Pro-Choice IS NOT Pro-Abortion

[SnowyMacie]

Pro-choice is not in any way synonymous with pro-abortion. All the pro-choice argument is is that a woman has the right choose what to do with her body, and that right supersedes her unborn child's right to life because of the unborn child is completely dependent on her body for survival. It is not advocating for abortion over birth, if it was, it would be called pro-abortion. I'm not going to deny that there are extremist people, or that part of the more extreme side advocate for removing the stigma and shame surrounding abortion, but that is still not the same thing as believing women should have an abortion over giving birth.

A person can be pro-choice and anti-abortion, and many pro-choice people are including myself. In fact, if you personally believe that a woman should be allowed the option to have an abortion only in very specific circumstances, you are technically pro-choice. According to Gallop, while 46% of Americans would identify as pro-life, only 19% think it should be illegal in all circumstances, the majority opinion being "a few circumstances" at 35%. Unless you are in that 19%, you are pro-choice to some degree.

That's one of the many reasons why I don't like talking about this issue, but I felt the need to make this thread because I am tired of being accused of being pro-abortion because I am pro-choice. The reality is yes I'm pro-choice, but I hate abortion and want it to end, or at least become almost non-existent. Personally, I've yet to see any politician or organization come up with a solution that I can truly get behind and say "yes, that's what we need to do!". The reason why I have ended up calling myself pro-choice for now is that desperate women with no options and their backs against the wall will go to any length necessary to end her pregnancy. The way it looks to get that done right now is what pro-choice side supports and strives for: better sex education, as well as easier, better, and cheaper access to birth control and other women's healthcare services.

 

[tstor]

Pro-choice is not in any way synonymous with pro-abortion. All the pro-choice argument is is that a woman has the right choose what to do with her body, and that right supersedes her unborn child's right to life because of the unborn child is completely dependent on her body for survival. It is not advocating for abortion over birth, if it was, it would be called pro-abortion. I'm not going to deny that there are extremist people, or that part of the more extreme side advocate for removing the stigma and shame surrounding abortion, but that is still not the same thing as believing women should have an abortion over giving birth.

You are right. Rather, "pro-choice" should be called pro-murder. They are synonymous. Whether or not you personally advocate for the murder of unborn children does not really matter. You are comfortable with allowing it to take place without any opposition. It would quite literally be like knowing of the holocaust as a German citizen during WWII and not doing anything to oppose it.

A child that is born is dependent on his/her mother. Should we also allow that child to be killed? Disable children may be dependent on their mother for the entirety of their lives. Should we allow them to be killed? The rights of a person end where another person's rights begin. As a result, abortion is un-Constitutional and murder. Anyone who is complicit with that is just as guilty.

 

[AJTruth]

When does life begin?

Sperm and ovum are "living cells" prior to fertilization. Its at the point of contact between the two. That a life begins.

Contact create's a living soul, at the moment, the two living cells meet. The sperm (seed) dies & a new life begins

This process is known as fertilization (conception).

John 12
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat (or any seed -sperm) fall into the ground & die, "it abideth alone": "but if it die", it bringeth forth much fruit

Though the life doesn't have any form yet. Just, leave it alone and it becomes a person.

The answer is clearly at conception.

Leave the fetus alone and it will live. So, if you disrupt the life cycle. And remove the fetus at anytime. You kill it!

Look! you can abstain and never have to make this decision.

Or use contraceptives and never have to face this decision.

Take responsibility for you actions. Don't get pregnant!

And you'll never have to take a life. Just because you don't want to pay the price for your bad decision.

P.S.
Most Famous Abortion Rights Quote: It's my body so, my right, my choice! May I interject a thought here.

Secondly, a womans right? Hum! Simple math say's 1/2 the babies aborted/murdered are FEMALE!

The baby inside the womb has it's "own separate" DNA. What about this living soul's Right's?

Finaly, there is alway's the adoption option. Just think, what if somebody had aborted you!

More help:
A great war surrounds both the value and beginning of life. The onslaught of unscriptural terminology has not helped in this battle. According to the Bible, a woman who is expecting is "with child" (Genesis 16:11; Matthew 1:18).

Modern terminology (ABORTION) removes this association with terminating of life. And the terminology termination (KILLING) of that life. Is merely labeled abortion (the cancellation of a mission) rather than murder (the ungodly shedding of innocent blood).

A woman who is "with child" has another living soul "with" her. As she progresses she becomes "great with child" (Luke 2:5), until she is "ready to be delivered" (Revelation 12:4; see also 1 Samuel 4:19; Isaiah 26:17).

Luke 2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
(BEING GREAT WITH CHILD. """WITH CHILD"""!)

Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
(THE UNBORN BABE LEAPED WITH JOY IN HER WOMB)

1 Samuel 4:19 His daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, """was with child, near to be delivered""": and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed; for her pains came upon her.
(WAS WITH CHILD NOT YET BORN. """WAS WITH CHILD""")

Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.
("""THE CHILD IN HER WOMB""")

Isaiah 26:17 As """a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery""", is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O LORD.
(BEFORE BIRTH, SCRIPTURE DECLARES, THE WOMAN IS WITH CHILD. """WITH CHILD""")

Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
(HERE THE UNBORN IS CALLED A CHILD. THE DRAGON IS WAITING FOR THE """CHILD""" TO BE BORN)

Science agrees with: Life begins at conception:
The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “conception” as “the formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.”

Likewise, the entry for “life” in the American Heritage Dictionary of Science states that life is “the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.”

Growth – As explained in the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”

Reproduction – Per Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia, zygotes sometimes form identical twins, which is an act of “asexual reproduction.” (Also, in this context, the word “reproduction” is more accurately understood as “reproductive potential” instead of “active reproduction.” For example, three-year-old humans are manifestly alive, but they can’t actively reproduce.)

Metabolism – As detailed in the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”

Response to stimuli – Collins English Dictionary defines a “stimulus” as “any drug, agent, electrical impulse, or other factor able to cause a response in an organism.” Experiments have shown that zygotes are responsive to such factors. For example, a 2005 paper in the journal Human Reproduction Update notes that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”

Finally, the science of embryology has proven that the genetic composition of humans is formed during fertilization, and as the textbook Molecular Biology explains, this genetic material is “the very basis of life itself.”

So, is choosing to abort murder? I SAY, YES! IT IS!

 

[Archivist]

You are right. Rather, "pro-choice" should be called pro-murder. They are synonymous. Whether or not your personally advocate for the murder of unborn children does not really matter. You are comfortable with allowing it to take place without any opposition. It would quite literally be like knowing of the holocaust as a German citizen during WWII and not doing anything to oppose it.

A child that is born is dependent on his/her mother. Should we also allow that child to be killed? Disable children may be dependent on their mother for the entirety of their lives. Should we allow them to be killed? The rights of a person end where another person's rights begin. As a result, abortion is un-Constitutional and murder. Anyone who is complicit with that is just as guilty.

Perhaps you should take the time to check out the definition of the word "murder." Abortion does not meet the definition.

 

[tstor]

Perhaps you should take the time to check out the definition of the word "murder." Abortion does not meet the definition.

Yes, it does. The definition of murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person" (Merriam-Webster). Secular law in the US allows for killing an unborn child, but the Law of God does not. The Laws of God > the laws of man.

 

[SPF]

All the pro-choice argument is is that a woman has the right choose what to do with her body, and that right supersedes her unborn child's right to life because of the unborn child is completely dependent on her body for survival.

I put the important/key part of your definition in bold. Basically, what you're saying is that the morality of abortion is determined not by the value of the life in question, but by the inconvenience it places upon another. And that, is absurd.

The morality of abortion stands or falls with how we understand the nature of the life inside the womb. If the life inside the womb is a human being, then it possesses, in equal measure, inherent moral worth to a human being that currently resides outside a womb. I don't think it is a stretch to suggest that the right to living supersedes the right to the pursuit of happiness.

It is a categorical mistake to associate the morality of abortion as a women's rights issue.

 

[JackRT]

Though the life doesn't have any form yet. Just, leave it alone and it becomes a person.

The answer is clearly at conception.

No it is not clear at all.

It is obvious that both the female egg and the male sperm have a form of life but no one would call either a person. When they unite to form a zygote it certainly is alive. There is a potential person there and a great many people would claim that it actually is a person. Let us grant for a moment that the zygote is a person and let us call that person Mary. I choose a female name since all embryos are female until about the sixth or seventh week.

Now, we all know that a zygote develops into an embryo through the process of cell division. Every now and again the first cell division does not produce a two celled embryo but rather a second zygote --- identical twins. Did Mary suddenly become two persons? Was Mary two persons to begin with? Was Mary even a person to begin with? Let us set those questions aside for the moment and grant that the second zygote is also a person whom we shall call Margaret. It is entirely possible that one or both of these zygotes could divide again to result in triplets, quadruplets, quintuplets etc. The same question applies as to whether one person can became two, three or more persons. When does a person become a person?

These questions might be difficult enough but now it becomes even more complex. Sometimes two eggs are fertilized to form non-identical twins. Once again, let us call them Mary and Margaret. Rarely the two zygotes merge together again to form a two celled embryo. This is called a chimera. Who is this new embryo? Is it Mary or is it Margaret? This new embryo, this chimera, let us call it Mary, develops to term and is born. There is now no question at all that Mary is indeed a person. But here is the odd thing, some of the organs of Mary carry her genes but other organs carry the genes of her twin sister Margaret. So Margaret continues to exist within Mary or perhaps it is Mary within Margaret. Do we have two persons within a single body?

These very serious questions of person-hood arise only if we assume that the soul is infused at conception and that the brand new zygote is fully a person. Is there a more reasonable understanding? I believe there is. Personally I believe that the developing fetus becomes a person only when it is able to survive outside the womb. Sentience occurs at about the same point in the pregnancy very late in the second trimester. For this reason I am against abortion beyond the twentieth week except in very rare extreme circumstances.. Otherwise I believe that abortion should be legal, it should be safe, it should be available and it should be the woman’s informed choice but most important of all --- it should be rare. In conclusion, we should always keep in mind that there is no more powerful abortifacient in the world than poverty.

 

[Archivist]

Yes, it does. The definition of murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person" (Merriam-Webster). Secular law in the US allows for killing an unborn child, but the Law of God does not. The Laws of God > the laws of man.

Since murder is a legal term, a legal dictionary provides a more accurate definition of the term. A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage defines it as "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." Abortion is legal in the United States is legal, so it is not an "unlawful killing." In addition, having an abortion to end a pregnancy does not illustrate actual malice on the part of the pregnant woman.

BTW, historically abortion performed before quickening--about the first trimester--were not felonies at Common Law at the time the US was founded.

 

[tstor]

Since murder is a legal term, a legal dictionary provides a more accurate definition of the term. A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage defines it as "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." Abortion is legal in the United States is legal, so it is not an "unlawful killing." In addition, having an abortion to end a pregnancy does not illustrate actual malice on the part of the pregnant woman.

Again, it is unlawful to God, which is all that matters. The laws of the US do not really matter when it comes to such an issue. Abortion was considered murder for the majority of US history prior to the arbitrary change after Roe v. Wade. Regarding your misuse of the term "malice," I would point you to the following article published in The Yale Law Journal on this very term:

In common speech malice usually means hatred, ill-will, malevolence or animosity existing in the mind of the accused, but in the law of homicide its meaning is much wider. Malice, as the word is used in an indictment for murder, not only includes cases where the homicide proceeds from or is accompanied by a feeling of hatred, ill-will or revenge existing in the mind of the slayer towards the person slain, but also cases of unlawful homicide which don't proceed from and are not accompanied by any such feeling. In the law of homicide, if a man intends unlawfully to kill another or do him some grievous bodily harm, such intention, whether accompanied or not accompanied by a feeling of hatred, ill-will or animosity, constitutes malice. (Howard J. Curtis, "Malice Aforethought, in Definition of Murder," The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 19, No. 8 (Jun., 1910), pp. 640)
​

Full text of "Malice Aforethought, in Definition of Murder"

​

 

[SPF]

Jack, you're funny. That is now about the 4th or 5th time I've seen you copy/paste that "argument". I guess I'll do the same thing and paste my response to it.

Jack, I think that's about the 3rd or 4th time I've seen you make that identical post. Problem is, it doesn't work. I'm glad you acknowledge that human life begins at conception. This, we know as scientific fact. The whole debate over whether abortion is morally permissible or not really does focus on the arbitrary distinction that is created between a human being and a human person.

We know that this distinction between a human being and a human person is subjective. Just look at all the different opinions. You have an opinion, but it's not based on anything objective. You've simply come up with something that makes the most sense to you. Other people disagree with you. Some say first trimester, some say second trimester, some say third trimester, some say viability, some say neuron activity, some say birth (hence partial birth abortions which Clinton supported).

Point is, all these distinctions between a human being and a human person are subjectively created. And this is the key point of importance - The only reason we create a distinction between a human being and a human person is so that we can perform some action to the human non-person that we would otherwise consider immoral. There is no other reason to create the arbitrary distinction.

As for your examples of difficult situations, there is an answer to each one. When we say that "life begins at conception", we are using the term "conception" to mean simply "at its very beginning". For a long time, conception was seen as the ultimate beginning of new human life. But as you've rightly pointed out, sometimes conception (it's very beginning) is different, ie - identical twins.

In the case of identical twins, there was only one human life at conception, but then another human life was formed. In this case, God brought into existence the younger twin by a different method than conception. But it's not a problem. Both their lives as humans had a beginning, and from that beginning they are morally valuable and created in the image of God.

In the case of the Chimera that you describe, such as fraternal twins that end up being one. This is also very simple so long as we hold onto our foundation. The fraternal twins were each unique individuals created in the image of God. Something went wrong. This would happen because there is sin in the world, and things don't always work out perfectly. In your chimera example, we would simply say that one of the humans died, and one of the humans made it. Now, certainly the human that came out was changed and affected by the death of the other, but they still have the same soul they did when they were conceived. Which one made it and which one died? I don't know, and you don't know, but that doesn't affect the principle.

I think the only way to maintain intellectual integrity as a Christian is to be pro-life from conception. We know Biblically that human life is unique amongst all creation and that we alone are created in the image of God, and that all human life is morally valuable. There is no distinction made in Scripture between a human life and a human person. In fact, everything in Scripture, though not 100% specific, would lead one to believe that the life inside a womb is indeed a person, previous discussions of Scripture should highlight that if you followed them.

But even more importantly for me is the scientific position. The distinction between a human person and a human being is a subjective and arbitrary distinction that only exists so that we can perform some action to the non-person human that we would otherwise consider immoral. I have never once heard an argument that shows what I've just said to be wrong. The distinction between a human being and a human person is as unique and subjective as people are unique from each other. The line in the sand between killing a human person and a human being is nothing more than a person's opinion on where they think that line should be. And for me, I would never gamble killing a person over my best guess as to where a fabricated line should be placed.

 

[Archivist]

Again, it is unlawful to God, which is all that matters. The laws of the US do not really matter when it comes to such an issue. Abortion was considered murder for the majority of US history prior to the arbitrary change after Roe v. Wade.

Actually abortion prior to quickening--about the third trimester--was not considered to be murder at the time the nation was founded. And please, please don't tell me that US laws "do not really matter." Do you live here? If so, they matter.

Regarding your misuse of the term "malice," I would point you to the following article published in The Yale Law Journal on this very term:

In common speech malice usually means hatred, ill-will, malevolence or animosity existing in the mind of the accused, but in the law of homicide its meaning is much wider. Malice, as the word is used in an indictment for murder, not only includes cases where the homicide proceeds from or is accompanied by a feeling of hatred, ill-will or revenge existing in the mind of the slayer towards the person slain, but also cases of unlawful homicide which don't proceed from and are not accompanied by any such feeling. In the law of homicide, if a man intends unlawfully to kill another or do him some grievous bodily harm, such intention, whether accompanied or not accompanied by a feeling of hatred, ill-will or animosity, constitutes malice. (Howard J. Curtis, "Malice Aforethought, in Definition of Murder," The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 19, No. 8 (Jun., 1910), pp. 640)
​

Full text of "Malice Aforethought, in Definition of Murder"

I will take Justice Holmes words in The Common Law"--that malice "has been thought to mean criminal intention." There is no criminal intention on the part of a pregnant woman having an abortion.

 

[Humble me Lord]

Count me in the 19%

 

[tstor]

Actually abortion prior to quickening--about the third trimester--was not considered to be murder at the time the nation was founded. And please, please don't tell me that US laws "do not really matter." Do you live here? If so, they matter.

Indeed. Note that this understanding changed after advances in the understanding of pregnancy increased. The understanding was that the child was lifeless prior to him/her actually moving. Once better knowledge came about, opposition to abortion increased.

US laws are to be respected up until they break the two tables of the Decalogue.

I will take Justice Holmes words in The Common Law"--that malice "has been thought to mean criminal intention." There is no criminal intention on the part of a pregnant woman having an abortion.

Tell me, does the woman intend to terminate the pregnancy when she receives an abortion?

 

[SPF]

And please, please don't tell me that US laws "do not really matter." Do you live here? If so, they matter.

Archivist, of course US laws matter. But in terms of defining morality, they have no bearing. As a Christians, I would expect you to acknowledge this. If the law decided that once a year, for a 12 hour period that all forms of crime were to be legal, would that mean during that time period it was actually morally acceptable to murder/rape/steal ? No, it wouldn't. You know this - morality is derived from the character of God, not the laws of man.

So in determining the morality of abortion, we look to Scripture to see what it says about man. Do people possess inherent moral worth? Is the killing of innocent human life permissible? I'm not sure why you're hiding behind the law in an attempt to justify abortion.

 

[Rajni]

When it comes to the question of when life begins, conception isn't the only possible answer. Based on what scripture says about it, it could be said to begin at breath, believe it or not.

Notice the sequence of events involved in creating a person as presented in Genesis 2:7:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
​

(Though the problem I personally have with the above verse is that I can't positively rule out the soul's pre-existence, independent of whatever earth-suit it dons for the purpose of whatever incarnation it's currently assigned to, but that's another thread).​

Then there's Ezekiel 37:9-10, illustrating another breath=life connection:

"Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet..."
​

Then we have Job 34:14-15

"If He should set His heart to it and gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust."
​

What's interesting in the Job passage, though, is that in addition to His breath, His Spirit also contributes to life, though the latter is probably in regards to the spiritual part of life, as opposed to the physical, which would be in breath's jurisdiction.

Anyhoo. Personally, when it came to my womb, I applied the rule used in baseball: "The tie goes to the runner." If conception has taken place, then the baby is safe on base. But that's my womb. I'm not in charge of other people's wombs. Just because my beliefs dictate what I do, doesn't mean they dictate what others do. I may be on a diet, but by golly you go ahead and eat what you want, know what I mean?

The other thing to consider is that being so against abortion that one disregards the damage a pregnancy could (potentially) do to the mother in a particular case doesn't make one pro-life, it simply makes them pro-birth. Totally different things, imo.

And finally, when considering the 'evils' of abortion, one mustn't forget Who it was who permitted that conception to take place, knowing fully well, in advance, that it would end in abortion. If I were an officially anti-abortion Deity, I would be more cautious about where I permitted conception to take place to begin with. ​

 

[-V-]

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.

So, anyone who feels that way, do you support legalizing rape or murder? You should support it, right? As long as YOU personally feel it's wrong to rape and murder, it's good to support people having the free choice to do those things, yes?

But that's my womb.

"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that YOU ARE NOT YOUR OWN? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." - 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.

 

[Rajni]

"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that YOU ARE NOT YOUR OWN? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." - 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.

This does nothing to address my previous point, one which is always avoided in abortion-related threads:

And finally, when considering the 'evils' of abortion, one mustn't forget Who it was who permitted that conception to take place, knowing fully well, in advance, that it would end in abortion. If I were an officially anti-abortion Deity, I would be more cautious about where I permitted conception to take place to begin with.

 

[381465]

The word "pro-choice" was not documented until 1974, a year after the Roe v. Wade decision. Proponents of abortion rights gradually adopted the term "pro-choice," because they didn't want to be characterized by their opponents as "pro-death" or "anti-life." You couldn't very well sell the concept of being against "pro-life".
It was an answer to "pro-life" movement started several years earlier.
Just a softening of words for public acceptance.
As in undocumented vs illegal.

 

[-V-]

This does nothing to address my previous point, one which is always avoided in abortion-related threads:

It addresses it directly. You don't own your womb. God does. Therefore, God has every right to allow a conception to take place there. At no point does that conception end God's ownership of your body and that of the baby.

Once you go down that road of, "it's God's fault for allowing the conception," the ultimate, inevitable conclusion is that you blame God for EVERY action EVERYBODY does. A woman gets raped? It's God's fault for allowing the victim and the rapist to cross paths.

 

[Tetra]

You are right. Rather, "pro-choice" should be called pro-murder. They are synonymous. Whether or not your personally advocate for the murder of unborn children does not really matter. You are comfortable with allowing it to take place without any opposition.

That's the silliest argument ever. lol

By this very logic you could argue God is pro-murder because He doesn't stop it from happening.