Quote from: annyms on May 09, 2010, 09:50:13 PM
I think abortion is wrong, unless its for rape or if the pregnancy complicates the life of both (meaning the mother and child's life could be in danger).

So it's not enough if the mother's life is in danger?

I still want to know why people are okay with eating highly intelligent  and pain-feeling animals that have been given short, extremely miserable lives, imprisoned in cages so small they can't move and essentially tortured to death - and yet killing a human fetus is terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad, even though that baby will not be as intelligent as that animal even once it's born.

Where do we get this idea from that human beings are so special, so exceptional, that it is substantially more ethical to give an intelligent and pain-feeling animal a life of suffering and torture than it is to terminate the existence of a bundle of cells still in the process of turning into a human baby? Certainly not from science - there is no science to support the doctrine of human exceptionalism. The science shows us that we're at the top of the food chain and at the top of the intelligence scales, that we're highly conscious, etc. However there's not science or logical, scientifically-sound reasoning to support the idea that, given two creatures of roughly equal intelligence, equal consciousness and equal ability to feel pain, etc., one of those creatures has a substantial ethical advantage over the other simply because that creature is human.


The problem with the abortion debate is that is involves a lot of people at their illogical worst - using vague spiritual notions, outmoded theological dictates, or simply pure emotion to address an issue of reproductive medicine - that is, of science. It is true that there is a bit of emotion and judgment involved, since things like suffering can be difficult to measure and quantify, but that's the case in many medical matters around which people are able to stay calm. It's because the idea of abortion as "killing babies" - which fails to differentiate between a fetus at its various stages and a baby or toddler - conflicts with people's emotional sympathies that this is such a big deal. Of course, this is all part of our wiring telling us to take care of babies, because babies grow up into adults, and more humans is good. However, our drive to reproduce is just that - a drive - and should not have a say in the logic of medical science.

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on May 10, 2010, 08:02:10 PM
It's because the idea of abortion as "killing babies" - which fails to differentiate between a fetus at its various stages and a baby or toddler - conflicts with people's emotional sympathies that this is such a big deal.

This.

This is exactly what I was trying to explain in an earlier post. I completely agree with your entire post, PanoramaIsland.

Pro Life

Pro choice

Pro-choice. 

My answer is more complicated than simply pro-choice or pro-life.

I think that at the point of time that if the child were to be delivered, doctors would implement life saving measures to the child, abortion should be off the table completely (I think its usually at 24 weeks or so, earlier than this the chances of survival are too low and doctors as a rule don't try to keep the baby alive.)  What if technology and science advances to bring this to 20 weeks? 16 weeks?  Well then I think the abortion cutoff date should change with it.

With that in mind, politically I am pro-choice, I don't think its the governments business to control our lives even if the choices we are making are the wrong ones, as long as they are not infringing on another persons basic human rights (I think the UN has a pretty good handle on what this includes).

Personally, I am pro-life.  If it is my child, the answer would be no to an abortion if it were up to me. 

Definitely pro-choice. 

And definitely pro reducing the rates of abortion.  Not because it's wrong, but because abortion rates often speak to large issues of access, resources, education, economics, etc.

I'm pro (really) comprehensive sex education which addresses consent as a daily practice, which fits the needs of queer and trans youth, and which is ongoing (not just one class in 6th grade or whatever). Sex ed that includes information about protection that is relevant to people having all different kinds of sex, not just PIV intercourse between a straight cisgender couple. Sex ed that doesn't teach us that our bodies are shameful or dirty, or that they're nothing but a cold medical illustration of the most exaggerated ends of the sex binary. 

Sex ed that includes exercises to help us all understand the ways in which we have likely violated other's consent in the past (whether in a sexual or non-sexual context), the ways in which we may have been manipulative or even abusive towards people in our lives, and education about how to recognize and change those things. We're not taught to question our own behavior, to ask ourselves if we may have hurt someone. And this is important, because rapists are not strangers in ski masks.  Most often they are friends, loved ones, people we trust, family, or even our*selves*. A rapist is a kid who was once sitting in a sex ed class, not learning that consent is way more nuanced that just "no means no". 

I'm pro social safety nets.  I'm pro healthcare and pro welfare. Because I understand that abortion is a personal choice, but it's also more than that.  It's a choice that is often affected by a person's context, social location, and economic situation.  Providing thorough safety nets allows people to make a more personal decision about whether they are ready for a child, without also having to wonder if they will be able to care for and feed their child?  Without having to wonder if their child will be taken away from them because of racism, xenophobia, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, or something else? 

If with all those safety nets in place that person still chooses to have an abortion, that is so beyond fine.  That is their body and their call.  I just want everyone to be able to make that call on their own terms, not on the terms of the ->-bleeped-<-ed up systems that have shaped the world around them.

I don't understand the dichotomy, but to not have safe abortion access available is insane. The arguments always seem to stem from some lame culture wars notion that someone would use abortion as their contraceptive of choice. No one wants to have an abortion. People have abortions when it is the option that causes the least harm. To deny someone that option and potentially do greater harm is cruel.

Pro life with certain exceptions. My thinking is this. The baby did not ask to be conceived, and abortion (Be it a doctor or morning after pill) should not be a form of birth control. Now if the mother's or baby's life were in danger due to complications, or if a rape created the pregnancy; thats another story. Other than that there is adoption. There are many people who would love to have a child of their own but for what ever reason can't.

This is my view on this matter and, its fine to disagree with me. I value everyone's opinion.   

100% pro choice.

Abortion is one of the few topics on which I agree with Hillary Clinton: like her, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal... and rare. With rights come responsibilities, and in an ideal world I would hope that anybody who is capable of falling pregnant, or making someone else pregnant, would behave responsibly.

This is an issue that has affected me personally: I was once offered a late-term abortion (26 weeks) due to complications which could've resulted in severe disability for the surviving child. Fortunately I didn't have to take them up on the offer and my daughter is perfectly healthy, but I'm enormously grateful that my doctors gave me the opportunity to have an abortion - and that they supported my choice not to have that abortion.

Pro Life (with exceptions)

Reasons when I feel that abortion is okay:

• When a woman is raped
• Incest (consensual, as the baby is likely to have severe health problems, non-consensual falls under #1)
• If following through with the pregnancy will endanger the mother's life or cause the child to have severe health problems

Otherwise, I think people need to practice safe sex and if they don't then they should have to live with the consequences, it was their choice to begin with, not the baby's.

Amy

The biggest problem with the Pro-choice/Pro-life debates I've noticed is that both sides are arguing about completely different things.
The pro-life side is typically arguing against abortion morally with legal implications while the pro-choice side is typically arguing for abortion in a legal sense with implied moral implications.

What I mean by this, is the debates seem to go down this way a lot:
Pro-choice: "I think women should have the right to choose."
Pro-life: "It is wrong to kill a child."

The words used by pro-choice advocates typically seem to be things like "rights", which refers to whether it's legal or not.
While words like "wrong", "immoral", or "it's murder" are used by pro-life advocates, and this reflects a moral standpoint.

The issue here is that moral and legal standpoints are two entirely different things.
For example, I do not find it moral to cheat on one you're dating or married to.
Do I think the cheater should be imprisoned? No.

Personally, I'm not really sure where I fall on the moral standpoint.
But I am sure that I'm a libertarian, meaning, the less laws, the better.
I find the moral standpoint on whether abortion is right or wrong morally to be waaaay too subjective to make it illegal.
Even if I found abortion to be horrendously evil, I still would not want to impose legal actions to enforce that opinion.

If you really find it immoral, then do something to stop it. Promote safe sex, help make it easier for women to put babies up for adoption, etc.

That's my opinion on it, anyways. I just think it's too opinionated to legally enforce any actions, so I think it should be left up to the individual.

Adamantly pro-choice. I won't even nuance it, and won't apologize for it.

Pro-life! 

I'm adamantly pro-choice.

1) Birth control fails. Even with "safe" sex, there is room for error. Condoms are pathetic, and even female birth control fails. My friends IUD failed recently and she got pregnant. She was protecting herself and being a responsible adult and it wasn't enough.

2) Pro-life science is typically very skewed. Heart beats and other signs of "life" are nothing but electrical impulses and do nothing to indicate sentience. It's a blob of cells. A cabbage. It has the potential to become something great, but during most of the pregnancy aborting it would be nothing more than vacating cells. I can't remember how accurate this is, so I may be wrong, but the brain stem doesn't even connect with the brain until almost the third trimester.

3) I believe in bodily autonomy. If I want to change genders I should be able to. If I want to tattoo and pierce my body I should be able to. The parents of sick children frequently donate organs if needed, but are under no legal obligation. If a parent can watch their sentient child die knowing they could save their life, why is a pregnant mother forced to literally give her entire body for almost a year?

4) Our adoption and foster systems suck. While your nice little white baby may find a home relatively easily,  statistically if the child is black or some other minority race, or if there's a likelihood of a developmental disorder then their chances of being adopted suck, and only decrease with age. My mom has worked with emotionally handicapped low income boys in the public school system, and the number of them that will rot  in foster homes until theyre adults is staggering

I think the question is too complicated for courts to decide... so I am pro-choice. I don't believe in religion dictating government and I think this is a solely religious issue, not a domestic one. (The domestic issue is population control, IMO).

I would not personally have an abortion (damn... if I could get pregnant I'd be overjoyed) and I would not like my partner to have one - these are personal decisions that IMO should always be made by 2 people (except in cases of rape, abandonment, minors, etc).

I suppose that politically I'm pro-choice (which we have in Belgium). The thing is, as it has been said I believe no-one just gets an abortion because they were to lazy to use anticonception. It's not the easiest thing in the world, mothers often suffer under  getting one. (You're required to have psychological support in Belgium, is that the same in the US?). I'm pro-quality of life :p Honestly I don't see the need to keep a 'not-alive' foetus alive when in all likelyhood, the baby that will be born will have a bad quality of life. If parents  have some kind of reason for not wanting the baby or they can't support the baby often the child will not be cared for the way it deserves (Not as an attack on the parents, because sometimes things happen and even if you try to care for the child sometimes you just can't) so why force those parents to keep a child alive if that's all they can do? I don't believe life is about a beating heart, it's about certain needs of a child being met it's about a child living in a good home. Adoption would be an option but the reality sadly is that there are too much children in that system allready. So yeah, I'm pro-choice and Pro-quality of life!

Pro Choice.  There's 7 Billion people in this world already.  Far, far too many.  I believe Malthus was right.

Until Jesus comes back and tells me otherwise, that's how it's going to be.

Why does the far right in the US want to force you to have a kid you have no hope of supporting, then take away all safety nets after it's born?  Men also have the option of abandoning a pregnant woman, but these same people don't seem to have a problem with that.  The Pro-life movement is nothing more than a modern manifestation of dark-ages-throwback misogyny.  The women who get sucked into the pro-life camp seem to have a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

I will fight straight, white male privilege until everyone born in the US has the same opportunities to succeed.  Think about it- every time some minority group asks nicely to be treated fairly and equally, who opposes it most vocally?  Some people think they're entitled by birthright to a bigger piece of the pie or higher social status and will fight tooth and nail to hang on to it as they see it diminishing.

OK, I'll get involved in this fray.

While I will keep my own views about abortion to myself for the time being, I will skewer the American Pro-Life movement. I lot of the organizations opposing abortion also fight against easy access to birth control, which would be THE ONE THING that has the greatest possibility to DECREASE abortion.

I don't think those folks care about protecting fetuses. I think they're more interested in controlling women's sexual behavior.