Other Pro Life or Pro Choice?

[Catori]

Satanic Nightjar It's never necessary to perform an abortion to save someone's life. A lot of people use this as an exception to say abortion should be allowed, but there is no medical evidence that says an abortion will save a mother's life. It can't be murder telling a woman she can't have an abortion because the abortion doesn't make her any more likely to survive. In the Dublin Doctrin, over 1000 doctors agreed that theraputic abortions are not necessary. For example, many women who have cancer are urged to abort, but there is no evidence that this lowers their cancer risks. Now say they have a baby growing inside of them, and they need chemo to stay alive. If the baby dies as a consequence of the chemo, that's an unfortunate death but couldn't be prevented.

 

[Slav]

There's a difference between living off a machine and living off a woman's womb and her having no right whatsoever to object. To force her to go through 9 months of pregnancy symptoms and all its consequences........... all for a baby she doesn't want. 9 months is 3/4ths of a year. That's not some game of CoD. That's a long time to be suffering. That's a tad different than living off a machine whose sole purpose is to keep you alive and a nurse attendant whose job it is to keep you alive. CHOICE is the keyword here

I don't like abortion, but rights over feels. If she doesn't want to carry, she should have the right to terminate. I advocate for the choice to be there, not for people to do it, just like advocating for the legalization of weed doesn't advocate actually smoking it. It's advocating for the CHOICE to smoke weed if you so choose.

There's no drawback to having it legal. More jobs, better family planning, safer procedures if you choose to terminate. If she really doesn't want the baby and it's illegal, she'll seek illegal means or seek a way to induce a miscarriage. Forcing her to carry against her will is ludicrous to me. If she wants to carry the baby, sure. If not, then terminate.

Moral stances are irrelevant when it comes to human rights.

You're acting as if pregnancy is a disease where people are in immense pain. Now, pregnancy definitely ain't the best feeling in the world but they're definitely not suffering. The main problem I have with abortion is the idea that the child should have to pay for the consequences of the mothers irresponsibility. Nobody is forcing these mothers to carry, if they didn't want a child, they shouldn't of had unprotected sex. Even though I believe that people should have the choice, I think it's absurd that a child should be sentenced to death because of the mothers inability to have protected sex. A big thing a lot of people don't talk about is how we're going to fund these abortion clinics. A lot of people sure as hell don't want their taxes going to it in the U.S specifically. I don't want us spending anymore money til we can balance our budget. That's why we should leave it to the free market and let the free market decide whether these clinics should stay open or not.

 

[Shibe]

I’m personally pro-choice, but a bit of mixed. Especially in cases of rape, incest, risk of death for both the mother and the child, and being too young to carry a child I feel that abortion should at least be an option available to women.

From a more psychological standpoint, a child doesn’t not develop full self-awareness until the age of two, and before that memory is basically non-exist. A fetus may respond to stimuli, but they would not be able to recall or even acknowledge what is occurring during an abortion. Fetuses are also incapable of feeling pain until the third trimester of pregnancy, with most abortions occurring in the first or second. This doesn’t mean that a fetus is a soulless entity or anything like that though, nor can it fully justify abortion.

From my own point of view, would I care if I had been aborted? Probably not, mostly because I wouldn’t be able to remember it and would basically be nonexistent. Not existing isn’t really all that terrifying though.

 

[rae2nerdy]

S Shibe then you're a hundred percent pro-choice. Pro-choice isn't about thinking that abortion should be something people should get just for the lols. It is about promoting better access to women's health, better sex education, and in general the ability for women to make informed choices that suit them.

Pro-Life usually just means the person wants to police women, shame women, or promote the birth of the baby and then kind of leave it to fend for itself. So I like to think of them as purely "Pro-Birth", because so few actually seem to want to advocate for programs that help take care of all those babies they want born. Or have any idea of how to make sure those children are ensured good quality of life other than "idk i guess put 'em up for adoption."

 

[Shibe]

S Shibe then you're a hundred percent pro-choice. Pro-choice isn't about thinking that abortion should be something people should get just for the lols. It is about promoting better access to women's health, better sex education, and in general the ability for women to make informed choices that suit them.

Pro-Life usually just means the person wants to police women, shame women, or promote the birth of the baby and then kind of leave it to fend for itself. So I like to think of them as purely "Pro-Birth", because so few actually seem to want to advocate for programs that help take care of all those babies they want born. Or have any idea of how to make sure those children are ensured good quality of life other than "idk i guess put 'em up for adoption."

I completely agree with you on those points, and I do feel like the children wouldn’t get much from the adoption system. Foster parenting and adopting children are absolutely wonderful things to do, but I also fear that the children would be abused because of it. The area where I’m from is pretty notorious for people fostering children and taking the money the government gives them for the children and using it for other things. Like drugs, alcohol, and things of that sort instead of for the children. Then the kids end up getting horribly abused.

 

[Kylesar1]

Nobody is forcing these mothers to carry

That's literally what illegalizing abortion is doing.

Even though I believe that people should have the choice

Pro-choice isn't about endorsing abortion or encouraging you to get it. It's about ALLOWING THEM THE OPTION regardless of your own personal qualms about it. I don't like abortion either, but that shouldn't mean she shouldn't have the right to have one.



The thing about this entire argument is that you can be both. You can advocate for the right (pro-choice) while advocating alternatives to the action (Pro-life). It's like abstinence and safe sex. You don't have to forego talks of safe sex just because you believe in abstinence. That's what most people do...........most people except pro-lifers.

Pro-choicers don't advocate for abortion to get for shits and giggles. In fact, Lena Dunham got shat on by pro-choice people for talking about how much she wished she could have an abortion "just to know how it feels." You can discourage it without restricting the right to do it. It happens every day with cigarettes and every day with alcohol. You don't have to illegalize it just because you feel people shouldn't do it.

 

[Figuratively]

I myself am Pro-Choice. I don't consider abortion murder when it's done properly, as in first/second term of a pregnancy. For those who are Pro-Life there is an interesting documentary on the matter and the results of laws changing to make it nearly practically impossible to have a legal abortion. Yes, laws have indeed made it so hard to have an abortion that it probably won't be long before illegal abortion clinics return; if they haven't already.

As far as why I am Pro-Choice, because if I personally had to carry to term a child produced out of rape I would most likely harm myself to prevent that outcome if I didn't have access to a legal abortion. Or if say the child hadn't properly formed in the womb and wouldn't even survive if carried to term. There are always going to be those cases where to me an abortion has to be an option. I mean the female body has around a 25% change of self-aborting during a pregnancy when something goes wrong, but there are those times where the body doesn't do this and results in a terminal ill fetus that will not survive outside the womb.

There is also something awful with the extremist Pro-Life system where they misrepresent themselves as an abortion clinic to harass women seeking an abortion with guilt and shame without even listening to their circumstances of how this happened. Contraceptives can fail. If you take birth control with antibiotics you increase the failure risk of the contraceptive, not many women know this fact. Someone could have tampered with a condom or it could have been defective to begin with. Basically, there is always that chance when you have sex that there is a small statistical number that will accidentally get pregnant even though they did their best to use proper contraceptives.

However, these fake abortion clinics instead torture these women; without actual medical personnel most cases I might add and giving medical advice and services. Women come for help and get basically slut shamed. They get offered support, but only until the child is born and then the support is completely cut off from them. It's horrible what these places who claim they want to help do to these desperate women. (There are actually many new stories that cover these places.)

As far as the earlier mention of tax money; I believe you are thinking about that Planned Parenthood thing a while back, even though it was made clear that PP doesn't use and Federal Funds for abortions. The funds were only for women to have access to healthcare and family planning.

As mentioned, Pro-Choicers aren't trying to encourage to use abortions, but we promote to have the choice because there will always be circumstances that are out of a woman's control. Should she suffer for being raped? Nine months of being reminded of that traumatizing moment? Putting a child into a broken adoption system that causes many to go overseas to adopt because it's less red tape and a hassle? Having to explain to every person who sees your pregnant belly that no, they are not happy to be pregnant, that they were raped. Because believe me, when women become pregnant for some reason everyone thinks they are public property, they will approach to touch a pregnant stomach without permission or comment about it.

Every belief and reason is different and to push your ideals onto someone else - to me - is cruel. Women don't take the choice of abortion on a whim and sometimes it's the most heartbreaking choice they might have to make.

 

[NottTheBravest]

Satanic Nightjar It's never necessary to perform an abortion to save someone's life. A lot of people use this as an exception to say abortion should be allowed, but there is no medical evidence that says an abortion will save a mother's life. It can't be murder telling a woman she can't have an abortion because the abortion doesn't make her any more likely to survive. In the Dublin Doctrin, over 1000 doctors agreed that theraputic abortions are not necessary. For example, many women who have cancer are urged to abort, but there is no evidence that this lowers their cancer risks. Now say they have a baby growing inside of them, and they need chemo to stay alive. If the baby dies as a consequence of the chemo, that's an unfortunate death but couldn't be prevented.

Are you kidding me? Do you know how many women die during childbirth and their pregnancy? How many women would have lived long lives if they weren't forced to give birth to a child? Please educate yourself before you say something like that. A quick google search and the first link led me to this: "Pregnancy can affect health problems such as HIV and heart disease. Conditions such as diabetes and anemia can develop or get worse. These issues account for approximately 28 percent of maternal deaths." You can read all about it here Chances of Dying in Pregnancy and Childbirth Around the World That's not even talking about medical issues actually related to the fetus, like an ectopic pregnancy which has a very high chance of killing the mother.
I don't care if you're for or against abortions. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. But please don't spread misinformation. It's dangerous.

 

[Lappi]

I'm not willing to pay for children that are n't adopted or pay for parents who can't afford kids (and it will happen, saying "just don't have kids" doesn't solve the issue. People are horny animals) I stick to my guns and support pro choice. I believe unless you are willing to put foward the funds to support a child 1-18 from the government supporting pro-life is hypocritical.

No amount of "the children" will stop basic facts. We can't control, or limit people in something so primal as sex. Smart people will use a rubber but not everyone is smart. Not to mention I will never ask a women to go through 9 months of practical torture of a human being growing in them. It sucks but a fetus has no memory, and only primal feelings. It practically has no soul in a sense, it has yet to experience anything, and many argue experiences make the soul. It is not a "is" it is "what may be". If every "what may be" was treated so seriously then men should not be allowed to beat off and women need to use EVERY fertile egg.

 

[Slav]

That's literally what illegalizing abortion is doing.


Pro-choice isn't about endorsing abortion or encouraging you to get it. It's about ALLOWING THEM THE OPTION regardless of your own personal qualms about it. I don't like abortion either, but that shouldn't mean she shouldn't have the right to have one.



The thing about this entire argument is that you can be both. You can advocate for the right (pro-choice) while advocating alternatives to the action (Pro-life). It's like abstinence and safe sex. You don't have to forego talks of safe sex just because you believe in abstinence. That's what most people do...........most people except pro-lifers.

Pro-choicers don't advocate for abortion to get for shits and giggles. In fact, Lena Dunham got shat on by pro-choice people for talking about how much she wished she could have an abortion "just to know how it feels." You can discourage it without restricting the right to do it. It happens every day with cigarettes and every day with alcohol. You don't have to illegalize it just because you feel people shouldn't do it.

I am allowing them the option, all I'm saying is that it shouldn't be your first option to go to.

 

[Catori]

Are you kidding me? Do you know how many women die during childbirth and their pregnancy? How many women would have lived long lives if they weren't forced to give birth to a child? Please educate yourself before you say something like that. A quick google search and the first link led me to this: "Pregnancy can affect health problems such as HIV and heart disease. Conditions such as diabetes and anemia can develop or get worse. These issues account for approximately 28 percent of maternal deaths." You can read all about it here Chances of Dying in Pregnancy and Childbirth Around the World That's not even talking about medical issues actually related to the fetus, like an ectopic pregnancy which has a very high chance of killing the mother.
I don't care if you're for or against abortions. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. But please don't spread misinformation. It's dangerous.

Are you saying that the cure to maternal mortality is abortion? I do respect your right to your own opinion, but you didn't respond with anything about abortion. Yes, pregnancy can result in death. Everyone is aware of this; Even in Harry Potter someone dies giving birth. But why is the women's mortality rate so disproportionately high in Africa and other third world areas? Lack of cleanliness and technology. There are near 300,000 deaths every year due to pregnancy complications. Those can't be "treated" by abortion. What they need is cleaner facilities to prevent infections, more technology to make the process easier, and an overall better medical system and way of living to make things safer. Even saying this, abortions make up about 13 percent of maternal mortality rates. It's not safe either way if you're not in sanitary conditions.

About 700 deaths happen by cause of pregnancy in the U.S. Even in the U.S. most maternal deaths can be prevented by means other than abortion. An increase in obesity in America has flatlined maternal mortality rates because it's more dangerous for an obese person to give birth. Go lose some weight rather than taking an innocent life.

Ectopic pregnancy does not count as an abortion, according to many doctors. Most ectopic pregnancies spontaneously end without medical intervention, but in the case they don't, action is taken such as removing affected areas. This is not a deliberate or direct killing of the life inside the woman. You're using the means necessary to save the woman's life, consequently taking the life of the baby.

The abortion procedure is not – ever – necessary to save the life of a mother. There are, however, maternal health risks that require a treatment that cause the unfortunate, indirect, and unintentional death of an unborn child.

Please, I'd love to hear what instances you have that say abortion is the only option when it comes to saving women's lives. It's not. In fact, I'd like to argue that it is dangerous because of the psychological affects it has on women. There's a 34.5 out of 100,000 suicide rate among women who've received abortions versus 6 out of 100,000 among women who have had children.

Please don't justify murder. It's also dangerous.

 

[NottTheBravest]

Are you saying that the cure to maternal mortality is abortion? I do respect your right to your own opinion, but you didn't respond with anything about abortion. Yes, pregnancy can result in death. Everyone is aware of this; Even in Harry Potter someone dies giving birth. But why is the women's mortality rate so disproportionately high in Africa and other third world areas? Lack of cleanliness and technology. There are near 300,000 deaths every year due to pregnancy complications. Those can't be "treated" by abortion. What they need is cleaner facilities to prevent infections, more technology to make the process easier, and an overall better medical system and way of living to make things safer. Even saying this, abortions make up about 13 percent of maternal mortality rates. It's not safe either way if you're not in sanitary conditions.

About 700 deaths happen by cause of pregnancy in the U.S. Even in the U.S. most maternal deaths can be prevented by means other than abortion. An increase in obesity in America has flatlined maternal mortality rates because it's more dangerous for an obese person to give birth. Go lose some weight rather than taking an innocent life.

Ectopic pregnancy does not count as an abortion, according to many doctors. Most ectopic pregnancies spontaneously end without medical intervention, but in the case they don't, action is taken such as removing affected areas. This is not a deliberate or direct killing of the life inside the woman. You're using the means necessary to save the woman's life, consequently taking the life of the baby.

The abortion procedure is not – ever – necessary to save the life of a mother. There are, however, maternal health risks that require a treatment that cause the unfortunate, indirect, and unintentional death of an unborn child.

Please, I'd love to hear what instances you have that say abortion is the only option when it comes to saving women's lives. It's not. In fact, I'd like to argue that it is dangerous because of the psychological affects it has on women. There's a 34.5 out of 100,000 suicide rate among women who've received abortions versus 6 out of 100,000 among women who have had children.

Please don't justify murder. It's also dangerous.

I'm not talking about deaths during childbirth or complications during the pregnancy. Those are sometimes unavoidable, or could be helped with good and clean healthcare. So I'm not going to respond to that, we both agree that healthcare needs to be improved to save both mother and child if there are complications. I am talking about other cases. Let me give you a fairly recent example of a woman who died due to her pregnancy, who could have lived if she had an abortion. She would still be alive if she had had an abortion, but doctors put the unborn child's life in front of hers. And now they're both dead. And yes, that would have been an abortion. You can't be selective and say "You're using the means necessary to save the woman's life, consequently taking the life of the baby" and claim it's different. An abortion is terminating a pregnancy. If a baby dies during pregnancy and doctors need to remove it, it's an abortion. "An abortion that occurs spontaneously is also known as a miscarriage. When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently an "induced miscarriage". " Taken directly from wikipedia. It's still an abortion.
The reason so many women who have an abortion commit suicide is heavily influenced by people who judge them and see them as monsters and murderers and publicly shame them for an incredibly difficult choice they had to make. A woman doesn't choose to end her pregnancy because it's so easy. It's not like going to the mall and returning a tshirt because you don't want it after all. They're already struggling with their choice, and then society tells them they're monsters. Stop demonising women.

 

[Catori]

NottTheBravest Sepsis can't be treated by abortion. It's a very unfortunate case, but the doctors didn't realize she had sepsis until it was very late. They weren't doing their job adequately, as they should have realized it sooner and been able to administer antibiotics. Sepsis can be treated with antibiotics when it's in the early stages. It's not whether abortion should be allowed or not, it's medical negligence. There were thirteen different occasions with which they could have attempted to save her, and they should have realized the infection right from the beginning, but they didn't.
"Explaining the complication Savita found herself in, Dr. Divakar — president-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) for 2013-2014 — told The Hindu on Thursday: “Based on information in the media, in that situation of septicaemia, if the doctors had meddled with the live baby, Savita would have died two days earlier." “Delay or refusal to terminate the pregnancy does not in itself seem to be the cause of death. Even if the law permitted it, it is not as if her life would have been saved because of termination,” she said. “Severe septicaemia with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), a life-threatening bleeding disorder which is a complication of sepsis, major organ damage and loss of the mother’s blood due to severe infection, is the cause of death in Savita’s case. This is what seems to have happened and this is a sequence which cannot be reversed just by terminating the pregnancy.”"

I was about to say how miscarriage is a form of abortion too, but it seems you've got that part. I'm going to listen to the doctors on this one, "WebMd and the Mayo Clinic don’t refer to treatments for ectopic pregnancy as abortion — and neither does Planned Parenthood!" Most people recognize abortion as a deliberate, brutal killing of the baby. Like, you go to the abortion clinic or a doctor and tell them to end your baby's life. I'm talking layman's terms, but if you want to get technical, any circumstance which results in a dead baby is indeed an abortion. So let's not allow fancy titles to get in the way of the fact that deliberately killing is different than indirectly killing as a means to save the mother. "As doctors have already declared, an abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother. Now again, we are talking about direct abortion. At times, a mother may need an emergency C-section. Doctors will try to save the child, too, but sometimes the child is not developed enough to survive outside of the womb—that is the difference from a direct abortion. Abortions not only kill children, but do so through brutal means. The emergency treatment, however, was done not to kill the child, but to save the mother. The loss of life, which does occur, is both unintended and tragic. We try to save the child, though sometimes we cannot."

It's hard to tell that these people killed themselves because society pressured them after their abortion or because they just felt psychologically unwell after their abortion. I'm not demonizing women. I'm not trying to. I apologize to all women everywhere besides myself because I agree with what I have said. A lot of the time, they don't know better. Because it's accepted by so many people nowadays, they don't know it's murder. I don't blame them for not having all the facts before they get an abortion; I blame those administering abortions. People who administer abortions deserve to face consequences for murder. Those people who sell out illegal pills in places where abortion already is illegal, deserve to face consequences. I understand how hard abortion is.. I've never had one, but I can only imagine it must be a terrifying difficult process. That's why the women who have had abortions face so much pain and psychological trauma. Abortions are /not/ good for the baby or the mother.

This is way far from where our original points were, but there are people there to help.. Pregnancy aid centers and etc. Adoption. There are currently more people in the US looking to adopt than kids able to be adopted out.

 

[UnusualYak]

Abortions not only kill children, but do so through brutal means.

Can I get a less biased source on that?

 

[Catori]

Oh. Yeah. I didn't even realize that was what that was. This should show it way different.. But it doesn't mention dismemberment abortions, where the baby is taken out in pieces because it's too big to get out all at once. Oh, and at-home abortions where you take the pill. You just sit there and bleed it out, but you can research all the different types on your own if you want. Anyway you kill someone against their means could be considered brutal. Brutal car crash, brutal gun shots, brutally drown someone. Abortions are not a walk in the park. They're brutal.

 

[Idea]

No amount of "the children" will stop basic facts. We can't control, or limit people in something so primal as sex. Smart people will use a rubber but not everyone is smart. Not to mention I will never ask a women to go through 9 months of practical torture of a human being growing in them. It sucks but a fetus has no memory, and only primal feelings. It practically has no soul in a sense, it has yet to experience anything, and many argue experiences make the soul. It is not a "is" it is "what may be". If every "what may be" was treated so seriously then men should not be allowed to beat off and women need to use EVERY fertile egg.

If someone says you "can not have sex" this isn't to say one expects everyone to not have sex. The option does exist though, excluding the matter of rape (which is a whole discussion of it's own).

However, if you do make the decision to have sex, protected or otherwise, and consequences arise doesn't it logically follow you should have to take responsability for your decision?

"The children" isn't an appeal to emotion as you seem to be suggesting it to be either- in fact it's exactly the opposite. This isn't "the woman's body", yes that body is affected but the PERSON inside the body is ultimately the victim in the majority of these cases. Pain is no justification to kill someone.

 

[UnusualYak]

However, if you do make the decision to have sex, protected or otherwise, and consequences arise doesn't it logically follow you should have to take responsability for your decision?

Absolutely, but getting an abortion isn't the same as not taking responsibility. In fact, one could make the argument that getting an abortion is more responsible then choosing to raise a child that you aren't financially, emotionally, or psychologically ready to care for.

 

[Idea]

Absolutely, but getting an abortion isn't the same as not taking responsibility. In fact, one could make the argument that getting an abortion is more responsible then choosing to raise a child that you aren't financially, emotionally, or psychologically ready to care for.

True enough, that could be argued. On the other hand, that seems a lot to me like saying that a rapist ought to take responsibility by married the women they raped. It could technically be called taking responsibility, but it still harms someone who had no say in it.

Which isn't to say raping and just having sex are in any way equivalent, before anyone gets any funny ideas, just trying to present another side to things. The point regarding responsibility is less towards abortion specifically, and more towards the proposed idea that people are somehow not to blame just because there is an instinct to have sex.

Edit: to clarify cause on second glance it may be unclear, the comparison with the marrying rapist is simply one of "taking responsibility for a deed with a bad deed".

 

[AnimeGenork]

While I do believe that every life is sacred and I personally would not want to abort a child that is growing inside me, I have a problem with males thinking they can make laws limiting something that affects a female body. There are no explicit laws limiting something a male might do to his own body, so why on earth would we limit what a female chooses to do with hers? The other important thing to remember is that those who do decide to go through with abortions sometimes have no choice or at least see they have no choice. There is usually intense pressure from both sides, and sometimes, in their minds, it's better to get rid of the cause of the problem rather than attempt to find a more logical solution. Again, I would never personally do this. In fact, I agree with the last sentence of UnusualYak 's last post in that getting an abortion is, in some ways, more responsible than giving the resulting child a life of hell and strife. Considering the child in question is not even alive at the point that is safest to get an abortion, can it even be called life? The only time I get iffy with my opinion to let the woman do whatever she wants since it's not my child why the hell should I care is when it's entering into the second trimester. Because then we get into some pretty rough territory.

In my mind, it's none of my business what other women do with their unborn (key word "unborn") child. I personally wouldn't do this to my child, since I want kids anyway and have no plans on having them sooner than I want to, but why shouldn't I have the choice? It's a privacy thing, so why do half the people who argue this care? So I agree with Roe v. Wade all the way. If I get to choose what I want for breakfast in the morning, then dammit, I think I should choose whether or not to abort a child. (Which, for the millionth time, I wouldn't do anyway.)

 

[UnusualYak]

It could technically be called taking responsibility, but it still harms someone who had no say in it.

As opposed to being raised by people who weren't financially, emotionally, or psychologically ready to care you which has never harmed anyone.

Sarcasm aside, my point is that this issue isn't as black and white as some people like to pretend it is.

 

[Idea]

Sarcasm aside, my point is that this issue isn't as black and white as some people like to pretend it is.

Hence the suggestions of adoption and support (though surely we can at least agree that, with that being the case, people should at least avoid sex until they are ready? Even contraceptives aren't 100% effective, and whether you choose abortion or that life supported by someone who can't deal with it, the baby is still paying for the fact the couple couldn't keep it in their pants).

Don't get me wrong- they are certainly not perfect solutions, and I don't think most people who advocate against abortion think that giving a kid for adoption is going to be a walk in the park per se. Abortion is certainly a pratical solution, and to an extent, even could be called a responsible one. The only problem is that you are still killing a kid.

You're right the issue isn't black and white. No offered solution is ideal, because it'd be naive to expect a perfect solution to any problem: when a hurricane passes, we may be able to rebuild, but in the end of the day a hurricane still passed and still destroyed stuff. Furthermore, with this particular issue, making it illegal doesn't necessarily stop it from happening, which is why I myself said that it is still something I am still pondering about.

Still, yes, it's not black nor white: One side are not heartless homocidal maniacs, committing genocide for their own convenience, the other side are not manipulative fanatics trying to demonize and oppress women. A woman who wants to have an abortion isn't necessarily a bad person, and neither is a doctor who refuses to perform one.

But in the end of the day, the issue may not be black or white, but it is whiter or blacker. With maybe the exception of saving a life, killing a human being is always wrong.

 

[catburglar]

I'm not sure if sharing personal experiences is allowed, so just lemme know if I need to edit.

From my understanding, the fundamental difference between somebody who's pro-choice and somebody who's pro-life is their conception of when a life begins; either it begins in the womb, or it begins at conception. Because of this, means to find common grounds are slim.

I can only speak for Canada, though I think it's pretty universal for places where abortion is legal, I think the closest thing to a compromise we have been able to find so far is to put a limit on how many weeks along a woman is in order to be eligible for an abortion. Over a certain number, the abortion cannot be given.

I see where people are coming from when they believe abortion equates to murder. Premeditated termination of what the person believes is life + going through with it = murder. From that perspective, it makes sense. Where I have an issue with this is when conserving this idea of life in the present is more important than the current life of the woman, the people potentially involved in this, and the foreseeable future of this supposed life. Abortion isn't some walk in the park, it isn't fun. Most - I'd even argue the majority of women - do not feel good about getting an abortion. That being said, I do not think it is a superior ethical choice to force the woman to go through nine months of pregnancy, only to give the newborn up for adoption.

A woman's body is permanently altered in the process, and the psychological repercussions of giving up a full-fledged newborn can be far more devastating than getting an abortion. No, not because she's had a change of heart, but because she has to fight the involuntary surge of hormones and biological instincts that are hard-wired in her brain. Some might argue that these biological instincts are proof that abortion is wrong. I would argue and say that we are more than our biological instincts, and have evolved past our need to survive, and our society today does not necessarily encourage our instincts to follow its biological clock.

Abortions will happen regardless. The only question remains whether institutions are in place to offer safe procedures. Obviously, there needs to be healthier sex education, more awareness on the risks that come with having sex, and the whole nine yards. Even if this were to happen, unwanted pregnancies will continue to happen for various reasons that would be redundant to get into.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but deciding to have an abortion wasn't a choice I was ecstatic about. There weren't loads of women lining up at the clinic, either. No one was smiling or laughing, the place and staff were curt and professional. The process lasted two hours, but the surgery in itself lasted five minutes. I can't speak for women who find out they're pregnant later on, I was lucky to catch it at the earliest stage (five weeks), but it's been over a year and it's still not something I feel great about. Do I regret my decision? No. Am I glad I was given the choice? Yes. That's the thing, women who want their babies will have their babies, women who do not want babies will not actively try to get pregnant majority of the time. And the women who do become pregnant and do not believe in abortion will do what they feel is right. Everybody acknowledges it isn't a black or white scenario, not every woman who doesn't want what's growing in their womb will want an abortion. Even the women who choose adoption are often shamed for not keeping the baby. And if the baby is kept, and isn't provided a suitable home, then the mother or parents are shamed for having had the kid, or the kid realises that the mother or parents never wanted the kid and that creates a whole host of other dark issues

You see what I'm saying? In any scenario, nobody wins because there will always be somebody there to stand on their high horse.

 

[UnusualYak]

even contraceptives aren't 100% effective, and whether you choose abortion or that life supported by someone who can't deal with it, the baby is still paying for the fact the couple couldn't keep it in their pants

I disagree. The "baby" doesn't pay for anything in the case of an abortion because it isn't alive yet. It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't suffer. Hence, it's not a killing.

 

[Idea]

I disagree. The "baby" doesn't pay for anything in the case of an abortion because it isn't alive yet. It doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it doesn't suffer. Hence, it's not a killing.

I disagree there as well, though at that point we'd be getting too deep into other kinds of beliefs for properly being able to argue, so I'll stop here.

 

[rae2nerdy]

I completely agree with you on those points, and I do feel like the children wouldn’t get much from the adoption system. Foster parenting and adopting children are absolutely wonderful things to do, but I also fear that the children would be abused because of it. The area where I’m from is pretty notorious for people fostering children and taking the money the government gives them for the children and using it for other things. Like drugs, alcohol, and things of that sort instead of for the children. Then the kids end up getting horribly abused.

Yeah my mom was in an abusive family as a kid and ran away at thirteen. She bounced around foster care and even ended up checking herself into a psychiatric hospital when she was I believe around seventeen. She had suicidal thoughts and undiagnosed mental illness.

So yeah adoption/foster care didn’t exactly ensure she had a great life. For that matter her parents were kinda shitty. So like not everyone who is capable of breeding should raise kids. And not everyone who takes kids into their home are doing it for noble reasons.