Pro-choice or pro-life: who’s at fault?
As a pro-choice and well-educated woman, I’m here to put a stop to this argument. The answer is: neither.
I respect the fact that people with pro-life beliefs hold on to their ideologies and morals; no one has the right to insult or demean that. What I don’t respect is the encouragement of unsafe abortions as a result of outlawing it.
The truth is, abortions are just as old as pregnancies. Women have been finding ways to terminate their pregnancies since the beginning of time. Of course, I don’t commend these women at all, but I do feel the compulsion to fight for their rights to a safe abortion as opposed to using a dirty clothes hanger. I am Jewish, and the Jewish faith is very specific in the clarification that a baby’s life is not an actual life until the baby’s head leaves the womb. Until then, it is only “potential life,” voiding the idea of murder. Judaism also says that abortion is acceptable under the circumstances of danger to the mother. I am not pro-choice because of my Jewish faith, but I do agree with the ideologies.
Also, I’m not pro-abortion by any means; honestly, I would only have an abortion under the circumstances of harm to my body or rape (I’m not including incest because I don’t see that as a remote possibility). Then again, everything is circumstantial. I don’t judge women who have had abortions; everything is based upon perspective, and I don’t have that said perspective of being pregnant. That is why I fight for the choice to keep abortions safe, legal, and rare. I cannot justify why certain women have abortions, and neither can any other spectator. My hope would be to continue the practice of safe abortions so women desperate enough can move on with their lives (and when I say safe, I mean as healthy and sanitary as possible).
The most important thing I want to express is the ridiculousness of the prevalence of this issue. Our economy is in a devastating state; now is not the time to worry about reversing the legalization of abortion. If advocates of outlawing abortion put half their efforts into economic rejuvenation, maybe we’d be at a better financial state. There is a definite hierarchy of social and economic issues, and at this junction in America, the economy is what’s most important, not what goes on with a woman’s body and a potential life.
I’m hoping this article will maybe suppress some of the fire, not fuel it.
-alishasmoo
I respect your opinion, but there’s one thing I’m not so sure of. In your article, you say your are pro-choice because you want abortions to stay “safe, legal, and rare.” Rare? Really. That’s why there are 4,000 abortions nation-wide.. everyday. There have been over 40 million abortions since 1970. Under my terms, that’s not very rare.
There has also been a recent push for pro-choice under the Obama administration, and under the current democratic Congress. There have been more laws leaning towards the choice of a woman. What does this mean? That many Christian hospitals will have to close down because they cannot give the woman a “right” to have an abortion. St. Joseph’s hospital is an example of this. How devastating would it be if hundreds of Catholic/Christian hospitals closed all across the country? Not good.
Links:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html
I’m sorry. When I said “rare”, I meant as a result of safe-sex education, another controversial issue that has another time and place.
And I don’t see why hospitals have to completely close down just because of their refusal to perform abortions. There are many clinics that are in existence and can be further reformed to provide access to safe abortions, and these Catholic/Christian hospitals can still perform other procedures.
Also, the second article you posted talks about “pro-abortion lawmakers”. I’m sorry, but these lawmakers are not PRO-abortion. That antagonizes them. They are pro-CHOICE, meaning having that women have the CHOICE to do what they wish with their body.
I chose the wrong article to link then. I was just trying to show the FOCA bill, not their opinion on the bill.
The problem with the hospitals, though, is that they are not allowed to do any other procedures if they do not give women the choice to have an abortion. The bill will force the choice.
From a purely economic standpoint, I can’t say I agree with that, then. Hospitals will do what they want, even though I don’t understand why they wouldn’t perform an abortion under the circumstances of the danger of the mother’s body, rape, or incest.
So all 4,000 abortions a day are because of rape or incest?
And Catholicism in particular believes abortion is incorrect no matter what. No ifs and or buts.
No, I just said a lot is accredited to safe-sex education. And I also said that I can’t justify why women have abortions.
And I’m aware and adamantly disagree; a hospital’s responsibility is to do what is most medically sound. Again, another argument out of place for this venue. This article is not about separation of church and state.
And yet the issue of Pro-choice vs. pro-life is becoming an issue of church vs. state.
It’s incredibly relevant, yes, but abortion is not the only issue concerning church vs. state.
Hmm okay.
To continue this, then, explain your mentioning of “safe-sex education”?
There is a current pending issue of safe sex education vs. abstinence-only education.
Just leave it up to the parents. They can be trusted with taking time to educate their children… right?
Hahaha. Key word: “education”.
Parents can’t participate in education?
Education pertaining to SCHOOLS. That’s where the argument lies. Parents will do what they wish.
Is this really necessary?
I’m just stating how I see this being resolved.
Fetuses have extremely undeveloped nervous systems, brains, hearts, and bones. They cannot think, judge, or be aware of anything. One could hardly consider them a true human, they aren’t capable of sentient thought. Because of this, it’s the mother’s choice of what they want to do with their baby.
So you just called it a baby?
I’m confuzzled.
Fetus didn’t sound good. I could call it a useless hunk of developing flesh, if you’d like.
Ouch. That’s a pathetic use of words.
So it’s not a life we’re fighting for then. Maybe it’s the POTENTIAL FOR LIFE.
Well first saying, put the issue aside because of the economy is just ridiculous. Debate and policy over abortion does not affect the economy nor make politicians distracted from the economy.
Secondly the moment the zygote begins meiosis it is a homo sapien by definition. Yes killing a fetus is not killing a baby, anymore than killing a child is killing an adult. However, human rights are contingent on a definition of human. If you dont accept the scientific definition, or the Christian definition etc, then you need to provide an alternative.
“Fetuses have extremely undeveloped nervous systems, brains, hearts, and bones. They cannot think, judge, or be aware of anything. One could hardly consider them a true human, they aren’t capable of sentient thought.”
This doesn’t provide much either since true sentient thought does not occur till years after the baby leaves the womb. So this definition leaves infanticide on the table. However, this is the position of bio-ethist Peter Singer who on top of supporting abortion said also defined human as sentient and said that killing a born child cannot ever be considered the same as an adult. I for one think humans are endowed by their creator with certain rights (or if you prefer a human right justification through “pure rational” i dont care either) and that “pro-life” means you actually define human, and protect it rather than make humanity relative and make rights a matter of personal preference.
The top priority at this point in America is the economy, not what a woman should do with her body. If a person votes for a certain candidate, whether it be a representative, senator, governor, or even president, solely voting based on social issues is ridiculous. I’m not saying put the issue completely aside; I’m saying there is, realistically, a hierarchy.
And my alternative is the Jewish definition, which I had fully expressed in my article.
How does that define a human? so C-section babies loose all rights?
I didn’t realize that “alishasmoo” had the authority to put priorities in order!
Well, I’m sure stumped. Oh mighty alishas, where is Border Control placed on the chart? How about Global Warming?
Your position doesn’t give a definition of human. It simply designates a spatial movement.
Plus extraterrestrial attack is obviously top priority.
“As a pro-choice and well-educated woman, I’m here to put a stop to this argument. The answer is: neither.”
Well, that certainly didn’t work.
But seriously human life is more important than a business cycle. At least for most people since they are in fact human(i hope).
Oh, because I have it all mapped out on my little Excel document so conveniently. Yep, that’s EXACTLY what I said. I’m God Almighty.
I’m not saying I have all the answers. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that reversing a law that would give women less control over their bodies isn’t as important RIGHT NOW.
Instead of taking things out of context, maybe you should write an article on issues such as border control and global warming.
Conveniently, you’ve avoided addressing how “being born” defines the human in human rights. If that is a definition then I guess corpses are still human.
Oh. I assumed that since you decided for us that our economy is the most important issue in the world, you had the chart somewhere. My bad.
Clearly, when it comes down to Christians, it’s about the spirit. When it comes down to Atheists, it’s all about little formalities. Definitions that you run to whenever you have a question. So stop acting like you’re taking everyone’s ideas into consideration and realize that your answer may in fact be a little formula-based.
My b. I didn’t see til after I posted.
The way I PERSONALLY consider it, if the woman’s body is in danger, she should have the right to an abortion. Like I said, once the baby’s head has emerged from the womb, that is when it is entitled to human rights. Once the body dies, that’s a whole different argument for another time and place. Again.
I realize that my personal beliefs are not universal in a respect that EVERYONE feels the way I do. They’re composed of all different ideologies, and I can’t change the way people feel.
A woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body, and it should remain that way.
Did I say I was an Atheist? I don’t remember that. Weird.
And ALL of our ideas are based on little formulas. We’ve all been indoctrinated to believe certain things.
I respect Christians and their ideologies and care for potential life, but I personally care more about women’s rights.
Watch, I’m going to use a formality. Watch!
Should a woman have the right to kill herself?
Yes
Another argument for another time and place.
No no no, don’t do that. It’s completely relevant to the topic. Answer.
HOW is it relevant at all.
You say a woman should be able to do what she wants to her body. Do you think she should have the right to put a bullet in her head? Or even better, do you think she should have the right to assisted suicide?
Keep your laws off of my body!
That is a COMPLETELY different issue, which is also incredibly circumstantial. I’m not even bothering.
I very much disagree. I think it isn’t circumstantial at all. I also think our government has the right idea about it now. Which is why them formulas don’t hold true.
Don’t go and say “I define life as..” or “I see a human as..” because, as monotonous and repetitive as it is, there’s always an exception to the “rule.”
Yes, Yes, and Yes
As coincidental as your post may be, THINK, I do find the irony of it appearing under my latest post quite amusing.
Suicide/abortion isn’t circumstantial? Got it. I guess everyone commits suicide and aborts fetuses for the same reasons.
And I completely agree that there can be exceptions, but I’m entitled to my belief as to what constitutes human rights, just like everyone else is.
I was directing that comment towards “You say a woman should be able to do what she wants to her body. Do you think she should have the right to put a bullet in her head? Or even better, do you think she should have the right to assisted suicide?”
I know. That’s why I said the irony that it was placed under there was nothing short of hilarious to me.
Anyway, I feel this has been a successful debate. And, as always in successful debates, neither side has budged from their opinion. Hooray. I’ll tty all tomorrow.
First off suicide ,is mostly irrelevant to the topic.
Next since you want to go full harm principle here you say that women have the “right” to do what they want with their bodies so long as it doesnt affect someone else i assume. For instance you could implant a bomb in your body, or tatoo some grotesque image that everyone who sees you has to see, and im assuming you agree that the government should interfere.
The problem still hinges on whether or not the fetus has rights as well. To say everyone is entititled to their own opinion on what is human is void. It solves nothing, there is no middle or neutral ground. It falls on whos definition is more rational and supported. You have not made any case why human life should be defined at “birth”, however that may occur.Other than simply saying that is your definition.
Also the Jewish faith rests on the Torah I believe in which Jeremiah is a part of.
Before I shaped you in the womb, I knew all about you. Before you saw the light of day, I had holy plans for you…Jeremiah 1:5
But this is just a side note im not saying that this improves my overall argument. Which is that when the zygote begins meiosis it is a homo sapien, granted severely underdeveloped but still a homo sapien. And if we are to grant human rights then that is when it should begin.
Assuming what I believe isn’t very fair.
And I believe I’ve made my beliefs crystal clear several times, and have backed up fully that some of them come from Jewish ideologies.
Obviously, we are at an impasse. There’s no need to further argue.
Beliefs that come from Jewish ideologies? Did you even read his last post?
“Obviously, we are at an impasse. There’s no need to further argue.”
Maybe if all ideologies were equal we would be at an impasse. As it stands you have provided no reason to support your view. Simply deffering to “Jewish Ideology” doesnt make your point strong or worth anything. I wouldn’t have the government making policy based a belief of human stemming from a “Jewish Ideology” that you can’t even explain where the ideas come from or how they make sense.
Did I say the government should base it off of Jewish ideology? Of course not. I was merely stating that my beliefs happen to align with some Jewish ideologies. Those were my personal beliefs.
What’s most important is not every woman would want an abortion, but we are all entitled to a safe and sanitary abortion, because they are inevitable.
The argument over the fetus having specific rights is extraneous because it’s clear that the fetus cannot make its own decisions and cannot thrive outside its mother’s body. I’m not about to get into a biblical argument.
I would like to point out that if abortions were to be illegalized, the number of illegal abortions will sky rocket. In 1972,(the year before the Supreme court legalized abortions) it was estimated that 1,000,000 illegal abortions occurred. Do you know what an illegal abortion is? I think we can all agree on that women sticking hangers/other objects up their uterus to abort their unborn fetuses is unsanitary, disgusting, and often results in the death of the mother. Yet is still happens now, when abortion is still 100% LEGAL. Since all you pro-lifers seem so adamant on the value of a human life, I’m sure you would never want to outlaw something that could potentially cause the death of thousands of woman everyday?
“Death of thousands of woman…”
There are already thousands on babies dying each day! And who’s to say no mother dies during a “legal” abortion?
And it’s not that we want it to be illegal and then that’s it. We want it to be illegal and then educate people how to use protection!
It’s about the fact that our government tolerates organizations specifically for abortions, TheHappyHippy. Who cares what people do under the radar? I don’t want our government to tolerate it– that’s what I’m after.
A lot of people care what people do under the radar.
thatoneguy: “thousands on babies dying each day”…you can’t die if you have never lived(according to my beliefs). And yes, you are correct that women do die of “legal” abortions. I do not commend that or abortions specifically. I am stating that women should have the right to choose. Hypothetically speaking, I am not saying that if I got pregnant I would have an abortion either; I would sure as heck like the right to choose though.
fall92:
I am not commending such organizations. I commend organizations like Planned Parenthood who advocates safe sex to teenagers and options for women once they ARE pregnant.
& okay let’s not care about rape, robbery, or gang activity either, because they’re all done “under the radar”.
“I am not commending such organizations. I commend organizations like Planned Parenthood who advocates safe sex to teenagers and options for women once they ARE pregnant.”
Even with protection pregnancy can happen. Most of the time, these accidents are a burden. Women should be able to have the choice to cancel the mistake. Protection is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. UNWANTED. Meaning if they have this child it would be a unwanted tool for society to pay for.
First off saying that making it illegal will make illegal abortions increase is not an argument it is a fact that has no bearing on the case. I mean if we eliminate all laws then we would never have crime, sounds like a great idea doesn’t it. A crimeless society. The point of making something illegal is to say it is wrong morally and/or bad for society.
Secondly making it against the law does not mean you lose your right to choose. People choose to do drugs and drink under age even though they are illegal, so the “right” to choice is a joke, you always have a choice.
Thirdly “unwanted” or “accidental” pregnancies are a joke(except in the case of rape) nobody believes babies come from storks. They made a choice and its time for them to be responsible and accept that.
Fourthly, no one has yet to offer an alternative coherent definition of human. In which case either we should throw human rights out the window, or abortion is a violation of them, and therefore a violation of the harm principle in which the government can legitimately interfere.
I agree 100%. In fact, most of the reason that I’m against abortion is because of all the stupid kids that run around getting pregnant who have a “way out”, so they think that unprotected pre-marital sex is awesome.
“Thirdly “unwanted” or “accidental” pregnancies are a joke(except in the case of rape) nobody believes babies come from storks. They made a choice and its time for them to be responsible and accept that.”
They made a choice to have the condom break or get heated in the moment?
And because you want somebody’s ideas on human rights, here’s mine: You gain human rights once you can make choices efficiently for yourself and can perceive and judge things. Obviously, the age at which this occurs is debatable, and can depend on the upbringing of a person.
If somebody is very young they should be affected by special laws made or them.
“They made a choice to have the condom break or get heated in the moment?”
Dude, there’s a message on the box that says condoms are only effective 99% of the time. So, yeah. They made a choice.
“And because you want somebody’s ideas on human rights, here’s mine: You gain human rights once you can make choices efficiently for yourself and can perceive and judge things. Obviously, the age at which this occurs is debatable, and can depend on the upbringing of a person.”
The idea of defining when a being becomes human is stupid. I’ll never happen, because (truth be told), it’s an opinion. It’s always opinion. But there are plenty of other facts to support pro-life. For example, pre-marital sex is a choice.
“Secondly making it against the law does not mean you lose your right to choose. People choose to do drugs and drink under age even though they are illegal, so the “right” to choice is a joke, you always have a choice.”
If the choice is made illegal, then abortions aren’t as safe. It’s just like drugs. Since drugs are illegal it’s harder to obtain a safer dose. It’s just raising fatal results.
“They made a choice to have the condom break or get heated in the moment?”
Yes they most certainly did. They weren’t being controlled by an outside force were they. They know condoms can break, its a risk they took and that they have to pay for. Its no different than gambling you dont get your money back because you were in the heat of the moment and bet too much.
So according to your definition of human, infanticide is okay morally, not necessarily according to the gov.?
Well, I guess that’s just their choice, isn’t it?
“If the choice is made illegal, then abortions aren’t as safe. It’s just like drugs. Since drugs are illegal it’s harder to obtain a safer dose. It’s just raising fatal results.”
Killing is illegal too. If it was legal im sure we could concoct a more efficient and safer way of going about killing other human beings. And there are dozens of laws that if were removed would make crime safer and more efficient that does mean they shouldnt be against the law. It means the should be enforced differently.
“So according to your definition of human, infanticide is okay morally, not necessarily according to the gov.?”
Yes. Though a children who has already been born shouldn’t be killed, they are constantly growing, and becoming more and more intelligent. As opposed to fetuses, who are (phillisophically?) not living.
So you agree infanticide is not murder. Then fine at least your coherent in your belief. Although I think if you spent some time around children or had your own you might think differently. I also think you are in the minority for thinking infanticide is morally ok, the very small minority.
However, fetuses are also constantly growing and becoming more intelligent so that makes no sense.
“Well, I guess that’s just their choice, isn’t it?”
Yes, it is their choice. And they should be able to keep that choice. Just as its your choice to not have one. Abortions are made for a reason.
Yeah, I’ve tried changing that about me, trying to be more caring and loving.
“Abortions are made for a reason.”
of course they are, of course the problem is that it is a bad one. And it undermines the human rights of everyone in the country. Murder usually has a reason to, we dont allow them the “choice” to kill freely .
LOL
How is abortion a bad one? Nobodies getting killed.
I think you all just like to disagree with each other.
Yeah, those are called opinions
dur
Well, if none of you have any clever retorts (seeing as you’ve all used up your BRILLIANT ones in the middle of the debate), I’d say we can rest on the conclusion that abortion is a choice made by the parent (not necessarily a smart one), but the country shouldn’t condone such a thing because we need to give people a reason to be careful.
Human rights fit in there somewhere, but all the definitions of “human” are so damn inconsistent that it’s obvious we’re not getting anywhere with that.
I pretty much agree. I don’t think the government should condone abortion, but I don’t think they should outlaw them. Does that makes sense? Seems kind of contradictory… I don’t know– it made sense in my head.
anyways, all of this mumbo jumbo is making me sleepy!
adios
“How is abortion a bad one? Nobodies getting killed.”
amazing how you revert to previous cliche arguments when you lose a point.
So far all you’ve managed to do is say that pro-choice also means pro-infanticide as well as abortion.
Your safe abortion argument failed because that is actually an enforcement issue like it is with drugs etc.
And your “right” to choose was shot down by the fact that you still can choose.
And you’re its not their fault so we should allow them to fix it also did miserably in that it is their fault.
So you can dodge around it all you want, but the “pro-choice” stance really just means you don’t actually believe in rights but rather that morality is simply based on preference. In which case the government shouldn’t really be regulating any behavior.
Or that abortion is okay because they are not sentient in which case you have to accept that that includes children, and people with certain neural disorders.
In that light, I think that pro-life is the better option for the government as well as humanity in general.
who are you talking to?
Think, Fruit, alishasmoo, and pretty much anyone else who has participated.
It was a summary of comments 1-73
worlddominator, you seem to like to shoot down everyone else’s opinions/arguments. What are some of your beliefs?
(you may have previously stated them, but i’m too lazy to look back. plus, that was kind of a rhetorical question anyways because this “debate” is starting to go in cirlces and because I actually have a life other than this website and want to go to bed)
lol, I believe he just beat you.
i’m crushed…
Give it time. It’ll eat at ya.
Maybe you’re right. I’m mostly convinced that I’m wrong and that it could work out. But I still don’t fully agree with making it completely illegal.
I wouldn’t say it should be completely illegal. It would still be an emergency operation. If it came down to the mother or the child than there is a judgement call to be made(by the mother/father family etc.). But other than some extreme scenarios it should be made illegal.