pro-choice, yes. But I have a lot more pro-life values, so I'm just over that edge.