Prochoice/ proabortion

Post by **Cairber** » 2007-01-15 05:04pm

I use to be prolife but not anymore. I can even think of instances where I would probably get an abortion myself- which played a big part in changing my mind on the subject. Whenever I talk to others about this, a line always comes up:

"Pro choice does not mean pro-abortion"

And everyone seems to have a different idea of what that means. For some, it means they wouldn't get one themselves but they don't want to get in the way of someone else getting one. For others it means that that are prochoice because they want to keep abortion safe; they feel it is going to happen even if they don't like it so it should be safe.

But then today I thought to myself that there are situations where I would, if asked, recommend abortion. I think in that sense I am not just prochoice but proabortion as well.

What about you?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-15 05:06pm

It is possible to be pro-choice but not pro-abortion, in the sense that I dislike abortion and consider it a really scary, negative thing to do, but I think that it may be the lesser of two evils in some cases so the choice should remain.

Of course, "pro-life" is a ridiculous moniker since it really prohibits only one very specific kind of death. A real pro-lifer would be a Buddhist who is literally afraid to hurt a fly.

Jew · Post by **Jew** » 2007-01-15 05:32pm

Labels are often chosen more to disparage the opposition than to represent one's own position. Thus the term pro-life is really meant to imply that the opponents are anti-life or pro-death. And similarly, pro-choice is meant to imply the other are anti-choice or pro-constraint.

So when someone says that "pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion," that is really a reaction to the implication that the opposite of pro-life is pro-death. See? It's all about framing the debate to put your side in the best possible light. I'd say pro-lifers have won a big battle simply by choosing to define themselves as pro-life (rather than, say, anti-abortion), because hardly anybody can be against life. Sure, people understand there's more to the debate, but the choice of labels does have an effect, and that's why pro-choice advocates must continually explain that they do not necessarily think abortion is always a good choice.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-01-15 05:33pm

I probably would never encourage a woman to get an abortion but I know its kind of like prohibition in that making it illegal won't stop it. It will only go underground. My mother told me a story from when she was a teenager. One of her frients got pregnant and to give herself an abortion with a COAT HANGER. She punctured her uterus and bled to death. Abortions may not be a very pretty thing but I'd much rather they take place in a clean clinic than someone's garage.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-01-15 05:40pm

I am Pro-Choice because a bunch of old men in D.C. have no goddamn business telling my wife, sister, friend, or daughter what she can or can't do with her body.

However, unless it was literally do it or die, I would be against Tev having an abortion. Strongly against. But it'd not be my choice. It'd be hers.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-15 05:42pm

I think people have to be willing to ask themselves tough questions, and I think that a lot of people avoid those questions in order to make themselves feel more comfortable with their positions.

For example, anyone can say "I support abortion rights but I would never abort my own child". But what if there were a way to diagnose serious problems just a few weeks into the pregnancy, and you discovered that your future child would be severely retarded? Are you willing to submit yourself to a life sentence of caring for this individual? Should you be forced to do this? Or would it be reasonable to terminate the pregnancy now, while it's still just a mindless clump of cells?

Of course, there will always be those who just glibly say "Yes I would have the severely brain-damaged child and I am so very very proud of my hypothetical morality". But I suspect that most people who gave the issue some serious thought would have a tough time with it either way.

darthbob88 · Post by **darthbob88** » 2007-01-15 05:44pm

I'm with you all. I'm pro-choice, but I'm personally opposed to abortions.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-01-15 05:51pm

Darth Wong wrote:I think people have to be willing to ask themselves tough questions, and I think that a lot of people avoid those questions in order to make themselves feel more comfortable with their positions.

For example, anyone can say "I support abortion rights but I would never abort my own child". But what if there were a way to diagnose serious problems just a few weeks into the pregnancy, and you discovered that your future child would be severely retarded? Are you willing to submit yourself to a life sentence of caring for this individual? Should you be forced to do this? Or would it be reasonable to terminate the pregnancy now, while it's still just a mindless clump of cells?

Of course, there will always be those who just glibly say "Yes I would have the severely brain-damaged child and I am so very very proud of my hypothetical morality". But I suspect that most people who gave the issue some serious thought would have a tough time with it either way.

To answer this: I have no fucking clue, whatsoever. I don't pretend to. The worst part is that, for you and many others, this is a hypothetical. For me, this is a fact of genetics: The odds are good, any offspring I have, will be damaged goods, neurologically. And I've lived this life, and it's been ugly every step. I don't know if I should force that on anyone.

I cannot tell you what I'd do. Ask me when Tev's pregnant, and I'm agonizing over this very question.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-01-15 05:57pm

Darth Wong wrote:I think people have to be willing to ask themselves tough questions, and I think that a lot of people avoid those questions in order to make themselves feel more comfortable with their positions.

For example, anyone can say "I support abortion rights but I would never abort my own child". But what if there were a way to diagnose serious problems just a few weeks into the pregnancy, and you discovered that your future child would be severely retarded? Are you willing to submit yourself to a life sentence of caring for this individual? Should you be forced to do this? Or would it be reasonable to terminate the pregnancy now, while it's still just a mindless clump of cells?

Of course, there will always be those who just glibly say "Yes I would have the severely brain-damaged child and I am so very very proud of my hypothetical morality". But I suspect that most people who gave the issue some serious thought would have a tough time with it either way.

I don't have kids yet so to be honest, I have no idea the kind of agony a parent would be in facing that dilema.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-01-15 05:59pm

The religious asshole right doesn't care that pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion. It's like trying to tell them that socialism doesn't equal communism; they don't care. They want their black and white thinking.

Spin Echo · Post by **Spin Echo** » 2007-01-15 06:07pm

Pro-abortion, like Jew said, really just strikes me as a way to smear the position. The pro-abortion term makes it sound like you are actively encouraging abortions. I doubt having an abortion is something most women take lightly, much less want. I bet the doctors performing the abortions would much rather have perfect birth control so that they didn't have to perform them.

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2007-01-15 06:12pm

If my wife/girlfriend (I don't have either, BTW) were to be pregnant, it wouldn't be my choice. Depending on my situation, I'd be either for or against abortion, but I wouldn't mention anything.

I'm pro-choice, BTW.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2007-01-15 06:18pm

SirNitram wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I think people have to be willing to ask themselves tough questions, and I think that a lot of people avoid those questions in order to make themselves feel more comfortable with their positions.

For example, anyone can say "I support abortion rights but I would never abort my own child". But what if there were a way to diagnose serious problems just a few weeks into the pregnancy, and you discovered that your future child would be severely retarded? Are you willing to submit yourself to a life sentence of caring for this individual? Should you be forced to do this? Or would it be reasonable to terminate the pregnancy now, while it's still just a mindless clump of cells?

Of course, there will always be those who just glibly say "Yes I would have the severely brain-damaged child and I am so very very proud of my hypothetical morality". But I suspect that most people who gave the issue some serious thought would have a tough time with it either way.
To answer this: I have no fucking clue, whatsoever. I don't pretend to. The worst part is that, for you and many others, this is a hypothetical. For me, this is a fact of genetics: The odds are good, any offspring I have, will be damaged goods, neurologically. And I've lived this life, and it's been ugly every step. I don't know if I should force that on anyone.

I cannot tell you what I'd do. Ask me when Tev's pregnant, and I'm agonizing over this very question.

I have the same fears Nitram has on this, actually. Case in Point: Chance of birth defects nearly double when the mother is over 35.

As for my views pro-choice/pro-life? I am solidly pro-choice.

I've seen too many teens trying to raise a baby with no help from the father. I've seen too many grandparents forced to take a child in, because their daughter can't raise the child or has to spend so much time working to support themselves they don't have the time or money for a babysitter. Then I've seen the drug addict mothers, or the welfare moms, who have 3-6 children by nearly as many fathers. The lucky children are the ones that DHHR takes away.

And yet, I see and hear of all the Religious Right with their ranting on the amorality of abortions. I hear and see the protests at the Capitol and other public venues. What I don't hear are these people offering support to the women who keep their children. I don't hear them offering to adopt a crack-baby, or pledging money to give that single mom access to insurance, to babysitters, to a good job that will support her and baby both. What I hear are the same people throwing fits about Abortion throwing hissies over the idea of Sex Education, which would prevent a whole lot of pregnancies.

Hypocracy, all of it. I don't like the idea of abortions, I'd rather see every child adopted, but there are times when a woman is better off not having the child at all.

Alerik the Fortunate · Post by **Alerik the Fortunate** » 2007-01-15 10:18pm

I agree with Lady Tevar. We ought to be making less of a fuss about abortions in principle and trying to focus on ignorance and social conditions that create situations in which abortions are likely. Then we can agonize over the remaining hard cases on an individual basis. As for myself, I would do anything to keep a child I fathered unless I knew that it would have a really severe health problem, like anencephaly. And even then the ultimate choice would be that of my (soon to be) wife. Still, I think the real issue is not life or death of the infant (though that plays a powerful visceral role in influencing decisions for many people, as it should as far as I'm concerned), but rather the presupposition of life beginning at conception. To allow abortion is to not confirm the theological and soteriological assumptions behind Christian values, and is more to be deplored for that reason than for any suffering or lack thereof.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2007-01-15 10:33pm

I'm pro-choice in general and pro-abortion in a few specific circumstances; if my girlfriend (or any other female I loved) was pregnant and continuing with the pregnancy would result in their death I'd certainly want them to abort.

If the foetus was so severely damaged that if it went to term a short pain filled life would be the result again I'd be in favour of terminating the pregnancy.

Ideally I'd like to be both a father and a grandfather so personally I'd rather not have to bring up a seriously disabled child and so if screening revealed severe problems again I'd be in favour of aborting.

In every case though the choice would obviously be the mothers not mine and I'd do my duty whatever she decided, though in the first two examples I'd find that very difficult.

Chiaroscuro · Post by **Chiaroscuro** » 2007-01-15 10:36pm

I think one of the main problems is that those who are pro-life tend to also be somewhat pro-abstinence (not all, but many). They feel that if you don't want a child, you shouldn't have sex, period. This kind of attitude pushes contraception to the uncomfortable and vaguely evil corners of education, so if two kids get a bit inebriated and bounce in the hay, well, there it is.
I think everyone can agree that it isn't ideal to have an abortion. It's not just ending the baby's potential life, it's often causing psychological/physical damage to the mother. No one wants to go around killing babies, but the fact is, there are a heck of a lot of people on this planet already, and a ton of kids already here who need adopting.
I think abortion should be available, but the real emphasis should be on contraception and birth control. Young adults should understand the risks associated with sex and the best ways of combating those risks. And women should know enough to be careful about the men they have sex with... although that would probably only happen in a perfect world. I daresay there will always be men who are interested in poking every woman who comes along, but not in dealing with the consequences.

A-Wing_Slash · Post by **A-Wing_Slash** » 2007-01-15 11:29pm

I am pro-life. I'm fine with sex, contraception, birth control, and the like. Early on in a pregnancy while the baby-to-be is just a mass of cells, if the mother was in danger or something, I could support an abortion then, even if I wouldn't like it. But once a brain forms, the heart starts beating, and it actually becomes a mini-person, then I do think that abortion is akin to murder.

That being said, I'll admit that my position comes from the fact that I cannot get pregnant, and I can expect to support a unexpected child if I got someone else pregnant. I know I coming down hard on the pro-life side, but either way you look at this its a crappy choice, and I hope that I'm never in a situation where I have to deal with it.

NomAnor15 · Post by **NomAnor15** » 2007-01-15 11:40pm

I am strongly pro-choice. No one has any right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I also hate the really hard-line pro-lifers, because they are often quite hypocritical, in that much of the time they are anti-abortion, but perfectly OK with the President unilaterally waging war. "We want live fetuses, so they can grow up to be dead soldiers". Not the exact quote, but George Carlin said something along those lines.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2007-01-16 12:57am

I'm adamantly pro-choice. I'm a man so I have no right to tell women what to do, but I also have enough sense in my brain to tell other women that they don't have a right to tell someone what to do either. The only times people even want to get an abortion is because there's some reason they don't want this child. When would you want a child born to a family that doesn't want them?

Abortion is legal, and 'oops!' children are still born, raised and loved. It's not a cure-all for the sloppy. The right leaps on 'human life' when it concerns the unborn but rarely the living, and they seem to have no respect for human dignity whatsoever. A fetus is just not a person any more than a lump of cells or an unfertilized egg is. They're all just potential to me, so I would rather save the parent and flush the cells than treat a child like a punitive punishment by forcing nine months of pregnancy on some poor girl.

I'm pro-choice, therefore, because there's no way to justify pro-life. Real life is too complicated to treat kids like punishment. It puts an unfair responsibility on mothers and treats them as something less than men, in that regard. It also never stops to question if it is right to throw a kid into the adoptive care system, or if it is in their best interests to be born to an unwed, unemployed, teenage or however other less-than-ideal circumstance'd mother.

Eris · Post by **Eris** » 2007-01-16 01:56am

I think there was a time in my life when I was young and stupid when I was vaguely and mildly pro-life, although more because it was a default position after not having thought about it, something akin to the "I support abortion rights, but would never abort my own child" DW mentioned. Then I got into a situation where I had an abortion. Without going too much into it, the only thing that could have made it worse was if I didn't have the choice at all. I can further guarantee that any child I would have had would at best been dysfunctional - there was no way at the time I would have been a good mother.

I am needless to say very much pro-choice at this point. I might even go so far as to say I'm pro-abortion, depending on how you want to define it. While I agree that the best case scenario would be that we would never even have to consider abortion, the fact is we live in the real world. I believe there are situations in which, even when there is no medical risk to either child or mother, it is better that the child never be born.

Simply put, we don't have moral obligations to a fetus, although there's some grey area late in the pregnancy. Further, there are unusual cases where it is not only morally permissable to abort a fetus, but it is morally advbisable. I won't say it's required in the same sense you're required not to kill people for no reason, but rather that it would be better for it to be carried out, but the person could not be robustly condemned for failling to do so.

I won't go through my entire argument for this - it's something I've put a lot of thought into - as it hinges on a definition of personhood and moral obligation that I haven't completely worked out yet to my satisfaction.

Alerik the Fortunate · Post by **Alerik the Fortunate** » 2007-01-16 01:56am

Also, the right does not see things as relating to life versus death, suffering versus joy. It is an obession with guilt vs innocence that saturates everything. Fetuses are "innocent" compared with adult humans, so they deserve better treatment irrespective of capacity for suffering, joy, or moral responsibility. I suppose only after the child is born and can be seen to do directly things that displease the parents (once again, knowingly or not) is the stain of original sin emotionally ascribed to him or her. But then, I have no idea actually of the general position of churches on the final fate of the unborn.

jahara · Post by **jahara** » 2007-01-16 10:44am

I have always been pro choice. When I was younger, in the event that I did get someone pregnant, I was adamant about having the chance to raise the child, irreguardless of the mother's wishes. My nice wonderful theory ran smack dab into reality. When my girlfriend (now my wife) got pregnant, I was secretly hoping that she would have an abortion. I was terrified at the prospect of being a father. Well, she didn't get an abortion. Luckily for us, everything has worked out for the better.

It's a shame to force somebody to bring a child into this world unless the parents are ready for the responsibility.

Jew · Post by **Jew** » 2007-01-16 10:56am

Alerik the Fortunate wrote:I have no idea actually of the general position of churches on the final fate of the unborn.

Beliefs differ, but generally most Christians believe that children below the age of accountability (i.e., children too young to understand the difference between right and wrong) go to heaven. Unborn children therefore go to heaven. But that belief is not universal among Christians.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2007-01-16 11:26am

I am pro-choice mainly because I could never see making someone carry a child to term if they didn't want to, not even to give the child up for adoption. Forcing someone to stay pregnant who doesn't want to just seems wrong to me. I do have problems with really late term abortions of otherwise healthy fetuses mostly because I feel that it's cruel and a little gresome the closer the fetus becomes to being viable outside of the mother.

This subject hits a little closer to home this week since my sister aborted a non-viable pregnancy last week. At her 12 week check-up the sonogram showed that the baby had no spine, one leg and no abdomnial wall. It's possible that it might have gone to term but it would not have survived. If my sister had chosen, or been forced to carry to term, she would have all the risks of a pregnancy, maybe more, and had that much longer to dwell on the emotional loss of a child that she very much wanted.

Another item of note. My sister lives in California so you'd think that an abortion in this type of case would be easy to come by. That is not the case. She had to travel to L.A. from the Lancaster/Palmdale/Edwards AFB area because, according to her doctor, the procedure could not be preformed anywhere in the Antelope Valley. I have trouble thinking that it would be against the law in one part of California but ok in other so I'm guessing that it's a choice by the medical service providers in that area to not provide this particular service.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2007-01-16 11:35am

Jew wrote:Beliefs differ, but generally most Christians believe that children below the age of accountability (i.e., children too young to understand the difference between right and wrong) go to heaven. Unborn children therefore go to heaven. But that belief is not universal among Christians.

That's a big theological debate, I understand. Alot of Christians argue that regardless of their personhood, they weren't baptised and hadn't accepted Jesus as their Personal Savior, so therefore cannot be allowed in Heaven. Or something like that.