Abortion debate, Pro-life vs. Pro-choice.?

Pro life.

Right to chose? Whose? If the fetus decided it wanted to die, it can commit suicide... there are plenty of natural fetal deaths. Otherwise, it doesnt chose to die. How can I make a life-death decision for someone else? Murderers do that all the time. Its not their place and they have no place speaking in the stead of someone who cant. No one can make a choice for someone else, particularly if that someone else is deliberately deprived of any say. Women that say "my body, my choice" are hypocrites... because they arent doing anything with their own body... they are doing something to someone elses body who just happens to be inside of them. The primary, intended, and most profound impact of the act is not on the mother, but on the fetus. So its not "their body" they are effecting. And one does not own the fetus as property. Slavery died out in our society a long time ago. A parent must look after their child, not dictate it. Ownership concept is ridiculous to a parents "rights" to "do with their child as they please". By that logic there is no reason a parent cannot decide to kill a six year old. Of course, most pro-abortionists decide, quite arbitrarily, that a fetus isnt a life and doesnt have rights... though they never prove that claim. Dehumanizing a being is what the Nazis did to the Jews, its an easy rationalization, and there are many arbitrary justifications for dehumanizing a human fetus, none of which are proven, and all of which have valid counter-points. Whether or not abortion is right or wrong is beside the point when you point out the obvious - that we do not know with absolute certainty that abortion *is* right... and so every time a parent decides to abort they are making a choice that they are objectively uncertain about its ethicality... and by deciding to do something that they must unbiasedly admit could potentially be immoral, but chosing to remain ignorant of that fact, hardly makes that choice moral. Pro-abortionists will decide arbitrarily when life begins, without any objective basis and with plenty of real life counter examples. And screams for "subjectivity" is just an escape goat for those who dont want to argue, dont want their own views challenged, etc., who try to escape the moral implications of an objective truth they dotn want to have to face or pursue. Subjectivity is in itself an unproven premise... and when debating morality it makes no sense to argue for objectivity to be proven, first, while subjectivity is assumed in the mean time... because it is in no way moral to assume subjectivity in the face of the possibility of being wrong, and make immoral decisions under the pretense of subjectivity, as any immorality can be rationalized under that mentality... its just a justification to act as one wants to in the mean time. And so when discussing morality, its best to assume objectivity and require subjectivity to be proven... its the greatest moral default, orthodox and conservative, and is thus the only choice to make if we wish to call ourselves moral at all. Pro-abortionists will also argue that they cannot afford to take care of the baby, or are not in a position to be a parent... and they default to abortion without a single consideration given adoption or foster care, or to what the other parent may want to do as an independent. Some are greedy enough to refuse to let "anyone else" raise their own "flesh and blood", out of some sort of possessive pride for their own genetic material, and will thus refuse adoption possibilities in favor of abortion as a more selfish agenda. It makes no sense that one could care enough about your own child not to want to let someone else raise it... and look after it by killing it. Then there are plenty of women who want abortion not because they dont want a kid, but because they dont the adverse side effects on their bodies and social lives of having been pregnant, which is just superficial. And the argument that men cannot speak to the ethics of abortion because they cannot experience pregnancy is absurd, as anyone can speak to and fight for the rights of human beings... whether or not Im capable of first hand experience is irrelevant to the morality of the act, and its every human beings moral obligation to pursue and promote truth and fight for human rights... turning a blind eye to other peoples choices, blind tolerance, is morally incriminating in its own way. The idea that a man cannot speak to morality on account of his inability to experience pregnancy is fallacious. Which is also an appeal to a lack of authority (on pregnancy, which is falsely equating authority on pregnancy with authority on morality and human rights). Female pro-abortionists hypocritically dont seem to have a problem with all the men who *support* abortion... a double-standard in reasoning. The gender argument is obviously irrelevant since plenty of women are against it, too. Our society is hypocritical. Women are held legally accountable for their use of drugs and other detrimental acts while pregnant, but then they can just go into a clinic and kill the baby anyway. The argument that "they will abort fetuses anyway, legal or not" is also ridiculous. People will continue murdering and raping and stealing, too... should we legalize all of that too? Nothing that is immoral and nothing that is morally questionable should be arbitrarily legalized. A lack of disproof to its immorality in no ways justifies the legalization of the act. Perhaps it would if it carried no moral implication/connotation... but everyone knows the debate exists and we all acknowledge the controversy. That is very liberal and very unethical of our society to defualt and yield permissions they way it has. Arguments that fetuses are just parasites are also absurd. One could argue that a six month old birthed child is equally as much a parasite. Parasites, viruses, and diseases can be treated with antibiotics - a baby cant. Fetuses are a naturally occuring evolutionary event and an integral part of procreation, and in no way comparible to an infection. And even if it were, its still an infection the mother concented to when she chose to have sex. Was she using sufficient protection? Or did she just not care at the time? Then the argument also becomes whether or not a sexually matured individual has the capacity to make rational decisions and take responsibility for their own choices, father included. And if not, are these people even deserving of having sex at all? How compromised are their judgments and should they even be allowed into the general public? I believe that there are at *most* two justified reasons for abortion. One is that the birth will cause the death of the mother, the second is that the mother was raped. But even in the case of rape, if she allows the fetus to grow for monts because she didnt want to report the crime and get checked then she is still responsible for the life she let grow inside of her, and should be declined abortion after a certain period of time. And just because there might be one or two debatably legitimate reasons for an abortion does not mean abortion should be permitted across the board as a genericly accepted practice. Never mind the fact that a fetus is not responsible for its mothers rape by its father, so why should it be punished? World overpopulation is also a moot argument. If the issue truly were about population control (not unlike some persecutions in history) then why not start with the prison population? How ethical are we to value the life of a felon over that of an innocent yet-born yet-chanced human being. Then after the prisons, move on to the very women who wanted abortions in the first place... the least we could do is spay them if they keep getting themselves pregnant. And the "sparing a child a lifetime of pain" is also a ridiculous argument that I have heard... there is no telling what sort of happiness (or sadness) or acheivments a human being will have... if you can tell the future then why didnt you anticipate your pregnancy? Most women eventually regret abortion. Have you ever met a grown adult who was so priveleged to know that his/her parents were debating on aborting them? That puts things into a different perspective, too. I question the morality of any woman who would deprive the fetuses father of any say, ignoring his wants. When you kill an adult or an adolescent we call it homicide, and its a heinous crime. When you kill a child its usually regarded as all the more evil. When you kill a baby, we call it infanticide, and there is nothing more intrinsically evil. But the word "fetalcide" isnt even in our vocabulary, but is a common medical practice for the conveniences of someone else... while they have the nerve to talk about *their* moral rights, the gall to preach about freedom from being oppressed, and lay claim to undue "feminine virtues". How is that for sick? Abortion is the greatest persecution and rationalized slaughtering of any demographic in history. Id also like to point out that killing a caged cub isnt even sporting. Pro-choice is a funny name for being anti-life and pro-abortion. Its a facade to make that attitude toward life appear as a virtue. I wont deny that forcing women to endure an unwanted pregnancy is unethical... but the real question is whether or not permitting fetalcide is a greater immorality. And I have no unbiased reason to believe that baby-killing is a good thing, regardless of the circumstances. Pro-choice deprives the one person it effects the most from having a choice - its hypocritical. The question is less about womens rights and more about fetal rights. How is it that "correcting a mistake" and "saving ones self from a nine month inconvenience" worth a human life?

I am pro-choice. I do not believe that life begins until the baby is BORN and takes its first breath. That's the moment that it becomes a human being, not when its heart began to beat. When it takes its first breath the soul enters the body and then, and only then, it is a living human being. With that said . . .

I believe a woman should have the right to have an abortion if she wants one and has a good reason to do so, not as an alternative method of birth control. And the government should NOT in any way be responsible for paying for that abortion.

When the first man gives birth THEN he should be allowed to say when a woman can have an abortion, not a minute before.

When I read articles about abused children I wonder if they would not have been better off had their mothers aborted them before they were born rather than abusing them.

My opinions only, of course.

Both. Women should have control over thier bodies. Yet at the same time we don't want people trashing babies for cells for money or just being generally irresponsible. People are people and some circumstances are better than others. I would say the best option in front of us is regulation and education. I don't mean total regulation either btw. Rape cases are a given. However there are alot of contraceptives on the market including the morning after pill that can be put to good use, they just aren't. The social ones that do it to avoid social stigma are a good point. They should just go get fixed >.>

its the persons individual right to choose.

To address the individual two places below me, true murders do make the choice to take another human life everyday, But there are other violent offenders out there also.

Such as, rapist. Say a person were to rape a teenage girl and she then becomes pregnant by this rapist. By your argument this girl would no longer have the right to choose to keep the baby or not. She would have to throw away her dreams or maybe attending college and have a constant reminder of these events that took place to care and raise this child because of your narrow minded views do not allow her to make the decision she would need to.

Pro-Life is a silly term for being Anti-Abortion.

& and anyone using Pro-Choice to defend being Pro-Abortion should be beaten senseless.

As a Pro-Life Darwinist, I find it absurd that Society should force people to invest time & energy raising a child that is clearly defective. So I favor the Ancient German/Greek attitude of permitting the termination of unfit offspring up to the age of 2. I also think it's just sound genetics to permit women too stupid or immature to desire their offspring, to keep their genes out of the pool.

Now that said, I find the term "Pro-Choice" to be a morally offensive substitute for Pro-Abortion. EVERY law we pass is an attempt to prevent or punish 'choice'. LAW is a Societal Choice to prevent an Individual Choice that is deemed a BAD choice.

This is not about a Women's 'Right' to Choose. It's about WHEN do we consider a developing human to BE human. If it's not human - a woman can do as she pleases. If it is human, she doesn't get to murder it based on it's birth being inconvenient.

I don't oppose Abortion - but I would REALLY like you to bash the term 'Pro Choice'

E.g.

Q) Currently Rape is illegal. Would I be 'Pro-Choice' if I felt men should NOT be denied their Right to Rape?

A) (Their response should be something this being a violation of Womens Rights)

Q) Well isn't Abortion a violation of 'Fetal Rights'?

A) They don't have Rights.

Q) Nor apparently a 'choice'. Do you think a Fetus derserves a Choice? Are you pro-choice?

A) A fetus can't make a choice.

Q) I could if we waited till it could make a choice. Isn't that what someone pro-choice should choose?

I submit the term 'Pro-Choice' is an attempt to cloud the issue. We are argueing the question of FETAL rights NOT Women's choice, just as rape is a question of Women's rights & NOT Men's choice.

Pro Choice, definitely. I don't like how the other side calls it pro-life... what are we, then? Pro-death? It's kind of condescending. But that's kind of off topic, just an observation... anyways, to the question!

It's a free country, while that baby is inside the woman, it is her choice because it's her body. You don't have to get one, but people have the right to. It isn't like she magically pops out a kid, there's a responsibility to go to the doctor, eat right, take vitamins, endure pregnancy, give birth. It's not to be taken lightly. Everyone in the US has a right to choose what they wan't done to their body. No ifs, ands or buts, it's in the constitution, it's a basic right. I guess if you believe a mass of cells is life, then you could say that they have a right to life, but that's intermixed with the woman's right to life. This is why a main argument is when life begins, but no one really know.

Honestly, I think the whole argument that life starts at conception to be ridiculous. It has POTENTIAL for life, it isn't really alive. It's a mass of cells dividing, but there isn't really scientific data or studies on this, so we can't be sure so this one can remain an opinion.

What about all those mothers that drink, smoke, and do drugs while pregnant? That can mess the baby up, cause deformities, diseases, but of course no one seems to care this much about that.

What about the children already born and living in poverty and deprivation throughout the world? I don't see this much outcry against that. They die of AIDS, starvation, unclean water, disease, etc. every day. What about them? They're already here and dying partially because of a lack of humanitarian effort. I'm not saying all pro-lifers don't care about these issues.

The mother obviously doesn't want the baby, for whatever reason. The child will either have to grow up unwanted, maybe in poverty, born on crack, in the ghetto, with a mother who has neither the means nor the desire to take care of a child, or we can flood the foster homes and orphanages with them when they are already overflowing throughout the world. I'm not saying all pro-lifers don't care about these issues.

What if the mother was raped? Will die in childbirth? You can make the argument that this isn't the majority of cases, but it is some. Why should they have to carry their rapist's baby to term because of some other people who just didn't want a concieved baby? That seems awfully unfair to them.

Not trying to get to polital here, but Sarah Palin, for instance, is against abortion. Alaska has the highest rape count in the entire United States. She made the raped women pay for testing (so they could take it to court), wants them to have to keep the baby, and cut funding for teenage pregnancy centers... if you get raped and become pregnant in Alaska, you're basically screwed.

Kids in Africa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvgdWm0CE-s

Sarah Palin charges for rape kits: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff...

Pro Choice Argument and Analogy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeWnY1Nr1wk

I'm pro choice. I see this more as who has control over their body? you or the gov't. there are so many ways to avoid getting pregnant that are available to people today that this should be a non issue. I for one don't want anyone except who i designate to make decisions on what medical procedures to be done on me should i not be able to provide them myself. for women, it is the same thing, who do you trust to make the decision that is best for you? you / doctor or gov't? I think that is an easy answer. and it not just abortion, where is the line drawn on what procedures you can and can't have based on some gov't nincompoop to tell you yes or no.

Normally I read 4 -5 catalogs a complete week. But if there is something good on TV then I will watch it certainly

Books make your grammar, reading level, spelling, vocabulary, and generally are definitely more educational than T.V.

I'll try not to leave a book.

Pro-choice.

Experiences, both with my family and people I've known.

Comparisons between how we treat children and pets.

Realities about how many people live, what pregnancy actually does to a person, and how expensive pregnancy and children are.

The undo judgment towards the mother for everything she does.

The violence and hatred thrown at the mother no matter what she does.

The realities of adoption, both in how many are actually adopted and what happens to kids not adopted.

Understanding of personhood, what makes it so important to basic human rights, and how it works.

Those are a few examples of what made me pro-choice.

I guess the comparison between a dog and a pregnancy describes it best.

Many people wouldn't let a 15 year old keep a puppy that followed them home.

They would site that it's too much responsibility, the 15 year old needs to focus on school.

They would site that they would wind up caring for it, and don't have the time for it.

They would site that it's expensive, and they're struggling to cover bills as it is.

They would site that they don't have the time to go to the vet, or the money.

They would site that there is no room for a pet.

They would site that, after a while, the teen would become bored.

Yet, somehow, this all changes if a 15 year old has sex.

A baby isn't too much responsibility.

In fact, keeping the baby you can't afford is responsible.

Having a baby without having a self supporting job is responsible.

Having a baby without money to feed it or take it to the doctor is responsible.

Everything that would make having a puppy irresponsible makes having a baby responsible.

I've just never understood how it is that a baby is less deserving of basic considerations than a dog.

Though of course, the better question has always been: 'why is a woman less deserving of basic human rights than a corpse.'

I truly believe that abortion is murder.

Just another form of it.

I don't care who you are, a baby is a LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING, even though it hsn't been born yet.

You should AT LEAST let the child be born if you're not ready to accept the responsibility of a child. Give it up for adoption.

Even in the event of a pregnancy from being raped, the child could still be born. I is not the baby's fault the father was a rapist.

There is really only one way to prevent accidental pregnancies and that is proper use of birth control.

Still, this is still an ongoing debate that will never truly be solved because people can't learn to accept their resposiblities or properly use birth control.