Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

User avatar
Tombstone
Posts: 3686
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by Tombstone »

Warsai wrote: I don't know why, but some people seem to get the two interchangably. I'm sure you all already know, but pro-choice means you're in support of people having a choice of whether to abort, and pro-abortion means that you're in favor of abortion. Personally, I'm pro-choice, but I think abortion is unethical. People should be able to choose whether they want to abort, even though they, in my opinion, they shouldn't.


I'm a pretty conservative guy. Can you tell by my avatar? :)

Why is it okay to have an abortion? Why don't men have the right to chose what they want to do with their bodies? Why can't I take drugs or commit suicide?

Why can a mother be arrested for taking drugs while she is pregnant? Because it harms the child inside her? Oh wait, no, that's just a fetus that can be aborted.

I don't know very many pro-abortionists. I do know a ton of pro-choicers.

And the most ironic thing of all: Those that scream for pro-choice are only able to do so because their mother chose not to abort them.

Comments?
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
User avatar
Tombstone
Posts: 3686
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by Tombstone »

Warsai wrote: *in a southern accent* "Yes, partner, I reckon I could."

Well, you have a point. :)


Heh!

That's one thing I don't have - is a "Western" accent. But I carry a big dose of that individualistic self-reliant western attitude. :D

You can call me "partner" anytime.

:)
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by anastrophe »

the ancient greeks and romans (and many other 'lesser' cultures) practiced infanticide. if they didn't want the child, they'd just kill it after it was born.



that said, the question of the morality or ethics of abortion is (duh) a pretty difficult issue. frankly, my stance is this:



we are all free to have our own opinions as to the morality or ethics of abortion. because the question of when a human life begins cannot be answered - it is a priori unanswerable - then that means that the only opinion that ultimately matters is the opinion of a woman who is faced with making the choice of having an abortion or not.



so, we can all babble all we want about it. but the person who may or may not have an abortion is the only person whose opinion matters. and it's her opinion, and her choice.



but that's just my opinion. :D
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by anastrophe »

when life begins is a philosophical question, not a medical question.



what about fertilized eggs that are discarded during the process of trying to help an infertile couple concieve? if that fertilized egg is a human life, then the lab technician who discards it is guilty of murder, and should be sent to prison (sent to prison "for life"? there's a concept - a fully formed human being, living their life, helping other people, goes to jail for the rest of their life, for murdering a single cell that cannot be seen with the human eye - and then can no longer contribute to society, society must care for that criminal the rest of their days. there's a new world order for you).



what about a miscarraige? the mother may have been taking good care of herself, but her body decided that that fetus was not fit. with no conscious intervention, her body causes an abortion. is the mother guilty of murder? if life begins at conception, then you bet.



no, when life begins is a matter of human thought, not science.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by anastrophe »

Chris wrote: Agreed. But a philosophical view doesn't preclude mixing in your religious beliefs as well.







There are a lot of folks who consider the above not ethical. (Egg harvesting.)I don't doubt that. however, that merely reinforces my argument that it is a matter of personal definition rather than science.



Chris wrote: Also, if you slip down the slope to the "it's a cell issue" - you completely discount my argument about the sanctity of life. You either believe in it - or not. I believe in it so I follow the belief that life begins at the moment of conception.not discounting your argument at all. you make my point again - it is a matter of belief, rather than a matter of incontrovertible empirical evidence.





Chris wrote: The mother is not at fault with a miscarriage! This was the body rejecting the fetus. She didn't choose for this to happen. How could you blame her?if i hit someone accidentally with my car, i may not have acted with malice, but i am still at fault for causing harm. and i would expect some punishment for it. a mother's body has not acted with malice when there is a miscarraige, but a human life has been ended nonetheless, due to the actions of that mother's body. thereforce, punishment should be expected.



i don't believe this, but i am making the argument, for the sake of this discussion.



Chris wrote: I Disagree. When did your life begin? i don't know.



Chris wrote: At 1 hour after conception? Two weeks after conception? 8 months after conception? i don't know.



Chris wrote: If the ACLU or the Courts said that your life began at month 4 - then what WERE you during the previous 3.99 months? i have no prenatal memories, so i don't know. you mention the ACLU and courts - if this is a matter of medical/scientific evidence and proof, then why are a non-profit foundation or the courts making arbitrary decisions in this regard? if there is scientific proof that life begins at conception, then why is there any debate at all?



Chris wrote: Is that really a human thought issue?yup.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by anastrophe »

i don't disagree that when sperm and egg unite, a distinct human life begins. as i've pointed out, i'm making the arguments, that doesn't mean they are my dogma.



*i* personally believe that a human life distinct from the mother and father begins at conception. biologically, that's dandy. biologically, just as well, that single cell is without form, has no intellect, no brain, probably no soul, can feel no pain, can't communicate, is immobile, and cannot survive on its own. when an adult human is in such a condition, that's typically considered a vegetative state, and life support is usually withdrawn.



biologically, that's all lovely. but biology is one thing, human beings with souls are another. the mother has a soul as well. and she, as a free individual, can choose not to carry her pregnancy to term, whether i like it or not. a catch phrase of the pro-choice movement is 'every child a wanted child', and i happen to agree. forcing a mother to bear a child is not the best way to bring a human into the world.



then of course, there is the even further extreme view of the catholic church - that even *preventing* conception is an abomination against life. humans must create as many children as possible. also a lovely idea, and one that is hopelessly lost in 2004, to the reality of modern human life. when the average infant mortality was 50%, it made more sense than it does now. when the average life expectancy was 40, it made more sense than it does now.



now of course, it's quite absurd. but this is what happens when dogma meets biology.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by Bill Sikes »

To diverge slightly, what about the "rights" of the father of an unborn child?

If the woman wants an abortion, she gets one, and he can't prevent it. If

he wants an abortion to happen, and she doesn't, it won't happen. He'll

still have to pay maintenance, though!
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by anastrophe »

burntandbleeding wrote: I could argue the issue for hours, but since that already seems to be happening, I'll only say this:

A woman does have every right to do just about anything to her body without anyone being able to say a damn thing. But a woman should not have the right to terminate a human life before it even gets a chance. That child has no say in what happens. I respect all people and their opinions, but I must ask all pro-choice activists one thing. What if you were aborted? What if all the things you did in your life, all the people you've interacted with, all the change you've brought about in our society didn't happen due to your mother decided to have an abortion? What if Martin Luthur King had been aborted? JFK? Ronald Reagan? What about Columbus? George Washington? Thomas Jefferson? Ghandi? Of course, they wouldn't have been "aborted" in todays terms, but they could have been killed at birth. Here's one that should rattle the cage of any Christian pro-choicer, and probably get me some rather nasty responses: What if Jesus Christ had been aborted? Seriously consider this for a minute. How different would our world be? I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here, just adding my two cents.
the problem i have with this argument is that it's ex-post-facto. we don't know whether someone greater than JFK or Martin Luther King were in fact aborted. A fetus has potential - but that's all it has. by the same measure, the world would have been a *better* place had hitler been aborted. or jeffrey dahmer. or Vlad the Impaler for that matter. so there's an argument *for* abortion, that i cannot see anyone taking to task - had hitler been aborted, six million jews might not have died. again, this is all ex post facto - it is meaningless, because these people were not aborted, so we cannot know how the world would have changed.



i am personally against abortion. i believe that since we do not know when human life begins (i still maintain that position), then we should err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to life. however, it is not up to me. *i will never be faced with having an unwanted pregnancy*. the only opinion that matters is that of a woman who is actually to make that decision. period. it's not up to anyone else. i may believe it's wrong, but i have no say in that decision. one of the reasons our laws generally limit abortion to the first trimester is because a fetus cannot survive on its own if delivered then. if there is any rational test, this is one that does make some sense.



abortion is one of those issues that will never be resolved. technology can't resolve it even - for those who are against abortion are also quite often against birth control itself. develop the perfect contraceptive, and you'll still have those who will argue that you are preventing a human life from coming into being, so therefore it is evil.



humans surely are some strange monkeys.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by anastrophe »

burntandbleeding wrote: I must admit that I had never thought of it in this light and I thank anastrophe for bringing this to my attention. After some consideration, though, I only feel that I must add this statement to my previous:



Every fetus has potential, for good or evil. Yet until that fetus has grown to the point where it can make the decision as to which way to go, it must be given the benefit of the doubt, if you will. Even Hitler, as a fetus, had just as much of a right to life as Martin Luthar King. Until an individual can be judged for their actions, they have just as much a right as anyone else to live.my only argument would be that it is that quality of a fetus being a *potential* human being, rather than a 'real' human being, that informs much of the debate about abortion. those who believe it is okay for a woman to have an abortion - normally within the guidelines of the first trimester - believe that the fetus has not yet become a person by then. it is, i stress, a matter of belief. one can say that a fertilized egg is a person - i disagree. it has the potential to become a person after many months of growth. when, exactly, it becomes a person - nobody can really say.



following the slippery slope, if we define a fertilized egg as a human being - based upon its potential to become a person eventually - then, by the same measure, are not all the unfertilized eggs and sperm also potential human beings? is it immoral or unethical to interfere with sperm and egg meeting? if so, then what of those eggs that simply never get fertilized - was it immoral or unethical for those eggs to have been allowed to die without being fertilized? what about male masturbation? millions of sperm die as a result, is that immoral or unethical? should it be illegal for men to masturbate, because potential humans are being killed?



keep in mind, this is not a *defense* of abortion - i am personally against abortion, but i also believe a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy is the only person who has a right to make a choice in the matter. in a perfect world, there would be perfect contraception, and abortion would never even be a choice that needed to be contemplated in the first place.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by capt_buzzard »

I go along with Tombstone on this one. Pro Choice.

:-6
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by anastrophe »

as woody allen so eloquently put it, 'don't knock masturbation - it's sex with someone you love'.

:p
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
vampress.rozz
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:38 am

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by vampress.rozz »

What do you think about the rights of the father.It takes two to make a baby no matter what your views on when life begins. I had a friend whose world came crushing down when he was informed through the grapevine that a girl he had been seeing aborted his baby. Since then he has moved on and is a great dad
Blessed be.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by anastrophe »

actually, i believe that one's fairly easy (though considering the nature of the decisions, perhaps easy isn't the right word).

bringing another human being into the world requires two people, that's fairly straightforward. the decision to bring one into the world should be mutual - both partners should want the baby. it should be an informed decision to have a baby. more often than not - this is my opinion - women seeking abortions do so because contraception failed. if the couple was using contraception, then they mutually were of a mind not to have a baby at that time. so that means that if the male half of this equation wasn't planning or expecting a baby, then he's already given his answer. the baby wasn't wanted, so if the woman decides to have an abortion, she's fulfilling that mutual expectation.



this is problematic to say the least. not all abortions are sought due to failed birth control. some are due to failed responsibility to even use birth control, 'heat of passion' and so forth. other abortions are even more complicated - the couple are in a consensual sexual relationship, but the woman doesn't feel that long-term the man she is with is the man she wants to be the father of her child, so she has an abortion for that reason, which may or may not conform to the man's expectations of the relationship. or the woman may simply feel she is not 'ready' to have a baby - she's working on her career, she doesn't feel she'd be a good mother, etc.



ultimately though, the woman is the only person who actually carries within her that which will be aborted. the man does not, nor will he ever be faced with having an abortion himself. like it or not, he has no voice in the matter. this works the other way as well - a woman may choose to have a baby when the man does not want to be a father. what of his 'rights' then?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
vampress.rozz
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:38 am

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by vampress.rozz »

A woman may choose to have the baby when the man does not want it. I agree that this is unfair, but to force a mother to abort her baby would be like forcing someone to commit murder (if she believes a person has been formed at this stage) As for the woman being the only one to carry it, do you believe that research should be carried out to allow the removal of the foetus and impregnation of a surrogate mother? After all they managed to transplant fertilised eggs already. Although a medical operation would obviously still need the mothers consent, it would allow the men more of a choice.
Blessed be.
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by capt_buzzard »

There is always a smell of Opus Dei Catholicism or Christain Fundamentalism whenever this subject is aired.

Personally I'm against abortion and its nothing to do with any of the above.I just don't go along with their crap religion.
User avatar
vampress.rozz
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:38 am

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by vampress.rozz »

I agree that religion often enters this discussion. I have my own beliefs on religion as yet ive not found a label or definition for it . I believe religion is part of the person and therefore would form part (and i believe it should only be part) of their decision
Blessed be.
User avatar
capt_buzzard
Posts: 5557
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by capt_buzzard »

Your right of course. It was wrong of me. I over reacted a bit.
User avatar
anastrophe
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by anastrophe »

vampress.rozz wrote: A woman may choose to have the baby when the man does not want it. I agree that this is unfair, but to force a mother to abort her baby would be like forcing someone to commit murder (if she believes a person has been formed at this stage)
well, i don't recall saying anything about forcing a woman to have an abortion. since i believe the decision to have an abortion lies entirely and only with a woman faced with the decision, then it would obviously not fall within that construct if someone forced a woman to have an abortion.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
User avatar
vampress.rozz
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 4:38 am

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by vampress.rozz »

I never meant to imply that you believed a woman should be forced to have an abortion, if that is how you took it i appologise profusely. Maybe i put it badly. What i meant was i feel the man has the decision forced upon him (either way) but that i understand it would be unfair and unpractical to force a woman (again in either way)
Blessed be.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by Bill Sikes »

Warsai wrote: I don't know why, but some people seem to get the two interchangably. I'm sure you all already know, but pro-choice means you're in support of people having a choice of whether to abort, and pro-abortion means that you're in favor of abortion. Personally, I'm pro-choice, but I think abortion is unethical. People should be able to choose whether they want to abort, even though they, in my opinion, they shouldn't.


I've just returned to the very beginning of this thread to see what the definitions

of these terms are. It seems to me that they are very substantially the same.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Pro-choice and pro-abortion: two very different things

Post by gmc »

One thing that strikes me about all these posts is that no one mentions sex education. I am pro choice but what annoys me about a lot of anti abortionists is that they are by and large agaionst sex education as well, its the sheer hypocrisy that denies a teenager knowledge and access to contraceptives and them condemns them for getting pregnant.

Abortion is not a method of contraception its a last resort and should only be used in extremis. You may not approve of sexually active children but it is human nature to be interested and to deny knowledge to prepubescent children ignores human nature.

We have similar debates, our society is perhaps more secular than the US so the religious aspect is less prominent but we also look to europe particularly scandanavia and countries like Holland that have more open attitudes to sex, teenage pregnancy is the lowest in europe because the girls in partucular know enough to turn round and say no, interestingly enough the average age of first sexual experiance is actually higher than in the UK and US.

Knowledge is power not an invitation to have more sex, the kids don't fall for you don't get pregnant if you do it standing up type of legend because they know better. The naughty mystery is taken away. Peer group pressure is not to get pregnant in the first place because that is stupid and can be avoided.

Simply saying don't do it doesn't work.

Return to “Abortion”