A Pro-Choice Consideration

[Dyrwen]

Ok, I've got to get this thought out of my head. So I'll purge it onto your readers.

Why would not everyone be pro-choice? This is a thought I've been having.

To be pro-choice is not to be "Pro-baby killer", "fetus destroying", etc.. ad emotionum. To be pro-choice is to support a choice to either have a child (pro-life, go figure!?) or to remove the child before it is born. It's not about saying all babies must be killed. It's not even stating that it isn't wrong to kill a child before it's been born. I know my own mother is pro-choice (ironic, leave the pun alone) but she doesn't feel abortion is ever exactly right, yet she supports other people's choices to make what choices they want with their lives and even would have had an abortion had she felt it was neccessary.

By supporting a pro-life position in the government, you deny the free-will to do what you want with the body you control and the things that happen to be in it. Without the freedom of choice over what we can do with our bodies in even the most dire of situations, we become merely another totalitarian state. By enforcing your own morality upon government officials or supporting officials that force their own upon the voters, you support dictating what people can or can not do with their own bodies. Not choice. Just pure dictatorship.

Sure, the obvious argument is "It is the child's life to decide whether it wants to live" but that child is 1. Not fully developed, 2. In most cases cannot survive without being attached to the mother, 3. Incapable of living inside the mother without also taking her life in it's hands. If a child exists in the womb, it is endangering that woman's life and her decision on whether or not to support it's birthing. To put it bluntly, that fetus is accidentally and cooperatively holding that woman hostage for her life, and she is happy to let it. Seeing as if it is chosen to be born, she'll have a child to raise, but if it is seen as unneeded in some fashion, it will be capable to destroy it before it brings harm upon the mother.

There are many reasons one may have to have an abortion that we cannot control, i.e. rape, low weight in the mother, too many kids at once, other health reasons, or even sadly, economic reasons. Sure, abstinence works and I practice it myself, but governing how another one chooses to live their live by what you feel is your "right" is denying their "rights" to free choice in how they govern their own body.

Just letting you know right here and now to those that don't know, I'm an atheist and fully support a woman's choice to have a baby or not, but I'm never going to be one to tell her what she can or cannot do with her own body. Gods or doctrines make no matter to me, because supposedly we've been given a right in the US to hold power over own our lives as well as those that threaten them.

 

[Kerpal]

You think too much.

 

[Dyrwen]

I get that everyday. I figure it beats not thinking at all.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Dyrwen

That is exactly the way I feel.

As far as I see Him, God is the Absolute Advocate of Free Agency.

I would never choose to have an abortion for myself (and am also taking all possible precautions to avoid having to make that decision)....

However, I do not believe I have the right to choose for others. I also believe enforcement of pro-life will lead to more problems than most flippant pro-life supporters care to consider: unsanitary underground clinics, more teens taking care of it themselves, the big question: how much pain does a mother have to bear before an unhealthy pregnancy is considered a 'life / major health threat'..... perhaps I am way off base, but those are some problems I see arising.

Thank you, Dyrwen, very well-thought out and well stated.

 

[Dyrwen]

Hm, thank you as well arizona, guess I put this post out well..heh.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

I am also pro-choice.

Just because I won't eat meat doesn't mean I want to remove other people's option of eating meat.

I'd probably become sexually active before marridge. When that opritunity presents itself for me I will make sure the proper precautions are taken to insure I do not get her pregnant. In that unlikely result that I do get her pregnant, I'm not sure what I'd do. If we're too young to support a child effectively I would probably ask her for an abortion or to put the child up for an adoption. If we are secure enough (this includes being the right people for eachother - we would be doing the child no good if we raised it in a broken family) then I would definately have it.

I guess most of it depends on her, afterall.

 

[PrNcSsChRmNg91]

I agree with you Dyrwen! Great post!

 

[Myah]

Personally, I am pro-choice. I don't like abortion, but I believe that the right to choose should not be taken away. I've had two miscarriages, but before I miscarried, I did consider abortion for a short time, but had decided that I would give the child up for adoption.

 

[taedium]

Some pro-life people mainly oppose Roe vs. Wade as a really poor constitutional decision. Unless a constitutional amendment is passed, I don't see how the court can tell the states what to do on this issue.

The reason I oppose abortion (in general rather than just Roe vs. Wade) is that it makes a social rule I like to consider existant hard to implement. If abortion exists, the father has no choice regarding a potential child, and thus since he has no choice he shouldn't be required to take any responsiblity. This would take away child support, and I support the ideals of child support.

 

[Magisterium]

What is interesting to me is how the scientific fact that the fetus growing inside of the mother is completely negated in the discussion. Scientifically speaking, once the genetic material of father and mother are united, there is a living organism which is dependant but separate from the mother's organism. Further more, there is no scientific chance of this "thing" growing inside of the mother to turn out to be anythig else but another human being. Therefore, though this child depends completely on the support of it's mother (which it still does even after birth) it is still legally a "person". (look up the legal definition of "person").

That said, if abortion is such a "rights" issue about what a woman can and can't do with "her body", all laws prohibiting the use of illicit drugs and alcohol must also be abolished. In fact, If a woman can choose to kill a baby inside of the womb, all arguments about drugs and alcohol posing a danger to "other persons" falls moot because abortion by its very definition, necessarily takes the life of another person.

For those who would pose the whole "when life begins" argument, I'll say this:
An unfertilized egg has no observable "behavior" within the reproductive system. However, once fertilized, it performs it's first "act" even before cell division begins. That first act is actually an act of self preservation. The fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus. This implantation will not occur unless the egg has been fertilized. Further more, the uterine walls have no active role in "grabbing" the egg. In fact, most birth control pills have a component (call an abortifacient) which causes the uterine walls to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. This means that once fertilized, the new being's first act of self preservation is thwarted and the organism is excreted in the menstrual cycle. The abortifacient is the reason that the flow of blood during the menstrual cycle of many women on the pill is lighter than without the pill. The "extra" blood is not used by the modified uterine walls to allow implantation.


So in closing, If we really want to say that abortion is just a choice of what to do with one's body, all laws governing what we do with our body have to be repealed. and even then, after all drugs and controlled substances are legal as well as suicide and euthanasia, Abortion STILL must face the problem of the tiny life it snuffs out.

It's not a "choice" it's a LIFE!

People don't get pregnant because they misused a pill or device, people get pregnant because they have SEX!

 

[GraceReborn]

What is interesting to me is how the scientific fact that the fetus growing insode of the mother is completely negated in the discussion. Scientifically speaking, once the genetic material of father and mother are united, there is a living organism which is dependant but separate from the mother's organism. Further more, there is no scientific chance of this "thing" growing inside of the mother to turn out to be anythig else but another human being. Therefore, though this child depends completely on the support of it's mother (which it still does even after birth) it is still legally a "person". (look up the legal definition of "person".

That said, if abortion is such a "rights" issue about what a woman can and can't do with "her body", all laws prohibiting the use of illicit drugs and alcohol must also be abolished. In fact, If a woman can choose to kill a baby inside of the womb, all arguments about drugs and alcohol posing a danger to "other persons" falls moot because abortion by its very definition, necessarily takes the life of another person.

For those who would pose the whole "when life begins" argument, I'll say this:
An unfertilized egg has no observable "behavior" within the reproductive system. However, once fertilized, it performs it's first "act" even before cell division begins. That first act is actually an act of self preservation. The fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uteris. This implantation will not occur unless the egg has been fertilized. Further more, the uterine walls have no active role in "grabbing" the egg. In fact, most birth control pills have a component (call an abortifacient) which causes the uterine walls to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. This means that once fertilized, the new being's first act of self preservation is thwarted and the organism is excreted in the menstral cycle. The abortifacient is the reason that the flow of blood during the menstral cycle of many women on the pill is lighter than without the pill. The "extra" blood is not used by the modified uterine walls to allow implantation.

So in closing, If we really want to say that abortion is just a choice of what to do with one's body, all laws governing what we do with our body have to be repealed. and even then, after all drugs and controlled substances are legal as well as suicide and euthanasia, Abortion STILL must face the problem of the tiny life it snuffs out.

It's not a "choice" it's a LIFE!

People don't get pregnant because they misused a pill or device, people get pregnant because they have SEX!

I couldn't have said it better... and I won't. Good job!

 

[Magisterium]

Additionally...

That nonsense about the baby holding the woman hostage is ridiculous. If the woman did not want the child, she should not have had sex! Babies don't just happen, it's not like catching a cold! Further more, in the case of rape, if the woman does not want the child, she can give it up for adoption! It's no different then say, being hit by a drunk driver. You may have to spend 10 months in physical therapy before you can walk again. Likewise if you are the victim of sexual assault and should be found with child, it's the cross you must bear. It's a tough lesson, but it's necessary for the protection of the most delicate and helpless of human life.

The other "points" about the child's development and dependency only make the irrational nature of abortion more obvious. What's so irrational is that it's still so morally reprehensible and front page news when someone stuffs a newborn into a trash bag and tosses it away. (The newborn is still not fully developed and is still totally dependent) What's even more rediculous is that a woman can "choose" to snuff out the life within her, but in most states can still be prosecuted for "endangering" that life by smoking, drinking, or doing illicit drugs! It makes no sense! We can kill the "child" but don't you dare harm it!

 

[Dyrwen]

People don't get pregnant because they misused a pill or device, people get pregnant because they have SEX!

Never has a more ignorant and accusing statement been said. But I cannot expect you to care, they have sex, but they get pregnant because they misused the pill or device, you twit. People don't always have sex to have a child and for you to ignore that fact makes you appear beyond blind to the reality of the majority of the world.

Additionally...

That nonsense about the baby holding the woman hostage is ridiculous. If the woman did not want the child, she should not have had sex! Babies don't just happen, it's not like catching a cold! Further more, in the case of rape, if the woman does not want the child, she can give it up for adoption! It's no different then say, being hit by a drunk driver. You may have to spend 10 months in physical therapy before you can walk again. Likewise if you are the victim of sexual assault and should be found with child, it's the cross you must bear. It's a tough lesson, but it's necessary for the protection of the most delicate and helpless of human life.

Your enthusiasm is encouraging. Really.

1. See previous, "Don't want a kid, don't have sex." is a statement involving much ignorance to the fact that people have and will always still have sex not just for kids, but for enjoyment.

2. Adoption in the rape catagory relays the possibility that she may be a. Too low of a weight to birth it (including health problems with her) b. Also could be merely incapable of having, lets' say "triplets" by some odd chance that happens. Tough lesson my rear, you're dictating the life of the child must be forced into thise world without regard to the woman's life.

What's even more rediculous is that a woman can "choose" to snuff out the life within her, but in most states can still be prosecuted for "endangering" that life by smoking, drinking, or doing illicit drugs! It makes no sense! We can kill the "child" but don't you dare harm it!

Ahem. It is a "future human". I understand you believe firmly and irrationally that just because it will become a child that it means it should be protected and made to live, but quite frankly, I don't care. You're still dictating her life to be controlled by what you feel is a human life. If the laws were enacted upon a woman, one should still be capable of doing so at over 9 weeks as it has no brain or at least nervous system at that time and be of no threat nor point at letting it continue.

I see you wish to impose your beliefs upon the world around you by pinning them down as what you see fit, but I continue to support a woman's choice to do what she wishes with the soon-to-be-human being inside her as it still is in her body and therefore her responsibility to choose whether she wants to control it or not.

If you want an emotional argument about killing kids, go to someone that cares. They aren't kids. They're fetuses. And so long as any organic being in that womb is dependent on her for survival, it is subject to her whims. "Possession is 9/10ths of the law", I hear.

I remain "Pro-Choice" not "Pro-Dictatorship". Take your pro-life screaming emotional outcries to someone who cares about humanity's creation point. It's the woman's body here in question, the thing developing inside her continues to be under her power and legally capable of destroying. You don't like it, take it up with your congressman. I for one, will continue to fight for women's rights. As far as your ramblings about children being destroyed goes, get a clue, or better yet, see it too. I know you already have, seeing as you're versed enough to reply as you did.

Now if you don't mind, I've got to go support more women's rights to "Destroy" their "babies" because of a raping attack. To force a woman like that to birth a child to a creature that is "linked" to the rapist by blood line is just sick and more often than not going to horribly traumatize the mother as well as the child later on in life.

You throw emotional replies, I'll throw em back, we both think differently, so an obvious set of misunderstandings ought to keep us busy or at least get a quick lock out of it.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

If we're too young to support a child effectively I would probably ask her for an abortion....

Not saying the scenerio will ever present itself when youll have to make this decision, but be very cautious with this option.

I have a girlfriend who got pregnant as a result of a drunken interchange at a party. It had been her first, and it was with one of her closest friends. When she presented to him the result, he immediately said: 'Ok well, youre going to have an abortion, right?' She was shocked, and extremely hurt. She had never considered it, and she was so hurt that that would be his suggestion. She went ahead with the pregnancy, and had a beautiful girl. She allowed he & his family to see her once, after the birth, but due to her bitterness toward his suggestion, he has not seen the girl since, 15 years. He has completely regreted it.

I think this is an extreme case but the ability to create life is a gift more powerful than we can understand before we are given the opportunity.

I believe a woman who values the life of her unborn child, regardless of the terms of its conception, are more common than we may assume. I think it is a beautiful reflection of the nurturing instinct within women, and I know many fathers experience it as well.

I am still pro-choice, however, I do not take the subject lightly in the least.

Anyway... I gues my point it: just be very careful and let her voice the options she is willing to consider before making any suggestions.

 

[Blessed75]

Ok, I've got to get this thought out of my head. So I'll purge it onto your readers.

Why would not everyone be pro-choice? This is a thought I've been having.

To be pro-choice is not to be "Pro-baby killer", "fetus destroying", etc.. ad emotionum. To be pro-choice is to support a choice to either have a child (pro-life, go figure!?) or to remove the child before it is born. It's not about saying all babies must be killed. It's not even stating that it isn't wrong to kill a child before it's been born. I know my own mother is pro-choice (ironic, leave the pun alone) but she doesn't feel abortion is ever exactly right, yet she supports other people's choices to make what choices they want with their lives and even would have had an abortion had she felt it was neccessary.

By supporting a pro-life position in the government, you deny the free-will to do what you want with the body you control and the things that happen to be in it. Without the freedom of choice over what we can do with our bodies in even the most dire of situations, we become merely another totalitarian state. By enforcing your own morality upon government officials or supporting officials that force their own upon the voters, you support dictating what people can or can not do with their own bodies. Not choice. Just pure dictatorship.

Sure, the obvious argument is "It is the child's life to decide whether it wants to live" but that child is 1. Not fully developed, 2. In most cases cannot survive without being attached to the mother, 3. Incapable of living inside the mother without also taking her life in it's hands. If a child exists in the womb, it is endangering that woman's life and her decision on whether or not to support it's birthing. To put it bluntly, that fetus is accidentally and cooperatively holding that woman hostage for her life, and she is happy to let it. Seeing as if it is chosen to be born, she'll have a child to raise, but if it is seen as unneeded in some fashion, it will be capable to destroy it before it brings harm upon the mother.

There are many reasons one may have to have an abortion that we cannot control, i.e. rape, low weight in the mother, too many kids at once, other health reasons, or even sadly, economic reasons. Sure, abstinence works and I practice it myself, but governing how another one chooses to live their live by what you feel is your "right" is denying their "rights" to free choice in how they govern their own body.

Just letting you know right here and now to those that don't know, I'm an atheist and fully support a woman's choice to have a baby or not, but I'm never going to be one to tell her what she can or cannot do with her own body. Gods or doctrines make no matter to me, because supposedly we've been given a right in the US to hold power over own our lives as well as those that threaten them.

Great Post - Just b/c I'm Pro-Choice - DOES NOT MEAN THAT I'M PRO-ABORTION - So glad that someone else understands. Fantastic post!

 

[arizona_sunshine]

A_B_liever

That nonsense about the baby holding the woman hostage is ridiculous. If the woman did not want the child, she should not have had sex!

Hold the train right there. Let us be totally honest about the situation: If a couple (whether they be high school sweethearts, a drunken one night stand, etc.) If A COUPLE does not want a child, THEY, THE TWO OF THEM, BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER, have the option of abstinance. Do NOT pin it on the woman. 'The WOMAN' has gotten the short end of the stick in the Christian world since men discovered they could slander Eve. There is a couple involved, A_B_liever. Not just 'a woman.'

Babies don't just happen, it's not like catching a cold!

Yes, and there has been a man involved in EVERY SINGLE CONCEPTION save one, hasnt there? (from a Christian perspective)


Further more, in the case of rape, if the woman does not want the child, she can give it up for adoption!

Tough call. Very tough call.

It's no different then say, being hit by a drunk driver.


Try telling that to an emotionally scarred rape victim. It is very different. How can you claim to value human life when you compare rape to a car accident? I am floored.

You may have to spend 10 months in physical therapy before you can walk again.

Physical therapy = Carrying a developing human lifeform? Your child? Product of a rape?

Not the same thing. This is a touchy subject, A_B, DO NOT FLIPPANTLY PREACH.


It's a tough lesson, but it's necessary for the protection of the most delicate and helpless of human life.

Who are you to dole out what is an is not someone's 'cross to bear'? Someone's lesson to learn? Personally, I could not abort a child I carried, HOWEVER, I find your attitude toward this topic bitterly pious and offensive.

 

[Fiendishjester]

So...it's a sin to abort the fetus right? Let me ask a question to all of the people here who are pro-life. Does God force people to believe in him? Does God force people to follow rules and then force them into Heaven after death? No. God gives you a choice. God doesn't want Christianity to be forced on people, he wants people to see the light for themselves. One of the things God says in the Bible is that people should not murder others. With that in mind, I ask you why are there so many murders occurring all around the world every single day? It's because God doesn't force these precepts onto the world. The ideas in Christianity that killing, stealing, etc. are bad are guidelines for people who believe in Christianity and Heaven, not facts of the world. This is why people still kill,steal, etc. today. The same applies for abortion. Even if it says abortion is wrong in the Bible, it doesn't mean that this rule should be forced upon every one else. God would like to see people not abort their children, but God does not want to force people to follow Him and let their children live.

By your own Christian logic then, people should be given a choice between the "sin" of aborting the fetus and letting it live. If abortion was banned completely, it would contradict God's wishes. It would take away people's freedom, and their choice.

Thus, for the Christian, being pro-choice is the only logical option. Being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion. It means that people should allow others to make the choice of whether or not they want to abort their children. You, as an individual, can still be anti-abortion, but it is wrong and un-Christian to force others to be anti-abortion as well. This means that the law itself should always be pro-choice, and that abortion should always be legal.

 

[Dyrwen]

If A COUPLE does not want a child, THEY, THE TWO OF THEM, BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER, have the option of abstinance. Do NOT pin it on the woman. 'The WOMAN' has gotten the short end of the stick in the Christian world since men discovered they could slander Eve. There is a couple involved, A_B_liever. Not just 'a woman.'

Just thought I'd say, great point. And wow Jester pinned down a good reply as well. Nice one.

 

[Bulldog]

By your own Christian logic then, people should be given a choice between the "sin" of aborting the fetus and letting it live.

By that logic, why don't we give people a "choice" between the sin of murdering somone or not, a "choice" between between the sin of raping somone or not, the "choice" between the sin of stealing somone's possesstions; etc., etc.,.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

By that logic, why don't we give people a "choice" between the sin of murdering somone or not, a "choice" between between the sin of raping somone or not, the "choice" between the sin of stealing somone's possesstions; etc., etc.,.

People do have the choice. There are consequences, but they do have the choice.