Poll: “Pro-Choice” - Yes or No?
-
I am not comfortable with either of the polarised options offered, though I will say that I am definitely uneasy with the idea of abortion. But it seems to me that there are a lot of tangential issues being raised here that are not really relevant to the main question. Yes, no doubt many conservatives are hypocritical. Yes, no doubt there is a certain irony in a 'pro-life' stance that nevertheless embraces the death penalty or war. Yes, opposing abortion raises imperatives about caring for young mothers and unwanted children. All of these are valid points, but they seem to me to be deflections from the raw force of the main argument.
The core questions - it seems to me - are these: Is an unborn child a person? Does it have rights? Does it have interests that should be protected? Can it be right to sacrifice its interests in favour of those of another person?
If an unborn child does have such rights, at what point in the pregnancy do they apply? At what point between conception and birth does it have a moral claim upon us? At what point is that moral claim so great that the interests of the mother should be regarded as secondary? And should any behaviour on the part of the mother that potentially endangers the foetus be seen as culpable?
If an unborn child does not have such rights, then does anybody? At what point in a person's life do they stop being a mere organism and become a person? If we can morally kill a foetus, then why not a newborn? Why not a severely brain-damaged child or disabled adult? Why not anyone at all if convenience dictates?
I think these are all profoundly challenging questions, and I don't pretend to have simple answers to any of them. But I think they are real questions, and they deserve to be discussed seriously. I am afraid that abortion has been largely removed from the domain of ethics and placed in the domain of political rhetoric. Which does us all a huge disservice, whichever side of the argument we may find ourselves on.
In my opinion, it's a slippery slope the moment you label the unborn as a person with full rights. What happens when the woman has a miscarriage and no one believes her and charges her with murder? It is known fact at this point that American conservatives have zero respect for science; therefore, it can become very dangerous when science is the explanation for a spontaneous abortion, the medical term for a common miscarriage. If we change laws now, a woman can suffer a miscarriage and she's charged with murder because she can't prove without science that it was an actual miscarriage and not something she did to herself to cause the fetus to die. Are you willing to go down that route when history shows us what happens when we leave the very livelihood of each and every woman at the hands of men? History gives me no hope that if we do outlaw abortions and make them punishable with prison time or even death that men won't use actual accounts of miscarriages to mercilessly punish women. I would say let's just give it a go and try it out for a few years, but I have more respect for women than that and thousands if not millions of women would suffer. No woman should be told what to do with her body and until we get to a point where natural born men can give birth to children, this is not an issue where men should have much of a say. Women have the right to bring a child into this world if they want. They also have a right not to bring one into this world. It's sad that even today we still do not want women to hold any iota of power, not even when it comes to their own bodies.
-
I believe in responsibility. If you want to get an abortion, fine, I'm not going to lose sleep at night over it because it's none of my business. It IS up to the mother to decide, because she will ultimately influence the man anyway based on her instinct and do what she feels is best, however, I also believe that once the child starts brain activity after five weeks, it is a separate entity that she is now responsible for, although sometimes disastrous news occurs after the five week period. When a woman gets an abortion, it is usually because either A) she feels that she is incapable of being responsible for it, or B) the child will be incapable of living the life the mother thinks it should have. If it's both, then her instinct is the ultimate question, but if it's only one of the two, more consideration should be given. Some think the government should really have no say, but it does because A) every circumstance is different, and B) the people can't stop fighting about it or figure it out because our society has lost its way and we continue to ask the elected ones to make the right decisions for us. What we should do is come up with a system of acceptance or rejection based on the circumstances. If she was sleeping with all kinds of dudes and then just decides she doesn't want it, that's not good enough. If she was raped, ok, up to a certain point after finding out. The only solution is in the middle and to compromise with each other, because sometimes it is ok, and sometimes it's not.
-
No woman should be told what to do with her body and until we get to a point where natural born men can give birth to children, this is not an issue where men should have much of a say. Women have the right to bring a child into this world if they want. They also have a right not to bring one into this world. It's sad that even today we still do not want women to hold any iota of power, not even when it comes to their own bodies.
The reality, of course, is that we do live in a society where everybody is told what they can and cannot do with their own body. Leaving aside the problematic idea of 'the body' as separate from but intimate private property of the self, nobody has unrestricted sovereignty over their own flesh. I understand that this issue is made emotional because of the long history of male control over reproduction in Western societies, but it is a nonsense to say that women should have total control over their own bodies even if you deny the claim (made, I assume, by most opponents of abortion) that it is what abortion does to somebody else's body that matters. If we could all agree that there was only one body involved (and one person to whom that body belongs), I suspect abortion would not even be an issue.
I'm also dubious about the idea that men are not entitled to an opinion on abortion because they can't bear children. This seems like a really arbitrary limitation: should infertile women or women past the age of menopause be entitled to an opinion on abortion? Should those who are not of military age have an opinion on foreign policy? Should only the dying (or only doctors) have an opinion on euthanasia? Should only African American men be able to express an opinion on the Black Lives Matter movement? The reality of course is that abortion is an issue that affects all of us to varying degrees, and nobody's opinion is intrinsically better than anyone else's because of the group to which they happen to belong. Rather than trying to shut down the voices of half the population, I'd suggest that it would be better to foster debate which is respectful and compassionate. One can, after all, try to understand the perspective of a prospective mother without thinking that her decisions are necessarily the best or right ones. Unfortunately, the battle-lines are so firmly-drawn at present that it is very difficult to see much space for respect or compassion on either side towards people with whom we disagree.
-
No woman should be told what to do with her body and until we get to a point where natural born men can give birth to children, this is not an issue where men should have much of a say. Women have the right to bring a child into this world if they want. They also have a right not to bring one into this world. It's sad that even today we still do not want women to hold any iota of power, not even when it comes to their own bodies.
The reality, of course, is that we do live in a society where everybody is told what they can and cannot do with their own body. Leaving aside the problematic idea of 'the body' as separate from but intimate private property of the self, nobody has unrestricted sovereignty over their own flesh. I understand that this issue is made emotional because of the long history of male control over reproduction in Western societies, but it is a nonsense to say that women should have total control over their own bodies even if you deny the claim (made, I assume, by most opponents of abortion) that it is what abortion does to somebody else's body that matters. If we could all agree that there was only one body involved (and one person to whom that body belongs), I suspect abortion would not even be an issue.
I'm also dubious about the idea that men are not entitled to an opinion on abortion because they can't bear children. This seems like a really arbitrary limitation: should infertile women or women past the age of menopause be entitled to an opinion on abortion? Should those who are not of military age have an opinion on foreign policy? Should only the dying (or only doctors) have an opinion on euthanasia? Should only African American men be able to express an opinion on the Black Lives Matter movement? The reality of course is that abortion is an issue that affects all of us to varying degrees, and nobody's opinion is intrinsically better than anyone else's because of the group to which they happen to belong. Rather than trying to shut down the voices of half the population, I'd suggest that it would be better to foster debate which is respectful and compassionate. One can, after all, try to understand the perspective of a prospective mother without thinking that her decisions are necessarily the best or right ones. Unfortunately, the battle-lines are so firmly-drawn at present that it is very difficult to see much space for respect or compassion on either side towards people with whom we disagree.
I like what you have to say.
-
I bet the pro abortion people are also against "parental abortion" for men.
-
I'm also dubious about the idea that men are not entitled to an opinion on abortion because they can't bear children. This seems like a really arbitrary limitation: should infertile women or women past the age of menopause be entitled to an opinion on abortion? Should those who are not of military age have an opinion on foreign policy? Should only the dying (or only doctors) have an opinion on euthanasia? Should only African American men be able to express an opinion on the Black Lives Matter movement? The reality of course is that abortion is an issue that affects all of us to varying degrees, and nobody's opinion is intrinsically better than anyone else's because of the group to which they happen to belong. Rather than trying to shut down the voices of half the population, I'd suggest that it would be better to foster debate which is respectful and compassionate. One can, after all, try to understand the perspective of a prospective mother without thinking that her decisions are necessarily the best or right ones. Unfortunately, the battle-lines are so firmly-drawn at present that it is very difficult to see much space for respect or compassion on either side towards people with whom we disagree.
Stop conflating an issue with other issues that are not connected with it in order to confuse things.
The question here is not about opinion- everyone can have an opinion about anything. It's part of the freedom of expression. But that's neither here not there.The point of discussion is who should have the right to decide on aborting an unborn embryo- and the answer, plain and simple, has to be the person DIRECTLY, PHYSICALLY involved- the one who is forced to spend nine months (if ever) to carry it to term- and that is the mother. Men do NOT get that right because their body is not directly involved. Their health will NOT be affected- neither will their ability to work, earn a living, or function normally.
ONLY the woman is physically impacted and that's why it's her right to decide.As to your other comment- obviously the fetus can only be aborted up to a certain stage- after which it will NOT be viable for abortion legally. What is the exact stage? 21 weeks if I'm not mistaken. Here, this is what science says -I did some research: http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/
-
I'm also dubious about the idea that men are not entitled to an opinion on abortion because they can't bear children. This seems like a really arbitrary limitation: should infertile women or women past the age of menopause be entitled to an opinion on abortion? Should those who are not of military age have an opinion on foreign policy? Should only the dying (or only doctors) have an opinion on euthanasia? Should only African American men be able to express an opinion on the Black Lives Matter movement? The reality of course is that abortion is an issue that affects all of us to varying degrees, and nobody's opinion is intrinsically better than anyone else's because of the group to which they happen to belong. Rather than trying to shut down the voices of half the population, I'd suggest that it would be better to foster debate which is respectful and compassionate. One can, after all, try to understand the perspective of a prospective mother without thinking that her decisions are necessarily the best or right ones. Unfortunately, the battle-lines are so firmly-drawn at present that it is very difficult to see much space for respect or compassion on either side towards people with whom we disagree.
Stop conflating an issue with other issues that are not connected with it in order to confuse things.
The question here is not about opinion- everyone can have an opinion about anything. It's part of the freedom of expression. But that's neither here not there.The point of discussion is who should have the right to decide on aborting an unborn embryo- and the answer, plain and simple, has to be the person DIRECTLY, PHYSICALLY involved- the one who is forced to spend nine months (if ever) to carry it to term- and that is the mother. Men do NOT get that right because their body is not directly involved. Their health will NOT be affected- neither will their ability to work, earn a living, or function normally.
ONLY the woman is physically impacted and that's why it's her right to decide.As to your other comment- obviously the fetus can only be aborted up to a certain stage- after which it will NOT be viable for abortion legally. What is the exact stage? 21 weeks if I'm not mistaken. Here, this is what science says -I did some research: http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/
I stopped reading after you said garbage about freedom of expression and that anyone who disagrees with you is just opinion. Sorry, but that aint flyin.
-
I stopped reading after you said garbage about freedom of expression and that anyone who disagrees with you is just opinion. Sorry, but that aint flyin.
Oh, seriously. I said no such thing. Learn how to read mhorndisk. :laugh:
Here is what I said: The question here is not about opinion- everyone can have an opinion about anything.
If you aren't going to read the whole statement, then don't comment because you'll wind up looking like a fool to everyone else who takes the time to read and comment properly. ::) ::) -
It's not an "EMBRYO" after FIVE WEEKS when the BRAIN develops ELECTRICAL CURRENTS. What is your definition of EMBRYO anyway???
-
It's not an "EMBRYO" after FIVE WEEKS when the BRAIN develops ELECTRICAL CURRENTS. What is your definition of EMBRYO anyway???
You can't even GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. The fetus us after the EIGHTH WEEK. Hahaha! Here, I'll give you what you asked. You do your own research next time: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/embryo
embryo [em´bre-o]
a new organism in the earliest stage of development. In humans this is defined as the developing organism from the fourth day after fertilization to the end of the eighth week. After that the unborn baby is usually referred to as the fetus. adj., adj em´bryonal, embryon´ic. -
The brain starts developing after 5 weeks.
-
The point of discussion is who should have the right to decide on aborting an unborn embryo- and the answer, plain and simple, has to be the person DIRECTLY, PHYSICALLY involved- the one who is forced to spend nine months (if ever) to carry it to term- and that is the mother. Men do NOT get that right because their body is not directly involved. Their health will NOT be affected- neither will their ability to work, earn a living, or function normally.
ONLY the woman is physically impacted and that's why it's her right to decide.I am familiar with this logic. The problem is that it is obviously going to fail to persuade those who do not think that the woman is the only person involved, or the only person who has a stake in what happens to a foetus. Even leaving the foetus itself out of the matter (and I think the claim that the foetus has interests which deserve protection is a powerful one), other people are also affected by a woman's decision to have an abortion: most immediately the father, the two families, and so on, and ultimately everyone who belongs to a 'moral community' that is responsible for the care and welfare of unborn children. I am personally averse to the rather individualistic view that sees pregnancy as simply one person's problem. I rather think that unborn children belong to their communities as much as anyone else does, and their fate is not to be left in the hands of one person (whose choices, in turn, are not to be borne alone).
I do take your point that carrying a child is a uniquely physical imposition upon a woman, and it is one that has implications on her life for at least forty weeks, and maybe much longer. So requiring that woman to carry her child to term is certainly no small imposition and not to be required lightly. The physical and emotional demands childbirth makes on the mother must be a very serious consideration in any discussion about the morality of abortion. But I do not think this means that the woman concerned is therefore the only person who has a stake in the future of the child, and the only person whose decisions about the child should matter.
-
for having this kind of old 20th century discussion, does it mean abortion is still illegal in your country or what??…
-
The brain starts developing after 5 weeks.
While that is true, about 50% of people's brains never fully develop. Those people are called "Liberals".
-
There is a never ending debate about abortion.
One problem with that debate is defining the parameters of abortion.Some people consider any type of birth control to be a mortal sin, against god's will.
Some people are OK with contraception, but are against "day AFTER pills"
Some people are OK with abortion up until a certain time after conception.
But then there is Hillary Clinton, who ENTHUSIASTICALLY and vigorously fights for
tax-payer subsidized, guilt-free, on demand abortions.. up until the very day of DELIVERY!
Hillary supports partial birth abortions, in which the arms and legs and body are removed
from the mother.. but the head is INTENTIONALLY left inside. Then they reach in with very
long scissors, penetrate the base of the neck, and snip the brain stem - killing the baby, then
removing the head. If they removed the head from the mother before killing the baby, it
would be considered murder, and forbidden. Anybody who supports what Hillary does, is
a monster. It is not possible that most of the people that voted for Hillary are aware of
what she supports - even though she confirmed her position on abortion in the 3rd and
final debate.
I bet there is not one person in this forum who would support partial birth abortions. -
Then they reach in with very long scissors, penetrate the base of the neck, and snip the brain stem - killing the baby, then
removing the head.I'm pro-choice. And I'm fully aware of the fact that abortion is, at its core, murder (thank you for reminding us that). And fellow pro-choice people, no matter how you put it, it's murder. So shush.
-
If they removed the head from the mother before killing the baby, it would be considered murder, and forbidden.
I believe that the reason for using scissors to puncture the child is to suck out its organs (since the fetus' head can't be removed easily, they have to 'deflate' it).
-
The brain starts developing after 5 weeks.
While that is true, about 50% of people's brains never fully develop. Those people are called "Liberals".
Yes, and isn't it something that still even with that brain, "Liberals" seem to be the ones advancing and keeping up with the changing times, moving forward–you know evolving.
"Conservatives" on the other hand–having a "big brain" doesn't mean anything if it's not being used. Although what is pretty amazing are those "Conservatives" who continue to go on in spite of seemingly to be born without any brains at all! >:D
-
I am only for abortion when a woman has been raped, or been the victim of incest, or her life is in danger if she has a child.
I'm not for people using abortion as birth control. If you don't want a child, use birth control that works like having the man use a condom correctly, and having the woman use any number of birth control options there are for women like the pill, nuva ring, implant/injection birth control, etc.
If a woman does wind up pregnant and does not want the child she can always give the child up for adoption. That's what a friend of mine that's gay did with a woman he dated since they had sex as teenagers and neither believe in abortion, and they were not going to get married obviously.
-
I'm also dubious about the idea that men are not entitled to an opinion on abortion because they can't bear children.
Maybe I should clarify because you've obviously derailed into something else. Men can have all the opinion we want. I'm saying no man should be able to FORCE a woman to have a child through legislation or subject her to criminal charges because he's conservative and doesn't believe in science and therefore doesn't believe in spontaneous abortions aka miscarriages. This is actually pretty direct. What evidence do you have that conservatives believe in science enough to the point that they won't subject women to prison sentences or even death for having spontaneous abortions aka miscarriages? It is a known fact that American conservatives are dismissive to science, especially medical and climate science. Me and millions of others are not willing to sacrifice women's lives to find out. It's not even worth taking the risk.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login