Abortion Laws, Pro Life or Pro Chice?

I am Pro Life, Give me your thoghts.

See last post.

 

Pro Choice here, i'm going to give the standard its a women bodies, she has the right to do what she wants. I think abortion is wrong, however i think people have the right to abort.

 

I'm pro choice as well. If a women decides to have sex, she has decided to become a mother.


I remember a 1992 study that showed that 98% of abortions were done for convenience. The remainder were done when a women's life was in danger or to end a pregnancy caused by rape.

 

I am pro-choice...for the simple reason that the state has no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. If we make it illegal for women to have abortions, we are commandeering their very bodies for the purposes of the state--a tremendous breach of human rights.

 

I am pro choice, the state has no right to tell a woman what they can do with her body. I also do not think children should be brought into this world if they are not really wanted or if the state will end up having to support them.

 

Pro-Rights. And nobody even bring up "a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body", because it's never been about that.

 

Of course it is about that

 

I'm pro-choice, and I do think that a good reason is that the government has no real right to interfere with matters like this. I do realize that sometimes the government has to protect people's bodies, like outlawing heroin and cocaine and so on, but in terms of deciding whether or not a woman can keep her fetus is immaterial. Actually, once the fetus has moved into the third trimester, I believe that the abortion should not be discouraged but still permitted, since at that point the fetus has become vaguely human. But up until then, the fetus really has no rights whatsoever.

 

I am Pro choice, however Abortions shouldnt be ued as birth control. However it is justified when the baby's predestined to live a substandard life (i.e. mother 13 years old, crack addict)

 

Sleazo, I devoted the greater part of 500 posts to abortion, so I believe I can safely say--it's never been about that.

The true crux of the matter is whether a fetus is a living human being. If it is not, then it becomes a matter of government interference. If it is, then it becomes a matter of protecting rights.
It's always been about proving whether or not a fetus is a human being, and not about a mother's rights. The Pro-Choice people would have you believe it's about the mother's rights, but they're just pushing the real issue into a void so their opponent's don't have a leg to stand on.

 

>>...for the simple reason that the state has no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. If we make it illegal for women to have abortions, we are commandeering their very bodies for the purposes of the state--a tremendous breach of human rights.<<

But on the same token, if the State allows abortions, then the lives of the aborted become the expendable commodities of the State (at least in the minds of THEY). Oh yeah, and I'm Pro-Life. If you call me Anti-Abortion, I will call you Anti-Life.

 

>>But up until then, the fetus really has no rights whatsoever.<<

Ah. Revealed your opinion is! Who are you to deal out judgment and death to the unborn?

 

I'm definately pro-life.

But that doesn't mean I'm anti-choice. I believe a woman does have the right to her body, just not when it interferes with the right of another human being to live.

At one point or another, the fetus is alive and more just a number of cells. Since we don't know when life begins, I would give the fetus the benefit of the doubt. Even something that has the potential for human life should be given respect. (And don't bring up that the egg and sperm have potential - they don't by themselves).

In the case of rape: there is such a thing as the morning-after, which should prevent most pregnancies.
In the case of the mother's life at stake: it would be a difficult choice, but if the mother dies; the baby dies. It's the matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.

I'm against abortion - but I'm definately against abortion when we know and can tell that the fetus is alive, such as in the third trimester.

 

I'm a man, I have no opinion. I just avoid making the mistake in the first place.

 

I'm a man, I have no opinion. I just avoid making the mistake in the first place.

... that's a good way to avoid the problem

I'm a woman and I do have an opinion. But I'd like to avoid the problem in the first place as well ... if only more people thought that way

 

You may have devoted 500 plus posts to abortion, but that doesnt make what you say to be fact.

 

No, but it means I've seen a lot of discussion--and done a lot of thinking--on the matter. And unless you have a reason why it should be about anything other than finding out whether a fetus is a living human being, then it's obviously about whether a fetus is a living human being.

 

Have you ever seen a family in which the child is not wanted? Believe me, it can be a pretty awful sight.

What do you think happens to children when their parents do not want them? Or worse, end up hating them.

 

They don't get their brains sucked out. They shouldn't, anyway.

 

GAP

That's why I believe in temporary sterilization. Make people who want parents get a license before they have kids. Look, you've got to go to Driver's Ed and pass a test prior to driving a car, you have to take a gun course before getting a gun (or at least a hand gun), why not bave to take a test prior to getting preggers?

 

B/c whether the fetus is a human being or not it is still inside the woman's body, therefore it is her right to choose whether or not she wants to carry that child.

 

If the fetus was human, it would have the right to life. The mother's jurisdiction goes so far as deciding what to do with her body--not the fetus, because it is decidedly not a part of the mother's body.

 

I'm very pro-choice.

There are laws enforcing a 'cut-off' point, making it illegal to abort the fetus after the 1st (?) trimester, I believe. IMO, anytime before this reasonalbe cut-off point, the fetus is not a living human being, nor does it have a "soul." It should be the woman's choice, considering there are going to be changes and consequences for her body as a result of carrying the child through birth.

What I find to be a complete absurdity, IMO, is when people who are pro-life argue that that tiny, simplistic, almost insignificant precursor or prelude to a human child is more of a life-form than an existing animal. For instance, it upsets me when someone will argue for this tiny little prelude, calling it a life, and then that same person will call the exterminator to come and kill an entire family of mice living in their house just because they find the mice to be a nuisance - a minor annoyance! Personally, I think those mice are a bit more of a life-form than that dinky little fetus - they're smarter, more developed, more capable of everything, have more thoughts, have more emotions...but are still considered inferior to a microscopic fetus?

 

Ah Starfire we meet again
It's always been about proving whether or not a fetus is a human being, and not about a mother's rights.

Exactly. Having debated this topic for several long threads, the last one of which with Starfire, this is what it always comes down to: whether or not the fetus is a person who is protected under the Constitution.

The Pro-Choice people would have you believe it's about the mother's rights, but they're just pushing the real issue into a void so their opponent's don't have a leg to stand on.

Hey there, not all of us say it's only about mother's rights.

---------

That said, I'm only Pro-choice for the first 40 days(unless mother's life is threatened) because that is when the fetus develops brain waves. Brain waves ceasing is the sign of someone being officially dead so why not use brain waves starting as the start of personhood? Just MHO.

I'll probably just stay out of this one this time around...done this topic many many times, I have.

 

I agree with the idea of license's for having children, but I'm not sure if that would do the job. You'd have to regulate sex...lets face it, have sex enough times you're going to get knocked up. Then what do you do if the parents don't have a license? Make them get an abortion? I guess the closest thing you could do is educate people about how much work a child is and about how abstinence and contraceptives should be seriously considered. For starters make it a federal class requirement that needs to be filled. Unless we want to restrict the freewill of a person (the choice to have sex), education is the best course of action.