Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Pro-choice or Pro-life?

Hahvoc The Decepticon

Hahvoc The Decepticon

Singularity
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
This is probably going to turn into a very heated topic but I have to see what people think since it's on the political agenda for what I believe to be no real reason.

So what are you? Pro-choice or Pro-life?

I happen to be Pro-choice and only consider the first trimester to be proper for an abortion. Afterwards it isn't okay in the least to me.
 
I am pro-choice and believe that after the first trimester abortion isn't all right either. BUT..... personally, I could NEVER have an abortion myself. I believe other women should have the option to do so. But I just couldn't do it. I'd rather give up my child for adoption than go through it. Prior to having my 2 babies and 1 miscarriage, I used to think I could go through with one if I was ever faced with such a situation. But now, I know I could not. Of course, I also understand that this is just me and my opinion based on my own personal experiences, etc. I hardly expect others to feel the same way nor do I cast judgment if they feel differently after having gone through pregnancies like I have. Everyone is different and unique.
 
Pro-choice here. Given that it's a procedure I'll never have performed on myself, I don't think it's right for me to tell someone that they can't have that option. The way I see it, it'd be like a woman saying that a male-specific medical procedure should be illegal for me.
 
Seems I'm not alone here; if someone doesn't want to include another human being into this already over-populated world (or simply can't because it would endanger their own lives), by all means go through with it.

But if I were a woman and someone were to tell me (and I'm mirroring galva's comment here) that I couldn't have an abortion because they say "It's unethical", I'd say it's even more unethical to bring another human into this world when we're struggling to keep up with the number of humans we already have. Either that or just punch them in the face for being fucking stupid.
 
Their argument is that it's a baby. But it's not a baby until it's really out of the womb [at least, in my opinion.] However, it's a life once it has consciousness which happens within the second trimester.

My problem with pro-lifers is that they want you to have this baby. And then...well, that's really it. That's unethical to me.
 
This may sound odd to some of you but I am a little of both. I personally could never have an abortion. I don't understand how anyone can take a purely innocent life. Yes, you can justify it by saying that it isnt alive because it isnt breathing on its own. But I believe you're lying to yourself.

I do not believe it should be a crime.

I do not think that it should be used as a form of birth control. It is pretty hard to get pregnant in the first place. A lot of things have to go exactly right, and I don't believe the whole "oh the condom broke" crap. Or the whole "I forgot to take my pill." You're either a liar, or an idiot, or both. No nothing is one hundred percent cept for no sex, and who wants that. But you're not a senile old person that forgot to take their heart medication. You're a young, active person that has their daily regimen.

Should a woman who got pregnant be forced to carry that child if the father wants it? No.

Should the father be forced into servitude if he doesnt want it, but the woman does? No.

Ya all should know by now how much I hate double standards. You can't morally force one person to live with the consequences of their actions while giving the other a pass.
 
I view abortion much like the debate on evolution vs. creationism. There's so many beliefs, spiritual and scientific, that I don't think there should be any laws placed on it other than the ones that are already in place. Where do we pinpoint where life begins? Many believe it is conception, some believe heart beat, some brain function, etc etc. But there is indeed a point where there is a living thing inside you, heart beating, brain functioning, feeling, etc etc. It is up to the mother to abort before that is so.

Basically I'm saying I'm pro-choice. I don't know if I personally could go through with it, but I understand the reasons women do it. It's not like its a walk in the park. Many women feel guilt and require some counseling afterwards, but in the end, its a choice they made that they felt would best for everyone in the end.
 
I'm pro-choice, because I feel this is such a difficult, personal decision, we don't have the right to make it for anyone else.

The problem here, in essence, is whether 'feelings' or 'science' should dictate law. I don't see why feelings should even have a place at this table. There's a certain point where the fetus has brain function and a heartbeat. At that point it is a living thing. Before that, it isn't. Science is how we base logic. It's how we ground reason. People can be as uncomfortable with abortion as they want, and never want to do it, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean others should be denied the option. The fetus isn't alive at the point of conception. There is absolutely nothing to support an arguement other than 'feelings,' which isn't something you can use to dictate the lives of others.

People can hold whatever beliefs they want, but you cannot infringe upon the choices of others without just cause.

On another note, I'd like to elaborate on something Eturnsdale said. This is something I've pondered on myself: Should a father have any say in, shall we say, opting out? I'm not asking if he should have a say in what the woman does with her body; certainly not. But, just as the mother has a say whether or not to go through with this early on, if she wants to but he doesn't, should he have some sort of say in the matter? Should a father be able to, during the first trimester(or whatever the period is where a woman can have an abortion), officially say he doesn't want this child, giving up both any chance of visitation rights and monetary responsibility? Whether a woman is 'ready' to have a child is an often mentioned reason for considering an abortion. What if the guy isn't ready, and says so early on? Or should he not have a say post-conception?
 
Father rights are something that definitely need to be refined. I believe in father rights. I don't give a shit if a woman doesn't want to go through pregnancy, or labor, the baby is also 50% his and he should have the right to demand that she go through with it. Sure, he would probably be required to pay her medical bills and such, but if the man's willing and it's his baby, why not? The mother shouldn't/wouldn't be forced to give child support if she didn't want to have the child (also vice versa for men btw). But the father should be given a chance. I know of a man who still feels remorse because his ex was pregnant with his child, and she aborted the baby before telling him, and if she had just told him and been willing to carry the child, he'd have taken it, and not demanded a dime from her.
 
I agree with the notion that a father's rights should be refined; It feels that the man has zero say, has to accept what's given to him, and I'd like to see his place acknowledged more. But I can't get on board with what you're saying. While it would be great for the parent that wants it to be able to have it even if the other parent doesn't, in this case you're talking about making the woman go through with the pregnancy, even though it's her life/body, which is not pro-choice at all.

This may not be a situation where a fair balance can really be reached. I don't know.
 
Both. Pro-choice in that I don't want to see abortion banned, at least not early in pregnancy. Pro-life in that I hate the idea of abortion and wish no one would choose it, and I'd never do it myself. Thinking about it makes me sad. It's just not my place or anyone else's to tell another woman that she can't evict something or someone from her body.
 
Being both is contradictory, in the same sense that if you were to flip a coin it cannot land on both heads and tails.

Keep in mind that 'pro-choice' is not 'pro-abortion.' It is simply believing that someone should be allowed to make that choice for themself, whether we agree with their decision or not.
 
I view them as two different issues, parental rights are aside from the pro-choice pro-life debate. That is about even having the ability or right to get it done period. But just like any parental right or custody battle, I think father's should be allowed some rights and say even before the birth. In the US, any bitch can turn around and claim ANY man is the father of her baby and demand child support from him. He then is required to get a DNA test to disprove it. But if a man wants to at least fight for his child's life, it's suddenly only about the mother's rights. Not the father's or the the potential child's.

I see it no differently than putting it up for adoption, or being a surrogate. But because the fetus is carrying the DNA of the person who wishes for the mother to go full term, I think some priority wouldn't hurt. She dosn't have to know the child or be in it's life. If anything is affected, its her body for 9 months. And if she is only getting an abortion because she doesn't want to gain 30 lbs and her vag to stretch out... well... yeah...

Personally, I'd be willing to carry a baby full term if the father was willing to pay for all of my medical bills and prenatal care. And I feel such a thing should only be dictated, if at all, for the fathers rights. I think it is really unfair how men have absolutely no say in the process. I understand medical conditions can make carrying a child difficult or even impossible and if that is the case, the woman should definitely be of higher priority than the fetus. But if there is little risk seen in the woman carrying a baby, why not? Either way, its going to be physically trying. Abortions aren't easy either.


As Day Fades said:
Being both is contradictory, in the same sense that if you were to flip a coin it cannot land on both heads and tails.

Keep in mind that 'pro-choice' is not 'pro-abortion.' It is simply believing that someone should be allowed to make that choice for themself, whether we agree with their decision or not.
Click to expand...

I see her point like being atheist and respecting the beliefs of religious people. You don't believe in religion, but if people want to believe and worship a god, more power to them.
 
You can't force anyone to carry a baby since that in itself is why there is a political issue with a woman's choice. Men give the sperm to fertilize the egg, but the men don't have to go through any of the pregnancy symptoms, doctor visits, mood swings, weight gain, stress, or really any of that. I get a man wanting a baby with the woman that he knocked up, but if she doesn't want it, he can't force her to keep it just because HE wants it. If he wants a baby that badly, he can go adopt a child or find a woman who wants to have a baby with him. It's that simple.

As I've said before, my issue with pro-lifers is that they WANT you to have that baby no matter what. But once it's born? They don't care. It's not pro-life at that point, it's pro-birth. Pro-life would be wanting that child to be raised right and loved and cared for but they just want to make sure you don't end it's "potential for life."

Women have miscarriages all the time without realizing it and some people call that killing a potential baby. Excuse me, but fuck that. Willingly making that choice is different, yes, but it's the same in that a potential for life has been ended and yet it doesn't affect you in the least unless it's your own body that is experiencing it.

And just a side note - I only respect people with the decency to not hide behind religion as their basis for arguments such as this because it holds no bearing on the person in question at all. It's not a moral issue. It's not a God issue. It's a person's free-will that is being targeted and quite frankly, "god" gave that to us.
 
As Day Fades said:
I'm pro-choice, because I feel this is such a difficult, personal decision, we don't have the right to make it for anyone else.

The problem here, in essence, is whether 'feelings' or 'science' should dictate law. I don't see why feelings should even have a place at this table. There's a certain point where the fetus has brain function and a heartbeat. At that point it is a living thing. Before that, it isn't. Science is how we base logic. It's how we ground reason. People can be as uncomfortable with abortion as they want, and never want to do it, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean others should be denied the option. The fetus isn't alive at the point of conception. There is absolutely nothing to support an arguement other than 'feelings,' which isn't something you can use to dictate the lives of others.

People can hold whatever beliefs they want, but you cannot infringe upon the choices of others without just cause.

On another note, I'd like to elaborate on something Eturnsdale said. This is something I've pondered on myself: Should a father have any say in, shall we say, opting out? I'm not asking if he should have a say in what the woman does with her body; certainly not. But, just as the mother has a say whether or not to go through with this early on, if she wants to but he doesn't, should he have some sort of say in the matter? Should a father be able to, during the first trimester(or whatever the period is where a woman can have an abortion), officially say he doesn't want this child, giving up both any chance of visitation rights and monetary responsibility? Whether a woman is 'ready' to have a child is an often mentioned reason for considering an abortion. What if the guy isn't ready, and says so early on? Or should he not have a say post-conception?
Click to expand...


Sorry if this isnt a long overly detailed response, but. Science is not how we define law. Laws are written on the morals of society. If it were based on science then a great many things that are illegal would be legal.
 
Absolutely pro choice. If you would like to use the abortion services then please do. If the idea of abortion seems immoral to you, or abhorrent in anyway, I suggest not getting one; but just because you don't want one, it doesn't mean someone who does should not be able to access them.
 
EnlightenedAneurysm said:
Absolutely pro choice. If you would like to use the abortion services then please do. If the idea of abortion seems immoral to you, or abhorrent in anyway, I suggest not getting one; but just because you don't want one, it doesn't mean someone who does should not be able to access them.
Click to expand...

That's silly. You could say that about a lot of immoral things and still not be right. Like, I feel if you don't agree with murder, then maybe you, personally, shouldn't be killing people, but don't interfere with my desire to do so. Because I really think killing people should be allowed for those who want to make that choice.

I am not comparing abortion to murder, just the argument against the "morality" of it.
 
I'm pro-choice with a claus. as long as it's not used as just a contraceptive then people should be allowed to make their own decisions on the issue. Morally, yes, it can be seen as wrong, but only the potential mother can be the one to decide if it's right or wrong, and to live with the consequences of such.

and while you could argue that you can link this to many things, like Murder in general, and I'll grant you that arguement. Murder is killing with or without a good reason on someone who has an esablished life, people who will miss them and things they have set up during their time. Abortion with a good reason isn't murder in my eyes. Abortion as a contraceptive or just because you can may as well be murder.

Oh, by the way. If you do want to start an arguement to this based on religious ground, I would ask you to think before you do. While I respect people's religious choices, I won't respect anyone who uses the church/Chapel/whatever as a sanctuary from the counter when they've been beaten. Religion isn't a weapon, it's a shield for those who are innocent. step out from it at your own risk, but once you do, only fall back if your innocent.
 
It's not a contraceptive and cannot be used like one. Otherwise, it'd be a pretty useless one, because by that point, conception has already occurred. It is a termination not a prevention.

As far as religion, were you talking to me? Because I do not remember bringing religion into it at all and reading back over the thread, I can't see that anyone else has either.
 
miles said:
It's not a contraceptive and cannot be used like one. Otherwise, it'd be a pretty useless one, because by that point, conception has already occurred. It is a termination not a prevention.
Click to expand...

it's a turn of phrase. honestly, over here there's loads of cases where kids have sex with no protection because they'll just abort the kid if they do happen to fall pregnant. makes me sick that they just think of the life they've made as just a side effect of sex to be removed.

miles said:
As far as religion, were you talking to me? Because I do not remember bringing religion into it at all and reading back over the thread, I can't see that anyone else has either.
Click to expand...

as this is an American Heavy site, I felt the need to kinda defend myself just in case. last time I said anything about a topic like this I had hundreds of Americans using Religion as the counter arguement, and when those arguements failed, they hid behind a church banner (figuritively speaking) to justify why they were right.

hell, in a related hot topic, I said about Marriage being just another way to show love. had one wise ass trying to quote the bible to me, and he fell back once I counter quoted him a dozen times, where upon he suddenly decided that the church would stop me from breaking his arguements down. hell, he even got loads of support as soon as he did that.

hate it when Religious nuts suddenly decide that they can hide behind a symbol in order to avoid their arguements being completely ruined.
 
You know, I almost feel like the concept of abortion as birth control is one of those so rare an instance that it's puffed like like the rich welfare queen myth just to scare folks.
 
I do find it interesting that the notion of father’s rights have come up here. As one who just sat for my state’s bar exam, one of the issues that comes up is family law―and as a subtext to that termination of parental rights. That is, if the mother chooses to carry the fetus to term, but wants to give the child up for adoption, the father is required to relinquish his parental rights (via what is known as an affidavit for termination of parental rights).

If the father refuses to sign such an affidavit, the only other option the mother has at that point is to proceed with a potentially lengthy and expensive legal process for involuntary termination of the father’s rights. The reason I mention this is because it seems that the law provides for a denial of choice in one scenario, but not in the other.

Following the logic of some of the prior posts, that the father merely contributed the sperm, and didn’t go through all of the heart-ache, and physical alterations of carrying a fetus to term; it would seem to follow that the father’s say shouldn’t be sought in the scenario of releasing the child for adoption shortly after birth. (Alas, law likes to claim to be a field of logic; but nothing could be further from the truth.)

From the legal aspect, like no-fault divorce, Roe v. Wade released the court’s from having to punish women who underwent “illegal” abortions. It also assured that abortion procedures wouldn’t be conducted underground, thereby assuring that, to the greatest extent possible, the mother’s health was protected.

With respect to some of the concerns that have been voiced regarding the trimester system; interestingly, the Courts have actually addressed this. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey―upholding most parts of Roe―the court held that state legislatures could require women to submit to a waiting period, especially during the first trimester, to ensure she “really” desires to go forward with the abortion.

Where the law gets more dicey on this topic is late term abortions (the infamous topic of partial-birth abortions). The government has struggled to determine whether there is a legitimate medical need or not. Plus, from different moral perspectives, it begs the question of whether the fetus is still that, a fetus. Congress has attempted to severely limit access to such procedures, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a legal challenge to such limitations in the near future.

In my personal opinion, abortion is not an issue to be handled by courts or governments. It is an individual’s prerogative, and therefore cannot, and should not, be addressed by the halls of legislature, or the courthouse. The individuals directly involved should be the ones to make the decisions on such matters.

(Okay, I’m off my soap box now :D ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom