Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Pro-life" should be change to "pro-zygote". Once the child is born it's on it's own as far as they are concerned.
I'm pro-life....have you read my positions?
I've pushed for years for universal health care. I support programs to help the poor. I am against the death penalty. Our stupid wars. Free school breakfast and lunches. Day care for working women.
I disagree.
Most people are pro-life including me.
I'm a devout agnostic and I believe the bible is basically a book of fairy tales but I'm against abortion because it's murder. I'd make exceptions for a woman who was dying in childbirth or if the baby was conceived through forced means-rape or incest-but most abortions are done because the couple was too lazy to use protection, so they killed the life they created.
Abortion is the same as taking the life of another human being, it has nothing to do with religion, abstinence, virginity, controlling women, or what the great holy book of fiction demands.
Why would you make any exceptions if you consider it murder, so you condone murder under special circumstances?
The thing is, you can't really ask the bloody little fetus growth if it wants to play the game of life for 80+ years. But the "default" state of the child is non-living. So logic would tell me to stick to that, and to abort it.
I mean if my mom had run it by me first whether I wanted to be born or not, I probably would have just told her to abort me. It would have saved me alot of overall work.
Why would you make any exceptions if you consider it murder, so you condone murder under special circumstances?
I feel the same as that poster and can at least give you my rationale. Yes, we do, as a civilization condone state sanctioned killings - everything from the death penalty to war. However, I believe if we are going to condone the death of another, it should be only under specific circumstances and applicable in pretty extreme cases. Thus, a killing due to self-defense or condemning someone to death for a capital crime or engaging in war to protect our citizens all meet this standard. Killing an unborn child for convenience purposes does not. Killing an unborn child due to the mother's life in danger or forced insemination via rape or incest also meet the standard I set out earlier. In short, state sanctioned deaths should be rare and only in extreme circumstances, something our current abortion laws does not follow.
I feel the same as that poster and can at least give you my rationale. Yes, we do, as a civilization condone state sanctioned killings - everything from the death penalty to war. However, I believe if we are going to condone the death of another, it should be only under specific circumstances and applicable in pretty extreme cases. Thus, a killing due to self-defense or condemning someone to death for a capital crime or engaging in war to protect our citizens all meet this standard. Killing an unborn child for convenience purposes does not. Killing an unborn child due to the mother's life in danger or forced insemination via rape or incest also meet the standard I set out earlier. In short, state sanctioned deaths should be rare and only in extreme circumstances, something our current abortion laws does not follow.
We do, however, condone "pulling the plug" on people in comas. People will often describe such a decision in ways such as "He wouldn't want to live as a vegetable."
That's how I see following Richard Dawkins' advice of aborting fetuses with Down syndrome. If the abortion is done in early enough stages of pregnancy, (signs of Downe syndrome can sometimes be found in the first trimester) I don't see it as much different from just giving the child a replacement body without Down syndrome, assuming the parent has another child later. We could make the same arguments about poverty (and putting the child up for adoption isn't much of an improvement in many cases) and other genetic disorders too.
The type of abortion I definitely think we need to discourage is abortion as regular birth control...but I don't think most people engage in that anyway.
I am beginning to believe the issue at the core of the "Pro-Life" movement is abstinence, not abortion. The hard-core pro-lifers are also against birth control, support abstinence-only sex-ed, and will shame any girl who gets pregnant, even if they keep the baby, because they dared to defy the rules of the fundamentalists and have sex before marriage. They oppose free distribution of things such as condoms to help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Why else would they shame teenagers who get pregnant? They should be supportive of them for keeping the baby but instead they consider them "whores" because they had sex.
That's also why they also support laws making it harder to adopt children and oppose helping those who choose to have their babies. It's not about the children. It's about controlling women. They want to make sure life is as difficult as possible for young women who have sex out of wedlock.
Now I want to say I don't think this is the case for all pro-lifers. There are some pro-life arguments I actually am sympathetic to. However, it seems the most vocal conservative pro-lifers are really about promoting a society where women stay pure until marriage, as the Bible demands.
I am pro-choice because I don't believe that anyone else's pregnancy, family, financial, or medical issues are any business of mine at all. I also do not consider abortion to be "murder."
I am an atheist and secular humanist. As such, I am more concerned with people who are here, alive and breathing and born versus anyone who is unborn. Their lives, emotions, and situations are more important to me than unborn fetuses.
My views on abortion, ironically have morphed from more of a pro-life stance for myself into one of being pro-choice. Initially I was always pro-life for myself/anti-abortion. But I am older now, I've also been pregnant and had issues associated with my pregnancies, and I know for a fact that pregnancy is not easy. It is not without risks to the mother. It takes a huge toll on the family - not even specifically the eventual baby, but the pregnancy itself - it especially can take a huge toll on the pregnant mother both physically and mentally.
I also know quite a few people who have been told during their "big" ultrasound that their unborn child suffered from a debilitating disease or one that was terminal. Due to that, I am not a supporter of any abortion ban and do feel it should always be legal. There are very few "late term abortions" in this country and most of them are done due to the above scenarios. I know two families who aborted after 20 weeks due to the above and 2 other families who were faced with similar situations but who gave birth to babies who either died at birth or immediately after birth. These are very sensitive situations and I don't believe that most people who consider themselves "pro-life" actually consider the families situations who get abortions.
I also do feel that many of the staunch pro-lifers actually are trying to the control the sex lives of women in particular. Most of them also are not "for" social programs that would actually help a single mother take care of an unwanted child. So I think they are hypocrites and refuse to be empathetic to real life, already born mothers and families who may have situations and circumstances where abortion is the right choice for them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.