Prolife or Prochoice?

I'm going to throw this out here.

I am prolife. I believe life begins at conception and life should be protected, not dostroyed. The baby is alive. If it wasn't alive, how would it grow? The constituion even protects the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Prochoice is very illogical. You say that it's the women's choice but it's not HER body she is murdering. It's her CHILD'S body.

I just want to hear what you say.

polls generally work best when you can't choose every answer


I am Pro-choice... I do not believe that a fetus is a human until long after the legal abortion point



a fetus is a potential human, but it isn't a conscious being until months after it is illegal to abort them

Oh boy...

Lets just say this: I realize that abortion may be desirable in some cases, such as incest or rape, but I still would like to know if anyone thinks abortion is moral when the mother's health isn't at risk, or in the case of the aforementioned sexual escapades.

Honestly, I'd like to see the need for abortion reduced, via education and awareness raising.

The way I think of it is if the mother is going to die if she has the child then I'm for it but if not then the baby should be born.

Indecisive One. wrote:The way I think of it is if the mother is going to die if she has the child then I'm for it but if not then the baby should be born.

I can agree with you but then people will throw situations at you. Say, I am a new mother with a husband. If my child was being born and I had the possibloty of dying, I would die and let the child live. In the case of me having more children at home, I would rather have the child in the hands of God I'm heaven so I can take care of my other children. But that's the only way I can agree with you.

Also, I would like to thank everyone so far for their views and opinions

I agree with Rasq, that they should only have the option if they were raped or with incest or if the mothers health is at risk.

There should be an option for the situation if there happened to be a potato famine. Then I'd vote for "Eat the babies"

Yam Head wrote:There should be an option for the situation if there happened to be a potato famine. Then I'd vote for "Eat the babies"

Ok, honestly. I didn't put this up so we can be immature...Please, let's be mature and debate correctly.

Potatoes are people too!

*sees post above*

Oops...

CivBase...Really? Wow...Really? lol

i'm gonna interject here that although I am Pro-choice... I do not like abortion


however... when the option to abort is gone completely, girls who want to abort their babies will still try, will hurt themselfs, will not succeed in killing the baby but will still screw them up for life.

and in cases of rape and stuff like that, then the mother shouldn't have to carry the child they didn't want.


now, in the case of "I have so much sex and and now i'm pregnant, OOPS!" I do not believe those ditsy idiots should be able to abort.

but sometimes it would be preferable to kill the child than to have it raised in an environment where it would be hated, and turned into an angry bitter person who isn't a help to our already overcrowded and overpopulated society.

[quote=KrAzY]but sometimes it would be preferable to kill the child than to have it raised in an environment where it would be hated, and turned into an angry bitter person who isn't a help to our already overcrowded and overpopulated society.[/quote]

well, I'm just going to throw adoption out there. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there to adopt, right?

adoption still has the problem of putting kids into our already overpopulated society

overpopulation is an issue, a big one at that... in 50 years at this rate things are going to get very uncomfterable in places that didn't start trying to lessen the problem early.


you can't treat symptoms, you have to sometimes treat the disease.




before there was a big war less than every 100 years that helped keep our population in check, there will never be a large scale war like that again after the invention of the Nuke... so we need to start on population control... NOW


abortions wouldn't do much to make a dent in that... but kids being raised badly by families who did not want them is part of the self perpetuating problem of poverty in this country




I do agree with adoptions... It would only become a problem when EVERY mother is forced to have their child and hundreds of thousands of kids per year start getting dumped into the adoption system

Birthrates have been declining and demographics are shifting toward older people (In America). [I think]

KrAzY wrote:i'm gonna interject here that although I am Pro-choice... I do not like abortion


however... when the option to abort is gone completely, girls who want to abort their babies will still try, will hurt themselfs, will not succeed in killing the baby but will still screw them up for life.

and in cases of rape and stuff like that, then the mother shouldn't have to carry the child they didn't want.


now, in the case of "I have so much sex and and now i'm pregnant, OOPS!" I do not believe those ditsy idiots should be able to abort.

but sometimes it would be preferable to kill the child than to have it raised in an environment where it would be hated, and turned into an angry bitter person who isn't a help to our already overcrowded and overpopulated society.

I agree with Krazy here, but im more of a pro-life Person, If its Rape or it will kill the mother, it should be aborted.

This is a touchy situation... im going with pro-life just because its closer to my view.

I believe that the majority of problems with abortion occur due to varying opinions of what a human being is. On one side, a human being is anyone who is born; on the other, the first cell upon conception. Two radically different views with a whole lot of ground to cover in the middle.

I have to agree with Rasq's earlier statement on the matter, that abortion should only be allowed in certain situations.

KrAzY, I'd like to point out that almost all of the dangerous population increase does not come from the United States where 2.5 children is the average. It comes more from the third world countries where mass reproduction was necessary for survival. Now that conditions are improving, we're seeing much larger spikes.

As for myself, I believe that humanity starts immediately after the egg is fertilized. A being with a complete DNA set of its own that grows into an adult human likewise deserves the mark of "human" in my eyes. After all, what makes an unborn child at any stage any different from an unconscious adult? Unless human interjection is involved, the embryo will grow into a child, and that is reason enough for me to see it as a human.

As KrAzY said, those who use the "I have so much sex and and now i'm pregnant, OOPS!" excuse do not deserve abortions and these make up a majority of the cases as it is. There are cases few and far between in which I would see abortion as a viable option and I believe that these should be decided case-by-case. Otherwise, I say it should be outlawed.

Going against the grain, i am pro-choice. I do not believe something that has never been concious can ever truly be alive, as it has yet to actually live, it merely has potential to live. If destroying something with the potential to live is murder/death, don't girls commit it every month (menstruation) and guys every time they jack off (alongside the kitten)? Of course not!

Maeve wrote:CivBase...Really? Wow...Really? lol

Have you ever read the satire regarding the potato famine and children? The name escapes me at the moment.

Pro-choice. Do I fully agree with abortion? No. Should my view affect the woman's choice? No. they have a right to choose, and they shouldn't be told they can't do what they want.

KrAzY wrote:polls generally work best when you can't choose every answer


I am Pro-choice... I do not believe that a fetus is a human until long after the legal abortion point



a fetus is a potential human, but it isn't a conscious being until months after it is illegal to abort them

I agree, if the aim was to preserve human potential, why would they keep fetuses of retarded babies alive? Knowing that they will have virtually no human potential because of their mental physical predispositions. This is not my argument against pro-life, I am merely pointing out the discrepancies in rationalizing pro-life. You can see the reasoning behind profile is counter intuitive when put in context of our society. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of fetuses known to have Downs Syndrome are indeed aborted.

A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated.[34] Data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register in the United Kingdom indicates that from 1989 to 2006 the proportion of women choosing to terminate a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome has remained constant at around 92%.[35][36] Some physicians and ethicists are concerned about the ethical ramifications of this.[37] Conservative commentator George Will called it "eugenics by abortion".

Eugenics by abortion...

Sorry Guvnah', but you have failed to take into consideration, the context of the environmental setting that would otherwise terminate these biologically predisposed people, and apply it to modern society, where no such refining elements exist to terminate said individuals. As harsh as it sounds, it is a reality people think never existed in our world, but did not 500 years ago, and in some areas, is still prevelent.

It sounds like this guy thinks everyone that is against pro-life are creating some kind of "super-race" of non-retarded people... How stupid can people get to think something like this. I personally think it is inhumane to allow someone to live that is not able to experience life to the fullest because of factors out of their power, and inhibitors they can never overcome.



If it is a religious matter, then it is a religious matter and should not be applied to our scientific ethical standards. Does that mean contraceptives should also be illegalized? after all, when used, they rob the world from human potential right? In fact, us, not, reproducing at optimal capacity now is robbing the world of 'human potential'.

What the hell is 'human potential' anyway? The capacity for someone to do work!? Knowing how many people end up being a drag on society, wouldn't the concept of human potential be better served if we eliminated all people in our society with no practical application? Soylent Green anyone?

No but seriously, human potential is such a borked concept to build our ethical code of conduct around, because there are no historical examples to substantiate it in the least. The world isn't going to be any better if there are more people in it, and the problems that such a grossly overpopulated world will face will be insurmountable.

It's hard to empathize with people in a situation where they would even consider removing thier own offspring from existence, but you think they wouldnt do it without a good reason right? I mean, knowing some of the really F#@&ed up stuff that happens in the world, you think there would be somewhere where not having children grow up in it, will actually be ethically correct. Like, take into consideration the AIDS epidemic in Africa, if a baby is going to be born with a deliberating/crippling disease, in a part of the world where people are butchering each other like animals, then maybe, just maybe, it would be better to remove the potential sufferer from existence before he actually exists, because there is no human potentil in these settings, except for the unfourtuante soul to become some, AIDS infected warriorlord.

This example does illustrate the extremes to clarify my point, but I think that if there are some loopholes in the reasoning that would circumvent this whole ethical dilemma, then it probably isn't as impervious to human interpretation and situational context as you would think. Rape and pregnancies that would kill the mother are also examples of how the rationalization of pro-life is highly subject to interpretation.

adoption still has the problem of putting kids into our already overpopulated society

Yeah, there is some unhealthy obsession with filling the world with as many people as possible without taking into consideration what will happen to our environment and livelihood. Look what is happening in India now... How are they going to feed, educate, and employ such a massively overpopulated nation? Overpopulation is going to destroy our livelihood because people are not biologically wired to be crammed into existence.

Honestly, I'd like to see the need for abortion reduced, via education and awareness raising.

Yeah, that's true. A better society would also reduce the need for abortion.

now, in the case of "I have so much sex and and now i'm pregnant, OOPS!" I do not believe those ditsy idiots should be able to abort.

Well, I think that if that were the case, it is not likely the children would have a very good development stage. I think it should be more about what will happen to the children, instead of the foolishness of the parents.

Maeve wrote: The constituion even protects the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

the constitution actually never says that. none of the documents used in our government say that.


prochoice, obviously. Maybe instead of making people have unwanted children, you can focus on emptying out our orphanages first.

CivBase wrote:

As for myself, I believe that humanity starts immediately after the egg is fertilized.

I disagree. A fertilized egg is certainly, by definition, "human," but there's more to "humanity" than simply belonging to a species.

CivBase wrote: A being with a complete DNA set of its own that grows into an adult human likewise deserves the mark of "human" in my eyes. After all, what makes an unborn child at any stage any different from an unconscious adult?

The fact that it is not a contributing member of society, or that no other human being is in anyway dependent on it... or that, as it stands, no other human being posses any form of affection toward it. An embryo does not have emotions. It does not think for itself, or interact in any way with the outside world. It lives a solitary existence.

Pro-life advocates often claim that those who support abortion do not understand the value of human life. To the contrary, I think I understand it even better. The value of human life is not derived from our genetic composition.

CivBase wrote:Unless human interjection is involved, the embryo will grow into a child, and that is reason enough for me to see it as a human.

... so it is human because it has the potential to one day become human? What about an embryo which is cloned specifically for the purpose of being harvested before developing any human-like traits? It was created for the very purpose of being harvested. It never had any kind of potential to become a child.

Civ wrote:As KrAzY said, those who use the "I have so much sex and and now i'm pregnant, OOPS!" excuse do not deserve abortions and these make up a majority of the cases as it is.

Deserve abortions? What the hell does that mean? Nobody "deserves" an abortion any more than someone else. As long as you're a paying customer, you deserve it just as much as anyone else.

Alright, I really don't wanna get into this discussion, but I"m just going to throw my view out there:

While I am personally opposed to the idea of abortion, I do believe it is a woman's choice as to whether or not to do it.

wait..krazy...whats wrong with having lots of sex and not wanting children?