Why are you Pro-Choice.

[snow]

Just a qusetion about why some people are Pro-Choice. I really dont understand being Pro-Choice. I justed figured i'd ask.

[CounslerCoffee]

Its the womans body, she can do whatever she wants to it.

[Tiassa]

Life should be an invitation, not a sentence.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

[notPresidentAndrew]

I'm coming out of retirement to give snow some help. I should be doing my homework, but...

Why I am pro-choice:
· To prevent a domino effect. If abortion is outlawed, then the people who dislike birth control will be encouraged to start a movement, which could outlaw this most basic right in the future.
· The environmental effects of overpopulation are being curved because of abortion
· Outlawing abortion will encourage and support the right wing
· Women should not be forced to raise children they do not want.

[You Killed Jesus]

And abortions can help slow human population growth!

[Xerxes]

Well, the baby is still a part of the mother when an abortion occurs. They aren't seperate people yet. So, its the mothers choice if she should abort the gestation process, drink alcohol, or raise a perfectly healthy baby.

It might not always the best choice since having children is a mitzvah - but the woman still has a right to choose what her fate might be before it has any serious implication on the life of a future child. Plus, its ethically wrong to deny somebody the right to their own freedom when dealing with largely personal issues.

So, the whole shabang boils down to how you classify pregnancy. Is the fetus a person yet? I really don't think so. But some people do. It's a shame we can't even agree on something as simple as that.


-Elbaz

[Xev]

Fetus aren't human.
Abortion = less humans
People should be free to do what they want with their bodies, unless and until they interfere with someone else's freedom.

[Xerxes]

Why I am pro-choice:
· To prevent a domino effect. If abortion is outlawed, then the people who dislike birth control will be encouraged to start a movement, which could outlaw this most basic right in the future.
· The environmental effects of overpopulation are being curved because of abortion
· Outlawing abortion will encourage and support the right wing
· Women should not be forced to raise children they do not want.

I think you have the wrong motivations, Prez. Your saying that it should be legal in spite of negative issues as opposed to its own merits.

Like I said, and Xev later reaffirmed, it's a matter of how you classify a person.

[notPresidentAndrew]

As usual, no one agrees with me, but I don't see what's wrong with my reasons.

[Xev]

It's not your reasons, but your motivations.

If a fetus was a person, would discouraging the right wing be an acceptable gain for what would be mass murder?

[notPresidentAndrew]

I swear to God (which most of you don't believe in!). NO ONE agrees with me even when we agree that abortion should be legal! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

After I hear snow's response I'm going back into retirement. I might even spam this board with obsence messages so I will be banned and cannot return.

Anyway, I don't "like" abortion. I think it is immoral and evil, but it must be legal.

[notPresidentAndrew]

Well snow is off the board, so I'll see you all here tomorrow.

[Asguard]

only if they never try to make it a guys legal responcability to pay (one thing xev and i agree on:p)

cant have it both ways

either it takes 2 to tango or its the womens problem

[zanket]

Because abortion could not realistically be banned today without the public being worse off. I agree with notPresidentAndrew’s first 3 points above. Women would still abort, risking their lives. They’d be forced to have rapists’ babies without redress. If these and many other negative effects of banning abortion were equitably resolved then I would support a ban. I think society is best off when it is fully aware that life is not created to be destroyed.

Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
Women should not be forced to raise children they do not want.

Even if it’s their child, and post birth?

[Asguard]

almost EVERYONE would say that abortion where the mothers life is endanger or in a rape case is not wrong

PERSONALLY i would like to see it be illegal except then and the the dision be what to do with the child once its born or ATLEASE the father have a legal choice in what happens but?

[zanket]

I think when abortion was illegal in the U.S. it was illegal in cases of rape as well. But I’m not sure (too tired to look it up). The protestors hassling the abortion clinics would still think it’s murder but yeah maybe they’d be in the minority. I’d support a ban even in cases of rape, if the negative effects to the mother could be equitably resolved.

[notPresidentAndrew]

Wow, there are people who agree with me after all.

[RichardJA]

Asguard, let's say the decision is left until the child is born. The parents don't want the child, but they keep it, get married for the child and bring it into an unhappy home, or have the child in a split relationship. Of course there is adoption, but hell, there are far too many children in orphanages around the world as it is. I think abortion should always remain the decision of the female and her partner.

[Asguard]

forcing a girl to carry a child in a rape case isnt the same as forcing her because she got drunk and screwed a guy at the pub

if she does that who GIVES what SHE wants (ie oh it will wreck my figure as someone here said)

but in a rape case?
HELL NO, the emotional stress, the reminder that she was abused every day, she couldnt NOT hate the child

if she doesnt want to abort then ok but if she does then no one should stop her

in some ways i think rape cases are more deserving than when lifes in danger because well she accpted that risk already from aids ect but not in a rape case

[RichardJA]

yeah people who are raped should not have to carry the child. But why should a child suffer in an unloving home because it was a mistake that the parents didn't want?

[Asguard]

do you know how many couples (gay AND straight) want kids?

for starters it would solve the "we need IVF cause we are lesbians" bull (IVF has ONE purpose and its not that you cant sleep with a guy because its icky)

[RichardJA]

yeah I do, but there is obviously more supply than demand at the moment or the orphanages wouldn't have so many unwanted children around the world.

[Asguard]

a question for all those people who have shitty parents

how many would trade it all to not be born? (and its ONLY if you hate life because of your parents)

[zanket]

Originally posted by Xev
If a fetus was a person, would discouraging the right wing be an acceptable gain for what would be mass murder?

Yes, if the ends justify the means all things considered. I would support the murder of one million to stop the oppression of a hundred million, if no better solution existed.

Society should be optimized like a game of chess. The best players see umpteen moves ahead and sacrifice pieces to increases the odds of winning. Likewise, society should consider every conceivable ramification of a move and sacrifice to achieve long-term goals. The public naturally does this, such as a military draft that kills healthy young males to win a war, or imprisoning the innocent for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt because proving guilt absolutely is impossible.

[zanket]

Originally posted by RichardJA
But why should a child suffer in an unloving home because it was a mistake that the parents didn't want?

A good point. This is one of the negative effects of banning abortion that would need to be resolved before I’d support a ban. A corollary to this is the higher odds of the unloved child becoming a criminal and the negative effects resulting from that (as I said before, consider every conceivable ramification). The public won’t pay or otherwise help to give these kids a reasonable chance for a loving home. Given that, abortion might be the best option.

[Asguard]

still i ask who would rather never have been born because of there parents?

[CounslerCoffee]

do you know how many couples (gay AND straight) want kids?

So a woman has to carry a child for nine months, give birth to it, and pay the hospital just because some straight/gay people want kids? No one should be forced to do something that they dont want to.

[fadingCaptain]

A fetus is not yet a human. It could become one, but that does not make it one. Therefore, it is up to the woman carrying and the decision should be left to her.

[Xev]

still i ask who would rather never have been born because of there parents?

*Raises a hand*

[notPresidentAndrew]

Were's snow?

[snow]

ok im back hmm I see maybe some ok reasons for Pro-choice.
hmn
1 Rape in this case I can see the motive for it and the reason for abortion,ill think about that as im not sure
2 saving the mother over the baby,this actually is a diffrent kind of abortion born out of a necessary need and is not wrong.

things I dont agree with lets see if I can remember them

1 That a fetus isnt a person,how is a fetus not a person?
ill reply when that is answered
2 Its her boby she can do what she wants,say she wants to snort coacaine and shoot heroine right into her eye ball,she cant do that its illegal
3 the baby growing up in a unloving family might grow up to be a crimanil,there is no such evidence of this it seems that a criminal may become that way for any number of reasons.

I dont know if this issue was raised,
4 A woman got pregant she shouldent have to let the pregancy intrud on her life,what if irresponsibly she charges up to lets say 20,000 dollars on her credit card,the bill intruds on her lifestyle why should she have to pay the bill?

Snow

[Tyler]

"1 That a fetus isnt a person,how is a fetus not a person?"

Please define what constitutes a human. The last sentance is probably one of the most debated topics in physical and social anthropology. At one point we defined humans be the conscienceness we have. However, that definition was really tossed aside after we realized that chimps and such have more realization of the self and the world than many physically/mentally impaired humans. That leaves basically our physical make-up to define us as human; namely, our brain. A fetus does not fit the physical definition of a human being.


"Its her boby she can do what she wants,say she wants to snort coacaine and shoot heroine right into her eye ball,she cant do that its illegal"

For starters, many sciforumers are pro-legalization of all drugs. Second, heroin and cocaine often inflict on other people's freedoms besides the person shooting/snorting. This is another debate altogether and one which is very tired at this site.


"the baby growing up in a unloving family might grow up to be a crimanil,there is no such evidence of this it seems that a criminal may become that way for any number of reasons"

This is not an arguement for pro-choice. Just a reply to the stupid pro-life arguement about "You could kill the next Gandhi!:mad:" Yeah, well, we could kill the next Hitler, too.


"A woman got pregant she shouldent have to let the pregancy intrud on her life,what if irresponsibly she charges up to lets say 20,000 dollars on her credit card,the bill intruds on her lifestyle why should she have to pay the bill?"

Many people suffer if humans were not forced to pay their bills. Many, many humans suffer if the economy is not an economy. No human suffers during abortion. Your point is 100% mute.

[Asguard]

i have a very simple argument to this debate

there are 3 partys

2 CHOSE what happens and one does not

the one who does not dies while the other 2 walk away?

NO

you open your legs SUFFER, same with the father

[snow]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyler
[B]"1 That a fetus isnt a person,how is a fetus not a person?"

Please define what constitutes a human. The last sentance is probably one of the most debated topics in physical and social anthropology. At one point we defined humans be the conscienceness we have. However, that definition was really tossed aside after we realized that chimps and such have more realization of the self and the world than many physically/mentally impaired humans. That leaves basically our physical make-up to define us as human; namely, our brain. A fetus does not fit the physical definition of a human being.

Brain power defines a human...well I guess we should kill all the people who cant mentally function since they take up resources and such.



"the baby growing up in a unloving family might grow up to be a crimanil,there is no such evidence of this it seems that a criminal may become that way for any number of reasons"

This is not an arguement for pro-choice. Just a reply to the stupid pro-life arguement about "You could kill the next Gandhi!:mad:" Yeah, well, we could kill the next Hitler, too.

I was just replying to what someone said I didnt mean you could kill the next Gandhi....Never actually heard that before.


"A woman got pregant she shouldent have to let the pregancy intrud on her life,what if irresponsibly she charges up to lets say 20,000 dollars on her credit card,the bill intruds on her lifestyle why should she have to pay the bill?"

Many people suffer if humans were not forced to pay their bills. Many, many humans suffer if the economy is not an economy. No human suffers during abortion. Your point is 100% mute.

I'd say the baby suffers,but you'd say that fetuses arent persons,I'd also say that the father if he i'nst behind the abortaion would suffer mentally,also there is a small chance that the mother could suffer the abortion process has sometimes failed,the mother gets dameged,the fetus may actually still be born,ive seen a woman who was aborted but it failed she was born premature and her living ability was limited.So she was affected.

[snow]

Originally posted by Asguard
i have a very simple argument to this debate

there are 3 partys

2 CHOSE what happens and one does not

the one who does not dies while the other 2 walk away?

NO

you open your legs SUFFER, same with the father

Good point Asguard

[notPresidentAndrew]

Like I said earlier, if abortion is made illegal the right wingers and anti-birth control people such as the Catholic church will be encouraged to force their morality on everyone else. In a few years we will all die of overpopulation. snow is avoiding that point.

[Asguard]

i apologise for that reply being a little incoherant but you all get the point

[notPresidentAndrew]

Hey, snow, can you reply to me? And quick, I have other stuff to do.

[Tyler]

"Brain power defines a human...well I guess we should kill all the people who cant mentally function since they take up resources and such."

Please note I asked you to define a human. I'd like you try before I get too into this.


"I was just replying to what someone said I didnt mean you could kill the next Gandhi....Never actually heard that before."

Actually the common arguement is the next Beethovan. As Ludwig grew up in a terrible family situation.


"the father if he i'nst behind the abortaion would suffer mentally"

That's antoher debate altogether. I wont touch on it here.

[Asguard]

seems to me the 2 arguments boil down to "population control" vs the "right for a child to live"

im interested to hear if those on the other side are against IVF?

[notPresidentAndrew]

And "keep the right wing from controlling our lives."

[Asguard]

ummm you DO know the right wing is pro self?

its the side that is more personal freedom at the expence of soiciaty

(ie the idiocy about random breath testing being police harassment)

[zanket]

Originally posted by snow
well I guess we should kill all the people who cant mentally function since they take up resources and such.

Certainly that would happen if push came to shove. The public often makes those kinds of choices.

Originally posted by Asguard
seems to me the 2 arguments boil down to "population control" vs the "right for a child to live"

Mine was “the best choice for society all things considered.”

[zanket]

Anyone who is against abortion, how much percentage-wise are you willing to pay in higher taxes in return for a ban on abortion? If abortion is illegal but not for rape, then we’ll have thousands more rape cases each year to be investigated by law enforcement. Thousands of kids starting life lousy and to be subsidized by you the taxpayer. Thousands of women who illegally aborted to be tried and imprisoned and their public education wasted and no longer a benefit to the economy. That’s just the beginning, and it adds up to a lot of money out of everyone’s pocket.

So, what are you willing to pay?

[notPresidentAndrew]

Originally posted by zanket
If abortion is illegal but not for rape, then we’ll have thousands more rape cases each year to be investigated by law enforcement.
So, what are you willing to pay?

Correct. I would have made the point earlier but I don't care for the whole "abortion for legal for rape victims" discussion. It should be legal for all.

There will be more and more women claiming they had been raped when they were not if it is only legal for rape victims.

[Asguard]

maybe we should forget the "drug war" and move the narks over to the rape squad?

[zanket]

Yep. Let me emphasize that my question is not rhetorical. My version of morality is worth money to me. For a ban on abortion and its related problems resolved to my satisfaction I’d pay 10% more.

[Asguard]

i would pay whatever i had to in order to satisfy my ethics

money means very little to me (and no thats NOT because im ritch, in fact im quite poor at the moment:()

[RichardJA]

I wonder how many criminals were raised in unhappy homes where they were unwanted.

I also wonder how much we could save if we get the message out there about safe sex, and making sure people could easy, free access to birth control.

[Asguard]

you dont have that?

every uni and tafe here you can get free condoms, social health heeps of places

about crime you cant stop it by abortion

i have a friend who lives in a home where his father trys to kill him but hes not bad (i know that for a FACT)

[RichardJA]

yeah we have it here but I am not sure what they have in the states. I keep getting reminded by a friend telling me last year that his sex ed class at high school, in Ohio, he was taught oral sex is safe and cannot transmit HIV. So I have no idea what sort of crap is taught there.

Asgaurd, I wonder how many children born into unhappy homes where they are unwanted grow up to take that aggression out on their own children and partner. How many turn to crime because of their family life. So if we make abortion illegal for anyone who seeks it, what impact will such family life have on society?

Not only that, but this planet is already extremely over populated, far over that of which it can sustain life.

[Asguard]

in anser to population thing are you against IVF?

for the rest maybe they should be harder on who can KEEP a child rather than saying that familys who dont want a child will abort

that doesnt take into acount child abuse by the father OR mother latter on ect

[The Marquis]

Originally posted by Asguard
i have a friend who lives in a home where his father trys to kill him but hes not bad (i know that for a FACT)

His father must be fairly inept then, if he hasn't succeeded by now.

[HarmonyStar]

A person who takes it upon him or herself to prescribe how others should dispose of their own lives - and who seeks to condemn them by law, i.e., by force, to the drudgery of an unchosen, lifelong servitude (which, more often than not, is beyond their economic means or capacity) - such a person has NO right to pose as a defender of rights. A person with so little concern or respect for the rights of the individual, cannot and will not be a champion of freedom or of capitalism.
— Ayn Rand

[HarmonyStar]

Oh and furthermore:

"Responsible parenthood involves decades devoted to the child's proper nurture. To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an unspeakable violation of her rights: her right to liberty (to the functions of her body), her right to the pursuit of happiness, and, sometimes, her right to life itself, even as a serf. Such a sentence represents the sacrifice of the actual to the potential, of a real human being to a piece of protoplasm, which has no life in the human sense of the term. It is sheer perversion of language for people who demand this sacrifice to call themselves 'right-to-lifers.' "

— Leonard Peikoff

[Asguard]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

she made the choice, why should sociaty care more about her than the child who DIDNT make a choice?

[notPresidentAndrew]

Did you know that there are some people who oppose and even want to outlaw birth control, especially Catholics and some fundamentalists? Outlawing abortion will only give them hope for their most evil cause.

[zanket]

HarmonyStar: Apparently Ayn Rand didn’t realize that every member of the public takes it upon him or herself to prescribe how others should dispose of their own lives, when the public makes and enforces laws.

[Nasor]

I am pro choice because I do not believe that someone has the right to unconditional life if they can live only at the expense of someone else's body, as is the case of a fetus and a pregnant woman. A woman's right to control over her body is paramount to a fetus's right to exist.

That being said, I get really tired of listening to the flawed, illogical arguments that are commonly given by both sides of the debate. Here are some of the most annoying:

"Abortion should be outlawed because a fetus is a person."
How do you define 'person?' At what point does the fetus become a person? Is a single cell a person? Four cells? Also, this argument assumes that people have an unconditional right to life, which they don't.

"Abortion should be outlawed because the bible claims that fetuses (feti?) are people."
A more complete version of the previous argument. Check again. The bible does not say this anywhere. There are passages in the bible from which this could be inferred, but it is certainly nor clear-cut. For most of the church's history abortion was not considered immoral and a fetus was not considered a person. Christianity's 'pro life' stance is a recent development. In any event, it doesn’t really matter since we (in the united states and most other countries) live in a secular democracy.

Abortion should be outlawed because you might be killing the next (pick your favorite famous person)
True, but you might also be killing the next evil dictator or notorious criminal. There is no way to tell and each is equally likely.

Abortion should be outlawed because there are many families who want to adopt children.
This is not entirely accurate. There are many families who want to adopt healthy white children. If a child has some sort of health problem or is a member of an ethnic minority, it is unlikely that they will be adopted before they become adults. In any case, surely a woman could not be expected to give birth for the convenience of someone who is incapable of having their own child.

"Abortion should be allowed because the world is overpopulated."
The problem isn't that the world is overpopulated, it's that people can't manage their resources properly. This is not an argument in for abortion, it's an argument for better resource management. Note also that if this argument were valid it could just as easily be applied to justify the killing of living adults.

"Abortion should be allowed because it prevents children from being born into abusive homes."
Again, this argument could just as easily be applied to justify killing children who are already living in an abusive home. In fact, it would be more applicable, since there would be certainty that the child is living in an abusing environment rather than a mere possibility.

"Abortion should be allowed because if it is outlawed women will turn to 'back ally' abortion clinics where conditions will not be as safe."
This argument does not address the moral acceptability of abortion. Few people would accept the argument that 'bank robbery should not be outlawed because it would make bank-robbing much more dangerous to the robber.'

"It's a slippery slope; if you outlaw abortion, soon the religious nuts will be herding atheists into concentration camps."
The slippery slope argument is considered to be a logical fallacy. It is possible to outlaw abortion without restricting other freedoms. There is no way to show that theocratic domination in an inevitable (or even likely) consequence of outlawing abortion.

[notPresidentAndrew]

Abortion is morally and ethically wrong 100%, but it remain legal for the reasons I posted.

[Nasor]

Originally posted by notPresidentAndrew
Abortion is morally and ethically wrong 100%, but it remain legal for the reasons I posted. But why is it wrong? Don't just throw claims out, try to build a logical case for your arguments.

[zanket]

Originally posted by Nasor
I am pro choice because I do not believe that someone has the right to unconditional life if they can live only at the expense of someone else's body, as is the case of a fetus and a pregnant woman.

Also the case with babies. Should they be killable?

The problem isn't that the world is overpopulated, it's that people can't manage their resources properly.

We could manage resources properly now only by allowing mass starvation. We are using future resources by not allowing renewable resources to replenish themselves. The world is overpopulated if it cannot maintain its level in the long run.

This is not an argument in for abortion, it's an argument for better resource management.

Why couldn’t abortion be part of the way the resources are managed?

Note also that if this argument were valid it could just as easily be applied to justify the killing of living adults.

No problem. We already kill people in wars for whatever reason. Or we kill them in prison as punishment. We kill the innocent in prison too, because perfect justice is deemed too costly. The public kills for fun and profit.

The slippery slope argument is considered to be a logical fallacy. It is possible to outlaw abortion without restricting other freedoms. There is no way to show that theocratic domination in an inevitable (or even likely) consequence of outlawing abortion.

The slippery slope is a valid argument for abortion. If you take away a choice, other choices are at more risk of being taken away. You use intuition and history for this, not logic. The religious nuts desperately want to control you. If you give them an inch, they will be emboldened and grow in power. It is possible to outlaw abortion without restricting other freedoms, but the risk cannot be taken lightly. All countries are on the path to democracy or dictatorship. There is a reason why the slippery slope is forefront in the mind of every judge.

[zanket]

Originally posted by HarmonyStar
"Responsible parenthood involves decades devoted to the child's proper nurture. To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an unspeakable violation of her rights: ..."

— Leonard Peikoff

Then I guess sentencing a woman to rear her child against her will is also an unspeakable violation of her rights?

[Nasor]

Originally posted by zanket
Also the case with babies. Should they be killable?

It is possible for babies to survive once they have been born without existing in a parasitic relationship with their mother.

We could manage resources properly now only by allowing mass starvation. We are using future resources by not allowing renewable resources to replenish themselves. The world is overpopulated if it cannot maintain its level in the long run.

This just isn't true. The there is no reason for people to starve in our modern world. Virtually all cases of mass starvation in the past several decades were caused either by massive government incompetence or deliberately for some political/military reason.

No problem. We already kill people in wars for whatever reason.

If you don't have a problem with killing a child because he/she is living in an abusive environment, then I suppose this argument would work for you. The vast majority of people would disagree with you.

[RichardJA]

Asguard. I'd rather see all the children in orphanages adopted before people have their own child, but I know that would never happen as most people would rather have their own children. One of the problems I see is the restrictions on adoption which leaves children or foster care rather than with a loving parent or parents. One of the major problems in the US which is slowly being changes was that states received their funding on how many children they had in their care instead of how many children it placed into homes.

What amazes me is that to drive a car you need a license, yet to have a baby you don't need to sit any courses or such, pity. Maybe people should be made to get a license before they are allowed to raise children.

[zanket]

Originally posted by Nasor
It is possible for babies to survive once they have been born without existing in a parasitic relationship with their mother.

Seems an awful fine line between that and a baby that can’t survive on its own.

The there is no reason for people to starve in our modern world.

The reasons are in our near future. The human population is skyrocketing and that spells d-o-o-m.

Virtually all cases of mass starvation in the past several decades were caused either by massive government incompetence or deliberately for some political/military reason.

Doesn’t mean we won’t starve in the next century. The world holds twice as many people now as it did during the Great Famine in China just 40 years ago. At that rate we’ll have 50 trillion (yes, trillion) people by the year 2500. Do you think technology will save us? Abortion might help.

If you don't have a problem with killing a child because he/she is living in an abusive environment, then I suppose this argument would work for you. The vast majority of people would disagree with you.

Then the vast majority would be hypocrites. The examples I gave were of society killing for similarly dubious reasons.

[Nebuchadnezzaar]

without a choice, i'm a sheep, no thankyou.