Jump to content

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?


xphilx
 Share

Recommended Posts

that subject just came into my mind and i didnt find any topics about it here. so i was kinda wondering how everybody is feeling about it?

 

i think i would call myself pro-life but i think there are some very very few cases in which a abortion is defensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not going to say 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'. Generally, I would consider myself closer to pro life. What I really support is

 

1) Taking the government out of the business of abortion, and leaving it between a doctor and the woman.

2) Safe sex and education, prevention is the best method.

 

The number of medically necessary abortions is relatively small in comparison to the number of abortions, somewhere around 5% or so. I think that is ing.

 

Who knows the potential of the baby you're killing, could be the next einstein...

 

Also, I am ABSOLUTELY against late-term abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-life is a term established by retard fundamental christians. I hate that term. They are pro-medieval-religious-control, not pro life since most of them have no problems sending people to kill people in Iraq or eating meat.

 

I am pro-choice all the way. Overpopulation is killing way too much people already and it is destroying nature around us really quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-choice all of the way.

 

I feel strongly about reducing the number of abortions to as close to zero as is possible. That is something that was never achieved, even when abortion was illegal.

 

The most effective means of reducing unwanted pregnancies to date ( mountains of evidence ) is sex education.

 

Sex education results in nobody being hurt, fewer unwanted pregnancies and far fewer abortions. Making abortions illegal results in illegal procedures that hurt or kill women. Not very "pro-life". That is well documented in history. Now that ru486 exists a new law banning abortions would result in a new illegal drug trade complete with gangs and related drug crime murders. Not very "pro-life" either.

 

It doesn't make them bad or stupid people in my book, but in my opinion if someone tells me that they are against abortions and against sex education at the same time then they are not truly "pro-life". They are about pushing their religious laws onto other people. I would fight that on principal alone.

 

The United States was never meant to be a "Christian Country", that is just a myth created by right wing fundamentalists:

 

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen/single

 

http://beforewisdom.com/blog/?p=347

 

 

As President Obama said in his inauguration speech the United States is a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims and Non-Believers.

 

It is past time for Christians other than President Obama to realize that they don't own the country.

Edited by beforewisdom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-life is a term established by retard fundamental christians. I hate that term. They are pro-medieval-religious-control, not pro life since most of them have no problems sending people to kill people in Iraq or eating meat.

 

I am pro-choice all the way. Overpopulation is killing way too much people already and it is destroying nature around us really quickly.

 

Yeah, anti-choice is a better term for most "pro-lifers." And I agree about over-population. That is the #1 crisis facing humankind in my opinion and will continue to be for a very long time. Many of the problems (some would argue ALL of the world's problems) we're facing as a species on this earth would be solved if the human population was at a more sustainable level.

 

But as to the original question, I am pro-choice. Bringing a baby into this world if you are not prepared to raise them right is a bigger sin against that baby than having an abortion. Not only that, but it's a very slippery slope when the government starts trying to mandate what is and isn't "medically necessary." A pregnancy is very stressful on a woman's body and even a healthy pregnancy can lead to death during birth. That's not a decision that should be in anyone's hands other than the woman involved.

 

That being said, I agree 100% with the notion that condoms and birth control (i.e., prevention) should be the biggest priority so fewer women have to make that choice.

 

Which is another reason most religious "pro-lifers" are hypocrites, because they're also anti-birth control. Not to mention that you rarely notice them going out and adopting unwanted children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm mostly pro-life but I don't really oppose abortion rights I just think it's wrong. It's for the woman/family and doctor to decide what's best in each situation. My main opinion is that abortion sucks really bad both for the baby, the mother and the father.

 

And damn I want one of those "pro-life? go vegan!" stickers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-life is a term established by retard fundamental christians. I hate that term. They are pro-medieval-religious-control, not pro life since most of them have no problems sending people to kill people in Iraq or eating meat.

 

I am pro-choice all the way. Overpopulation is killing way too much people already and it is destroying nature around us really quickly.

I agree with tuc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you that believe that there are too many people on the planet, are you happy or content when people off themselves, there are natural disasters, or even murderous dictators which kill thousands? I don't suspect there are actually people who feel this way (unless they are an elite or institutionalized) It's a rhetorical question actually, but I wonder to what degree you want the population to be thinned out, and what are the ethical ways to achieve this goal? Obviously being in favor of abortion is one step in the right direction for your agenda, but where does it stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not pro-life because it would be horrible for a woman to be forced to keep a baby caused by a rape. But in all cases no matter the reasons abortion should be done during the first days/weeks. I also agree with tuc concerning overpopulation, and with zack concerning safe sex, education and prevention... I think it should always remain the choice of the mother, even if it means bad decisions in some cases... but I think if the person waits too long, that's too bad, too late; then if she really doesn't want to raise the childor ain't ready she can give it for adoption.

 

For those of you that believe that there are too many people on the planet, are you happy or content when people off themselves, there are natural disasters, or even murderous dictators which kill thousands?
I'm not so sad when there's a natural disaster and it kills thousands of people, that's nature, that's life. And if it happened because of global warming due in part to human negligence, I'm not happy for nature's revenge, but I'm not sad neither. Even soldiers killed in wars... if a soldier wanted to go there, to kill people, and then he got killed, I won't be very sad for him. But innocent civilians killed in wars bothers me. What concerns is injustice like slavery, or innocents killed, or raped, etc, genocides, racism, sexism... What concerns me the most is the speciesm which animals suffer, they're totally innocent victims of human cruelty and it equals to about 10,000 Holocaust per year, and so many people are letting it happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To continue answering your question CollegeB, I don't analyze or rationalyze about the utility of new people born or people dying. Like I won't say after a natural disaster : yes, now there's more space on the planet ! or after a woman gave birth to 8 kids at the same time a few weeks ago in the U.S, I won't be mad at her for causing overpopulation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you that believe that there are too many people on the planet, are you happy or content when people off themselves, there are natural disasters, or even murderous dictators which kill thousands? I don't suspect there are actually people who feel this way (unless they are an elite or institutionalized) It's a rhetorical question actually, but I wonder to what degree you want the population to be thinned out, and what are the ethical ways to achieve this goal? Obviously being in favor of abortion is one step in the right direction for your agenda, but where does it stop?

 

It's not a matter of being "in favor of abortion," an abortion is an extremely invasive and traumatizing procedure and I don't know a single person who is "in favor of them," just to clarify.

 

But to answer your question about population growth, again, it's not a matter of being happy when people off themselves, there are natural disasters, or murderous dictators kill thousands. Being anti-population growth doesn't mean you're happy when people die. What it means is that you recognize that for humans to survive on this earth, we need to reduce our numbers. That is easily accomplished through birth control and not having babies, it doesn't require having to kill anyone, as people will eventually die no matter what. You shrink the population through less breeding, not more killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-choice as I know enough about the developement of an embryo to say that it doesn't really harm them. And I don't think that everyone should be given the right to be a parent and if someone is forced to it, it becomes even worse.

 

Oh and did you know that over 70% of miscarriages happen within the same weeks as the medical abortions are done.

 

I guess that in Finland this is better than in the US as here there's sex education so there're less abortions. Though I'm not sure about the numbers of abortions made each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-choice as I know enough about the developement of an embryo to say that it doesn't really harm them.

 

Whatever you consider the baby to be (a bunch of cells, a life etc) you sure harm "it" when you abort it since "it" dies.

 

And I don't think that everyone should be given the right to be a parent and if someone is forced to it, it becomes even worse.

 

That's a weird way of putting it. "Forced" to become a parent, they had sex and they should deal with it in a humane way. If they really aren't ready to be parents there is always adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a weird way of putting it. "Forced" to become a parent, they had sex and they should deal with it in a humane way. If they really aren't ready to be parents there is always adoption.

So you think the small lump of human cells which doesn't have a functioning brain or anything is more important than mental health of the woman who accidentally get pregnant? Getting a baby isn't a small thing. It is a huge physiological and mental effort. Would it be nice to throw up 9 months every morning because of pregnancy if you know you don't want the baby?

 

Do you also consider emergency contraception as "killing a baby" since you talk about "it" dying in abortion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...