I am in favor of the right of a woman to choose whether to have an abortion or not. Here are three situations why:
-If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, she should not be forced to cary the fetus to term and raise the child of her rapist.
-Also, some women choose to have abortions if they become pregnant and don't feel like they could support the child or just plain can't support another child or give it a proper upbringing.
-Carying a pregnancy to term is life threatening to some women, they should not be forced to die just because they can't have an abortion.

Outlawing abortions is just a naive decision to make. It disregards any extenuating circumstances where abortion actually makes sense.

If you want a good movie about abortion, watch The Cider House Rules. It's about how people in power make rules without looking at the situation through the eyes of those who must abide by them.

I think you only see it as a weak argument because it is the opposing argument.

I am pro-choice, which is an accurate word because while I would never have an abortion and I don't wish for abortions to happen (hell, I'm adopted, if my birth mother had an adoption I wouldn't even be here) but I beilieve in the woman's right to chose, especially in something as monumental as thie. Your logic is faulty because while no pro-lifer is in favor of a world without choice, no pro-choicer is against life in general, so if you want to look at the terms, but of them are erroneus.

and all of my reasons have been cited earlier, I'll go into them if you wish, but why waste the effort to be redundant?

What I also find funny is like 90% or something like that of pro-lifers are men.

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]We aren't talking about choice in other things. We are talking about choice in abortion. "Pro-choice" has come to mean in favor of legalizing abortion not only in discussions about abortion but in pretty much any other realm of conversation too. When someone says they are pro-choice, you aren't going to think "Oh, they are for people having the choice to own guns." And my examples are as specific as pro-choice and pro-guns are since I already clearly outlined what they would need to be referring to in order to be correct, given the discussion we are talking about.[/quote]

I don't have a problem with "pro-choice" because it's confusing (it's obviously not), I have a problem with "pro-choice because it's dishonest. Just as claiming to be "pro-life" suggests that your opponents are "anti-life" or "pro-death," claiming to be "pro-choice" suggests that your opponents are "anti-choice" and that they disagree, not with abortion specifically, but with the idea that people should be able to choose what to do with their bodies in general.

I see both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as being just shibboleths the opposing sides use to try and cast the debate in a light favorable to their side, and I have no patience for either term.



I know what you mean, and I can definitely understand why someone would be reluctant to describe himself as "pro-abortion," but to me it just seems like a much cleaner way to define the debate.

This is the best pro-abortion argument I've seen so far.

i fail to see the relevance to this thread :[

To original poster: your argument makes no sense. Of course Pro-Choice people want the woman to choose. It's not like they want all women to get abortion all the time. They just think the woman should be able to choice, hense the name "Pro-Choice". Your analogy about stealing really makes no sense at all.

"It's not a straight answer if you side with pro-choice... you never say if you do support abortion, you just say that the woman has the right to choose. "

What do you think supporting abortion entail? That you think abortion should be done to every baby? That makes no sense. Supporting abortion means that if the woman wants an abortion, she should be allowed to get one. It's not lame, unclear or weak at all.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]What I also find funny is like 90% or something like that of pro-lifers are men.[/QUOTE]

....so? It's not a thing about maintaining some control over a woman's actions. It's about determining whether or not the mother has the right to choose to prematurely end the life of her child.

I support abortion, obviously. But since I live in Europe, where most countries have one set of laws each, I'm sort of not used to the whole argument thing you people have usually going on.



Isn't giving birth an action?

What I find funny about pro-choice is the person it most affects... the baby... has no say in the matter.

I know it sounds heartless, but I don't see it as a baby that early on

Same for me.

I know, I'm just saying I think it's funny that women, who have more experience in the matter at hand, really aren't that vocal about being pro-life so to speak, if they are.

How early on are you referring to?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]What I also find funny is like 90% or something like that of pro-lifers are men.[/QUOTE]

Cite or is this personal opinion?

Maybe I wasn't clear on this. I'm more frusturated with the fact that pro-choice entails no real answer to whether a person actually will abort babies if in the position. My official stance is that abortion should be legal only in rape, incest, or the baby possibly injuring the mother or itself. So I guess that's not the full pro-life position. Morally, I don't support abortion mostly for the fact that it can be taken advantage of. I would want to see abortions managed carefully and infrequently. I can definitely imagine the typical relationship taking no careful effort to prevent childbirth. "Honey, shouldn't you use a condom?" "Nah, we'll just get it aborted if worse comes to worse."

I think mostly the disagreement arises over our knowledge of death. Is the baby alive when in the womb? If not, doesn't it still have potential to become a intelligent human being? It does, but if it isn't intelligent in the womb, why not kill it? It won't feel, know, or even exist to die... but why shouldn't it get a chance? Why does the child have to not have a chance at life because the mother made a mistake? Mothers (or potential mothers) shouldn't treat their future newborns like property that can be thrown away. I think humanity is losing it's compassion and becoming too mechanical for it's own good.

Also, I know the "stealing" analogy was weak, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

abortion requires a good deal of money and pain, I don't really see it becoming a hige epidemic of "oh don't worry about it, we'll just abort it"

and to answer how early on - under 3 months

It came up in a debate at school from a guy (conservative) who I trust not to give fallacious facts or sources. I trust it, you may not. It maybe more like 60%, I'm not totally sure. I just know it's a majority.

My point was that the reason guys would be opposed to abortion is not because they feel that they have a right to control how woman act, but the a woman's rights end when her actions would directly threaten the life of her child.

Okay, this debate came up in our Liberty & Law class also. Apparently where I live, about 80% are baby killers, and the other 20% of my class are rapist. I'm one of those, "Hey, I really don't care. I'm not pro-life, I'm not pro-choice, I'm pro you-shutting-the-hell-up so I can get back to work." Basically I can sum up both the good in bad sides of this arguement in one sentance, and however you take it is up to you:

It's the woman's choice if she wishes to end her baby's life or not.

But it's easy for men to be pro-life, they will never have to be faced with that difficult decision.

That would make you pro-choice.

It's the woman's choice if she wishes to slaughter her unborn child or not?

"Never have to be faced with that difficult decision"? You know, guys do have a hand in the whole baby-making process. The child is as much his as it is hers.

Mothers are not fathers.

Perhaps. But think about what would have happened if there was no abortion. That bundle of living cells would have become a person. Who knows what that person would have done? Perhaps they would have become the next President (or Prime Minister) and, through skillful diplomatics, led our world into a new age of peace! I will admit perhaps they would have been a complete loser, but there's always the chance they could father/mother someone who would make a difference. Or maybe they would have become a cancer researcher, and make great strides toward a cure.

Oh wait, they were aborted. Oh well. Tough luck.

On a lightler note...

I bet all the "pro-choice" people aren't REALLY like that. Just ask them if they would have wanted their mothers to get abortions. :p Their true feelings on the matter will surface rather quickly, methinks.

Pump pump squirt...I'd say we have a very easy part in the making of a child.

Simply because a man does not carry the baby does not mean he has no responsibility or care for the child. I should have as much of a say in decisions that affect the life of my child as the mother.

Whelly, if abortion is made illegal, abortions will still be performed. Would you rather have it done by good doctors or by shady ones?

We tend to cover this topic about once every month (ho ho), so I'll provide my usual response in a brief format!


Think of a dead body. The dead body is not alive. Why is it not alive?

Whatever answer you provide, apply this to a fetus. This is how you determine whether the fetus is 'alive' or not.

What rights does the dead body have?


As for 'preveting the fetus from developing intelligence', well.. of course. That's precisely what we're trying to do, whether it's through contraception or abortion. Deeming the 'undeveloped fetus' as worthy of protection but the 'lone sperm cell' as not is merely an arbitrary position - they are both equally non-alive and both 'potentially human'. If you think contraception is somehow 'special' or the beginning of 'life', see above (dead body analogy).



If their mothers genuinely wanted to have an abortion, but was forced to have the child because of federal laws, government regulations being the only reason this person exists, I don't think they would be raised as loved and well-balanced individuals to begin with.

Had the mother aborted, and then had a child when she wanted it and when she was ready for it, it would be an individual that is raised with the love and care that every child should have. Would it be the 'same' individual? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it doesn't really matter.

Oh, and Wolfy, true, except in situations where abortions are performed, the man isn't around. There aren't that many loving couples that have them. Think about it...

[QUOTE=The Mega-ZZTer]Perhaps. But think about what would have happened if there was no abortion. That bundle of living cells would have become a person. Who knows what that person would have done? Perhaps they would have become the next President (or Prime Minister) and, through skillful diplomatics, led our world into a new age of peace! I will admit perhaps they would have been a complete loser, but there's always the chance they could father/mother someone who would make a difference. Or maybe they would have become a cancer researcher, and make great strides toward a cure.

Oh wait, they were aborted. Oh well. Tough luck.

On a lightler note...
[/QUOTE]

Using a "COULD HAVE" argument is kinda weak .. they also COULD BECOME the next hitleresque person, or a mass murderer, etc etc

Yes, abortion would mean the elimination of the POTENTIAL for greatness. However, it also eliminates the POTENTIAL for disaster.

If you make a value judgement on the to-be-baby's life for a positive outcome, and one for a negative outcome, you essentially eliminate the potential, making the net change a -(+L) -(-L) = 0

There are too many factors involved in determing which is MORE likely (that a baby will grow up to be great or horrible), including environment, parenting, and things in the future that are unpredictable and out of our control (IE baby's city gets attacked and has to grow up in a warzone, etclbhalfdsajfe); therefore you can't reasonably say that something indeed is being lost in destroying an uncertain potential.



In many things (especially things like study of history), saying things COULD happen, esp from a retrospective pov, is just kind of silly



By the way, I'm not pro-choice, pro-abortion, or pro-life (though I think I'd probably be pro-choice if I were educated on the subject better)

So, of course, it's okay to visit the sins of the father upon the children.

Please speak English.

That has nothing to do with what he said. He was responding to your comment "A father should have a say" when most fathers aren't even there for the decision anyways. He invalidated your point. Now respond like a human being with a new one.

.. wait, you can understand what he said? Mind translating for me?

He said basically it's okay to terminate the child because the father left. Which has nothing to do with this. Or at least that's what I got from his comment.

I'm anti-reason for a god damn "oops" I was irresponsible button.


Acceptable reasons for an abortion;

Aids
Rape
Birth defect
Contraceptive failure

Unacceptable reasons, and why;

Didn't use a contraceptive, shouldn't be having sex
Forgot to take the pill, shouldn't be having sex
Consented to sex WITHOUT a contraceptive and thought the other person might have one, shouldn't be having sex.
Can't afford a child, shouldn't be having sex/adoption


Wanton disregard for sexual responsibility makes me want to hurl.