Pro-choice

[Carl Carlson IV]

Originally Posted by AidanMatthews216

So what you are saying is that it is selfish not to bring a child into the world after becoming pregnant (but you say you don't know if the foetus is conscious...) Then why isn't it selfish not to get pregnant in the first place? Many people are probably pretty thankful that their parents decided to get married and have a kid... but that doesn't give us any moral duty to rush off and have ten children!

It's only the people who end up coming into existence who seem to think it was such a crucial event... I'm sure most nonentities don't mind one way or the other.

Accidents do happen, with any kind of birth control. There is always a chance and a risk that you could get pregnant if you're not trying to. I always kid with my parents that I was the best accident of their life. I don't see many people having 10 children... and if they are, you can get an operation to cease that. I was once a non-entity I guess you could say, at the mercy of my mother. And now I am an entity. You don't think very much in terms of "what could be" as opposed to "what is" do you?

[Carl Carlson IV]

Originally Posted by Chet

I take Carl is male.

Which is easily determined by my name, so I take it as you think I am looking down on women? That is definitely not the case and I apologize if that's how it came across to you.

[Chet]

The thing is I can only see a male so easily dimissing things like the possibility of death in labor as the result to rape.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by Carl Carlson IV

I was once a non-entity I guess you could say, at the mercy of my mother. And now I am an entity. You don't think very much in terms of "what could be" as opposed to "what is" do you?

No, because "could" comes out of "is" anyway. You were never a non-entity. I didn't mean a foetus but a complete non-being... a person who could have been conceived but never was. You can't commit a crime against a potential being... only a real one. So unless a foetus is capable of suffering, it is no crime not to give birth to it.

[Carl Carlson IV]

Originally Posted by Chet

The thing is I can only see a male so easily dimissing things like the possibility of death in labor as the result to rape.

I was not dismissing it, and did not mean to come across that way. I didn't mean it like "oh big deal, you could die, live with it." Due to my long and tedious 2 minute google research, I found the rate to be around or less than 1%. I know, the chance is still there, but it's not like it happens quite often.

Also, it's not like it's a man thing. I know many women that have the same or similar opinion as I do; including my girlfriend. And remember, it is a highly opinionated subject.

I like women, I promise.

[Zach]

If I were to be in an accident that would leave me in an emaciated mental state (such as Terri Schiavo), I would definitely prefer to be euthanized instead of living the rest of my life not being able to care for myself, and I would certainly prefer that to having my food source remove and be left to starve to death.

[Andrew Brunelle]

I mean, killing a living thing inside of you is something we will not have to deal with in our lifetimes because, in my opinion, it is the wrong thing to do. I mean, unless you were raped or forced to coneive the baby beyond your control, then maybe you have the right to an abortion, but even if you cannot take care of the child, you could at leat give it up for adoption or have your family help support you and get through it. It does not have to end with someone dying. It seems the responsible thing to do.

I like when Steve talks about total responsibility. Here is a prime example of this. If you are not willing to take responsibility for EVERYTHING in your life, including having a child, then you need to move closer to that. I feel that if I was ever graced with a living human being inside of me, I would do the just thing and have the child. But that is not my forte.

The whole point is abortion is a sort of "get out of jail free" card, but it does have its consequences as well. There is no "easy way out." You have to live with the decision for the rest of your life. It is yours to make, and yours alone. Just remember that.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

My point is that we're picking nits trying to draw a line to determine at what point a human embryo/fetus/etc gains a right to life. Why? Why shouldn't all human life be protected, regardless of what stage it's at?

Morally is like art about drawing lines. You have to draw a line between morally right and morally wrong for rightness and wrongness to make sense.

Why isn't the line between being human and being nonhuman enough?
Because we will have beings in the future who share less DNA with us than we share with chimpanzees but who are still persons you have the same (or more) intelligence as we have.
I don't see how the amount of DNA we share with a creature has an influence of the right of that creature to live.

Originally Posted by Carl Carlson IV

You don't think very much in terms of "what could be" as opposed to "what is" do you?

If you think in terms of "what could be" every woman who doesn't get the maximum amount of kids she could give birth to would be morally guilty.

Therefore it seems to be more reasonable to think in terms of "what is". The adult cow is more conscious than the embryo.

[Chet]

morally right and morally wrong is a line we all have to draw for ourselves. nobody can or should tell us. The ends may be easy enough to see (murder etc) but the exact crossing point is a personal choice.

[Matthew Shea]

Brutha, the line between human and non-human isn't enough because it's irrelevant. What grows inside of a woman's womb IS GOING TO BE a human if given the chance. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough. DNA is irrelevant, too. The circumstances surrounding the pregnancy itself could be relevant.

Andrew, very well stated.

[AidanMatthews216]

Originally Posted by Matthew Shea

Brutha, the line between human and non-human isn't enough because it's irrelevant.

Okay...

What grows inside of a woman's womb IS GOING TO BE a human if given the chance. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough.

I don't see how this is any more relevant. Why should it matter what it's GOING to be when issues of killing should depend on WHAT IS being killed?

[Brutha]

Brutha, the line between human and non-human isn't enough because it's irrelevant. What grows inside of a woman's womb IS GOING TO BE a human if given the chance. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough. DNA is irrelevant, too. The circumstances surrounding the pregnancy itself could be relevant.

It would be similar to labeling the polation control programs in China mass murder, because they prevent millions of childs from being born.
Parents who could get children and decide to get no children would be as well murders because they prevent additional babies from being born.

I mean, killing a living thing inside of you is something we will not have to deal with in our lifetimes because, in my opinion, it is the wrong thing to do.

I hope for you that you never get a tapeworm.

[BeyondBewildered]

It seems to me that mainly men are debating this, and it's a lot easier to say you'll "never kill potential human being" when you will never be in that position. So I'll offer a female point of view. To me, it isn't a question of how human an embryo is or what potential it has; it is a question of what rights I have over my own body. There is no other situation where people argue that a person should have to sacrifice a part of their body, even temporarily, to sustain another person's existence. We don't make bone marrow donations mandatory even though it would save many lives and much suffering. We don't force dead beat dads to give a kidney to the dying child they don't know. We don't do these things, because as a society, we do not take control over one person's body for the well being of another. Even if it's nice, good, moral, or otherwise the right thing to do.

So why shouldn't I have the right to empty my uterus, regardless of what unviable life form has taken up residence? There is no other situation where society would require a person to allow another to have priority over their body for nine months and risk thier own life to save another person, even if they are your own child. IMO, if the fetus isn't viable on it's own, I shouldn't be legally forced to sustain it. That is why I think partial birth abortion is murder. The fetus is viable outside of the womb and you have to literally kill it. Vacuum aspirations do not kill viable life forms. (And yes, I think that real human beings that cannot reasonably sustain life on their own don't have rights to live. By reasonable, I mean needing extreme medical care beyond medication, therapy, etc. Society should not have to bear the expense of keeping a vegetable breathing for years so we all feel fluffy about our reverance for life.)

90% of abortions are medical; there is no aspiration or anything invasive. You induce a miscarriage through pills. There is a similar process of terminating early pregnancies in thousands of cultures. I saw a documentary on the people of Vanuatu in which a husband spends they day gathering the materials and crafting an abortive herbal remedy. Then he and his wife discussed if they were sure and reaffirmed with each other that they were done having children. This isn't a new issue or something unique to the civilized world. Should this woman be forced to carry an unwanted child at an older age, without hospitals and doctors? If she shouldn't, why should I?

It seems that a lot of people have no idea how birth control works when they discuss what should grant an embryo human rights. It's an all or nothing deal when you take the human DNA=human stance. ALL forms of brith control work in multiple ways. The first is to prevent ovulation. The second is to prevent fertilization. The third is to prevent implantation. With all forms of hormonal birth control and IUDs, there is a chance, a very large chance actually, that conception will occur; the egg will be fertilized, cells will start to divide and an embryo with a complete set of human DNA will exist until it is unable to implant in the uterine lining and is shed with the woman's monthy cycle.

Additionally, birth control isn't a universal right that all women have. I've been through a few OBGYNs who have made decisions for my health based on their morality. It's quite common in some places to be unable to fill a birth control perscription if you are unmarried. The idea that a woman should have the baby because contraception failure means she is irresponsible is not as cut and dry as it seems when you actually have to deal with our medical system to avoid getting preggers.

So when people go on about DNA making a thing human, they are really calling for the recall of ALL forms of birth control except barrier methods like condoms and diaphragms. Women without children are not suitable candidtates for diaphragms, so there would be no form of birth control that the woman would be in control of. Essentially, you are saying that I should have no right to have sex unless I want to pump out babies non stop until I drop dead. That's the way it used to be, and it still is that way for many, many women. I'd like to keep my reproductive rights, thank you very much.

[Amadeus]

How many abortions take place because the woman is raped or because the child will endanger the mother's life? Is it less than .01 percent? Probably.

Why is someone worried about paying more taxes (money) to support a child's life if the mother and father are deadbeats? I didn't realize you could put a price on another human life. We shouldn't pay for a woman to have an abortion.

Jane Roe in the Roe versus Wade is now pro-life. Go figure.

Why did a person on here mention about being against a white man telling her that she couldn't have an abortion? Abortion is not a white American thing. This is an issue in all parts of the world. Do you have control issues? Did your father leave your family when you were a child?

A recent study showed that around 88 percent of abortion-minded women change their minds to have an abortion after seeing their ultra sound. Ultrasound Technology: A Life-Saver!

For all the liberal nuts out there that say this is a white Christian conservative thing chew on this fact. A great deal of abortions are performed for African American mothers and the poor. Are you trying to prevent African Americans from procreating? That is racist!

I recently had a baby. When I look into her eyes I know it was from not my doing. This is God's creation. I have no control over this life. I can only lead this life in a direction, but ultimately God is in control. It would not be my right to her mother during birth to kill her. White men are not telling you not to do it. God is telling you not to do it. If you believe in any higher power and believe that we have souls (something intangible from the physical World) you should know that this should not be our "choice" or "plan" to have an abortion.

What is with the terms prochoice and Planned Parenthood? Prochoice, how convenient. What a selfish term for a selfish practice. Planned Parenthood, oh I didn't plan on having this baby after spreading my legs. Let me cut this baby out because "I" didn't plan on having a baby this year. 3 years from now would be better for "me" because of "my" career.

By the way, I am not one that condones harming doctors or anyone else in the abortion business. I am not a right winged nut either.

[AidanMatthews216]

If you believe in any higher power and believe that we have souls (something intangible from the physical World) you should know that this should not be our "choice" or "plan" to have an abortion.

For those who don't believe this, or don't believe either of those things prevent them from having an abortion, the "white men" who claim to speak for God are a serious threat to their reproductive rights.

[Amadeus]

Yes, but being prolife because of spiritual reasons is just one facet. (By the way over 95 percent of Americans believe in God and the percentage is higher globally.)

When you are talking about another life apart from your own it is no longer a "right" to terminate life. It is a privilege to have children. They are not yours. It is not "your" decision to decide whether they live or die. If your argument for prochoice is accurate then you are saying it is right to terminate the baby after it is born. "Why does it matter, the baby can't talk and say it doesn't want to live. You have a life to live and it might mess up your career or prevent you from getting to go out with friends Friday nights."

[Love]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

For all the liberal nuts out there that say this is a white Christian conservative thing chew on this fact. A great deal of abortions are performed for African American mothers and the poor. Are you trying to prevent African Americans from procreating? That is racist!

As both an African-American and a female, I have to respond to this.
I am very upset that you would add this in as an argument. I feel--correct me if am wrong--that whether abortion is or is not rascist is the very least of your arguments against it. As such, and that I think it is more likely that poor mothers are the one who would actually have their baby out, I really resent that argument you put forth there. I feel it was cheap, invalid, and culturally insensitive.

[Amadeus]

Love, sorry if I offended you. However this is a valid case that needs to be made. Here are the facts.

Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion

On average, 1,452 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 10 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 31 million, the missing 10 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 41 million persons. It would be 35 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions

Life is life! Unborn babies need to protected no matter what their race is. Democrats are the party of civil rights, but how about the rights of the unborn baby? The NAACP are for the advancement of colored people. How come I don't hear the outrage from this organization about the 1,500 African American babies being disposed of every day?

[BeyondBewildered]

Amadeus, you are getting your "scientific" data from conservative Christian sources, who have and will twist science in any way they can to strip me of my reproductive rights. The NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE has debunked the link to breast cancer in 2003. There is no link. But that didn't stop you nutters from using that crap science to get laws passed that required doctors to LIE about the risks of abortion.

Also, that study that "proved" 88% of women didn't get an abortion after seeing their ultrasound was not even a study. It was a group of conservatives with a ultrasound machine on a bus, with an unqualified medical professional showing the women where the brain, heart, hands, eyes, etc were, referring to these body parts as the fully functioning human variey, not the protobrain and arm buds that they are.

You don't even have to twist the facts, there are plenty of self righteous crazies to provide you with all the misinformation you need.

Basically, you believe that a society should take control of one persons body forcibly to sustain anothers. Do you apply the same logic in all areas of your life? Do you donate blood and bone marrow as often as possible? Do you house the homeless? Should a parent be forced to give a kidney, bone marrow, or part of a liver to their children, even if they don't want to?
Or do you, like so many others, believe that this ugly principle only applies to women of child bearing age?

It's my body. Why should another "person's" need of my body trump my rights over it?

[Amadeus]

I'm sorry, but nobody is forcing you to have sex. You decided to have sex. The baby just didn't pop into your body by magic. So what gives you the right to decide whether it lives or dies? There are thousands of couples out there that want to adopt babies. What, are you afraid that it will give you stretch marks? Are you worried about what others will think about your lifestyle?
Let's say you do give birth and are housing your child in a home. They are eating your food, taking up space, and taking your time. They are costing you money. So why is it the government's right to ask you not to shoot the little bastard in the head? It is not their house and money that the kid is wasting.
Your argument regarding whether I donate blood enough or house the homeless is a ridiculous argument. If I sit at home all day in a black corner would be a waste, but at least I am not destroying another person's life.
You say that I got my facts about 88 percent of mothers changing their minds after looking at a ultrasound from as Christian source. O.k. what if it is more like 50, 40, 30? What would be wrong with this?
In my opinion life is all about "giving". Giving birth and not terminating the life is a "giving" thing. Terminating the life because of personal reasons is a "taking" thing.

Oh, and by the way your body is not yours.

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body." 1 Corinthians 6

[Brutha]

Freedom is about leting people choose themselves.

It is more racist for nonblacks to make laws to prevent black woman from abortion, than leting those black woman choose themselves.

Basically your argument is that whites know better what the interest of blacks is in that case and therefore whites should prevent the black from doing what they do.

Life is life!

Anmials do also have a life. By that logic animals should have the same right that unborn babys have.

Oh, and by the way your body is not yours.

It is by law. And law is what counts, not some bible vers.

By the way, I am not one that condones harming doctors or anyone else in the abortion business. I am not a right winged nut either.

Making your arguments based on the bible makes you a right winged nut.

Yes, but being prolife because of spiritual reasons is just one facet. (By the way over 95 percent of Americans believe in God and the percentage is higher globally.)

95% may have some religion but they don't believe in the God of the bible.