pro life vs pro choice

My husband and his sister were adopted by a loving family who could not have kids of their own. Anytime I have input on the matter, I would recommend adoption if they don't want to keep the baby themselves, however it is not my decision, as I am a gay man, and as such pregnancy is not an issue to my husband and I.

 

Life begins at conception, not at some arbitrary time we deem convenient. Rape & incest? Why is it acceptable to penalize innocent life for the misdeeds of the parents? Birth defects? When it comes to innocent life it's not our decision to say who live or dies. The exception being the extremely rare instance where the life of the mother would be jeopardized by a pregnancy. Not being a religious person, my opinions are based on my own sense of right and wrong.
I was once a pro abortion supporter. Then "partial birth" abortion became a hot topic. Many of even the most avid abortion supporters had a tough time accepting the fact that bringing the fetus' head partially out of the womb, cutting its head open with a scissors and vacuuming its brain out was an acceptable form of "terminating a pregnancy", including me. For me it prompted the question, "If this isn't OK, when is abortion OK?" The next logical question then was, "When does life begin?" A new life, the most innocent and dependent life form ever created, begins when that little fish locks on to the egg and the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall of the mother. It baffles me that having the legal ability to murder that life is somehow "empowering".
This isn't the first time this topic has come up. My answer is always the same. I know I'm not changing anyone's opinion and no one will change mine.

 

^Well said.

Even though I know someone who had an abortion and I don't look down on her, I simply cannot agree with abortion and I've always been against it. I think it's silly to argue about when life begins; the answer is obvious to me.

But don't even get me started on people who are against contraception and say Plan B is equivalent to having an abortion. I am not like that at all.

 

I'm not sure where you get the limb-trimming idea, as early-term fetuses more closely resemble lizards than humans and are essentially scraped off the uterine lining. (I say this tentatively because I'm not super-knowledgeable about abortion :S) And contrary to the idea that there are "plenty of people" to adopt, I think it's more accurate to say there are "plenty of unwanted kids waiting to be adopted."

I agree the best plan for avoiding pregnancy is "don't have unprotected sex" but in my own opinion, life begins at the time a baby can survive outside of the mother. Until then it is an extension of the mother and has no status of its own.

 

I am pro-choice for others, but pro-life for myself, unless it was life or death. If it was going to kill both of us, or if there was no chance of the baby surviving upon birth, but only then.

 

Firmly pro-choice. You can be morally opposed to abortion however it must be legal. Roe V. Wade wasn't when women started having abortions, it was when women stopped dying from abortions. It must always be legal and safe.

 

:eusa_clap I agree

pro-choice!

 

Here's an argument I quite like:

If a two-year old child was dying and the only way to save it was to have someone connected to it for the rest of it's life, would you force the mother to go everywhere with it attached to life support so it could survive. Is it okay to force someone into that kind of situation?
Now, is forcing a mother to stay pregnant any different? Forcing her to go everywhere with it, restrict her diet, restrict the things she can do, make her feel sick and then go through an extremely painful process to give birth to the child?

If, like you say, they are both human beings, you cannot give rights to one and not give it to the other. You also cannot force anyone into doing anything they don't want to, especially forcing them into a sort of slavery.

Just my two pence.

 

I wouldn't know what to label this as. I'm morally against abortions but still think they should be legal because personal opionions or moral objections shouldn't influence the law

 

Aussie792 answered this post thoroughly and better than I could have. Every point he made, I agree with.

 

I would say I'm either both, or neither.

I am pro-life, in the most general sense of the word. I am strongly against ending the natural life-cycle of any being, no matter if it is fully developed yet or not. I think that every life has value, no matter how big or how small, and would hate to take away the opportunity that life could have, and the changes that life could bring.

I am also pro-choice, in the most general sense of the word. I know that I choose not to end anything's life, but I don't see why I should say that others would be wrong for doing so. I think it wonderful that people have the ability to make their own choices, and I would rather everyone be able to make their own choices, abortion or not, than to ask everyone to share my values on life.

Though these descriptions are rather broad, they seem to be incorporated into my thinking regarding the issue of abortion, which I thought I would share with everyone...

 

From the other thread:

This, for my two cents.

And

That, for a personal reflection.

 

I want to make something crystal clear to you. I have taken the time to try and be helpful and nice to you about something else, so I want you to understand my position very well.

What you're saying, while it may be heartfelt, is actively assaulting and makes people feel really unsafe. I leave it to your able imagination to understand why. If you don't, I can explain it to you, as soon as I'm done trembling with anger.

 

All I will say is that I'm neutral on this issue. :/

 

It is interesting that I often notice more males being pro-life and more females being pro-choice. I do think that is telling to some degree.

 

Preach.

 

Pro-choice. I'm pleased to live in a country that supports abortion. Anyone that's pregnant might be under enough stress already. It's up to them. It affects their body.

We ideally try to kill the fetus as early and quickly as possible. Late-term abortions shouldn't be undertaken lightly but sometimes that is the most practical option. If abortions were banned... it's gonna occur anyway with much more dangerous abortion methods. Maybe 2 deaths for the price of 1. That's more death and suffering.

Too many children require adoption. We must encourage personal responsibility. Education combats unwanted pregnancy. Increase access to contraceptives and stop shaming them.

 

Just about to say that until I read your post. Pretty much all of the pro-life people are males. I find this rather amusing. When abortion has no physical impact on them, as they obviously weren't aborted themselves and do not have the need to get an abortion, they have the gall to be strongly pro-life.

 

Anti-choice. Pro-death. What difference does it make?

On one hand, I find the very idea of abortion to be disgusting and selfish. One of the most abhorrent possible acts. Not because I have any illusions that the mass of cells is alive, but because it is potential. An enormous amount of potential, wasted just like that. And I hear some people treating this invasive surgery as a foregone conclusion. I don't want baby, I'm pregnant, abort fetus!

On the other hand I recognize that pregnancy is not an easy thing to go through. If the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy are traumatic then the pregnancy itself must be Hell. Also, pregnancies can be dangerous,not just physically, but mentally and even economically if you are in a career where you can't be pregnant. To claim that the person "knew these risks" when they had sex is... monstrous.