Opinion Thoughts of a Pro-Lifer

[hails]

I like how you are willing to express a differing point of view without attacking anyone. I highly respect those with an open point of view like yours, and it helps me understand why people would make different decisions than I would. So you believe life begins at childbirth?

Personally, whether a fetus is alive or not doesn't matter. In my eyes, a fetus is exponentially different from a human being. A fetus is not a person, whether it is living or not. We kill plenty of living things and are generally okay with it, like cows and chickens and bacteria.
Even if a fetus is a living thing, which you could very well argue that it is, it relies on a host organism to sustain itself. The point at which a fetus can reasonably survive outside of the womb is where I would draw the line for myself. Until then, I don't think any person should be obligated to essentially sacrifice their body and parts of their life for a period of time, whether it be nine months should they choose adoption, or 18+ years should they choose to keep their baby.

Absolutely, I agree with you. Many pro-choicers use the argument of 'what if the woman was raped?' and they try to use it as a broadened term, as if all abortions were rape-based. Actually, only 0.3% abortions are rape-related and the percentage of mothers' lives in danger is even lower. I'm not against birth control, but I do believe that a fetus is a human being in development, and it has a natural right to life that no one has the authority to take away. We don't actually know if the baby is going to have a hard life---it's all based on guesses and what ifs. And this is North America---every person has a chance to rise up from poverty, has a chance to better their lives no matter how many times they get knocked back down.
Life is an invaluable thing---absolutely priceless. And killing a baby all because its inconvenient for you at the moment is nothing short of evil. It's not a random part of your body---it's a separate being with its own heartbeat by 3 weeks old. It's not like an appendix---it's a developing human life.

As for brainwaves---we define death as a loss of heartbeat and brain waves. We define heartbeat and brain waves as life. Fetuses develop both very early in the stages of development---by day 21, it hs a heart that pumps blood and by day forty, brain waves can be detected through an electroencephalogram (EEG). So it's indisputable fact that legal surgical abortions stop a beating heart and already measurable brain waves.

Just my opinion.

Rachael of the Shire
@Sano Sauro

I want to point out some inaccuracies here. 1% of all abortions are rape-related, which is a huge jump from 0.3%. One in every one hundred women seeking an abortion are victims of rape. I honestly suspect this number to be much higher, but women who are raped are often afraid to actually come forward with it, therefor skewing data. That's just a guess, though. 3% of abortions are due to health complications in the mother and another 3% are due to complications with the fetus itself, for a total of 6% of abortions being medically recommended. These are LOW numbers, as in, I was able to find statistics that were even higher than this.
Also, if you think everyone in America has the ability to rise up from poverty, you're very naive. I'm sorry if that offends you, but not everyone has equal opportunity, whether we call ourselves the land of the free or not.

 

[madame moiselle]

Personally, whether a fetus is alive or not doesn't matter. In my eyes, a fetus is exponentially different from a human being. A fetus is not a person, whether it is living or not. We kill plenty of living things and are generally okay with it, like cows and chickens and bacteria.
Even if a fetus is a living thing, which you could very well argue that it is, it relies on a host organism to sustain itself. The point at which a fetus can reasonably survive outside of the womb is where I would draw the line for myself. Until then, I don't think any person should be obligated to essentially sacrifice their body and parts of their life for a period of time, whether it be nine months should they choose adoption, or 18+ years should they choose to keep their baby.



I want to point out some inaccuracies here. 1% of all abortions are rape-related, which is a huge jump from 0.3%. One in every one hundred women seeking an abortion are victims of rape. I honestly suspect this number to be much higher, but women who are raped are often afraid to actually come forward with it, therefor skewing data. That's just a guess, though. 3% of abortions are due to health complications in the mother and another 3% are due to complications with the fetus itself, for a total of 6% of abortions being medically recommended. These are LOW numbers, as in, I was able to find statistics that were even higher than this.
Also, if you think everyone in America has the ability to rise up from poverty, you're very naive. I'm sorry if that offends you, but not everyone has equal opportunity, whether we call ourselves the land of the free or not.

It seems we've received our statistics from completely different places--I'll recheck my sources just to be sure I'm citing the correct data.

Anyway, of course a fetus is not a fully developed person. But mind you, a fetus is not like a cow or a chicken or bacteria---unlike those, a fetus is potential *human* life. Having a baby is indeed sacrifice---it forces us to for once not think of ourselves, but to think of something else other than ourselves. Having a baby of course means responsibility---we have to take responsibility for what is ours---whether we expected it or not. We cannot kill because it inconveniences us. And women do have a choice---the choice to be responsible and cautious with their decisions and take the necessary precautions to avoid having an unwanted pregnancy---such as birth control. I do have a question though: when do you think a fetus becomes a baby? Where do you draw the line?

And I know that America is not perfect. But what I'm saying is, everyone has an opportunity to rise up as long as they are willing to work hard and sacrifice. There are many successful black, Asian and Hispanic people in Hollywood and in politics as well as in many other fields.

And as for race in America, here's a video that explains better than I ever could. (I don't necessarily agree with the views presented but)

Spoiler: Video

 

[hails]

It seems we've received our statistics from completely different places--I'll recheck my sources just to be sure I'm citing the correct data.

Anyway, of course a fetus is not a fully developed person. But mind you, a fetus is not like a cow or a chicken or bacteria---unlike those, a fetus is potential *human* life. Having a baby is indeed sacrifice---it forces us to for once not think of ourselves, but to think of something else other than ourselves. Having a baby of course means responsibility---we have to take responsibility for what is ours---whether we expected it or not. We cannot kill because it inconveniences us. And women do have a choice---the choice to be responsible and cautious with their decisions and take the necessary precautions to avoid having an unwanted pregnancy---such as birth control. I do have a question though: when do you think a fetus becomes a baby? Where do you draw the line?

And I know that America is not perfect. But what I'm saying is, everyone has an opportunity to rise up as long as they are willing to work hard and sacrifice. There are many successful black, Asian and Hispanic people in Hollywood and in politics as well as in many other fields.


And as for race in America, here's a video that explains better than I ever could. (I don't necessarily agree with the views presented but)

Spoiler: Video

My stats are coming from the Guttmacher Institute, which is highly credible in their abortion research.
You say that woman can just use birth control, but are you aware that over 50% of women seeking abortions became pregnant while using some form of reliable contraceptive? That isn't even considering the fact that contraceptives are not accessible for many, especially those in low-income areas. Sure, health clinics give out condoms and planned parenthood can get you free pills, but that's IF you have access to those places. Not everyone does. To add yet another setback, too many school districts are teaching abstinence-only sex education and not arming young people with the information or resources that they need to prevent pregnancy.
A fetus is not a baby, scientifically, until it leaves the womb. That is when we no longer refer to it as a fetus, but as a child. I believe that abortion becomes morally questionable when a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb on its own, should a woman go into labor at that very moment. Otherwise, it requires another person to sustain itself and therefor has no "right to life" at the expense of another.

If someone handcuffed themselves to you and required you nourish and sustain them otherwise they'd die, I doubt you'd just accept that situation for what it was and do exactly that. That is essentially what you are forcing women to do by making it impossible for them to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

I'm not even going to get into the intricacies of the American class system and how absurdly difficult it is to rise up from poverty regardless of how much hard work you're willing to put in. Just because you hear success stories doesn't meant that the other 99% of people attempting to work their way out of the lower class will manage to do so.

 

[Hige]

(In response to above )
Poverty in America still exists -- obviously. It's ludicrosly hard to get out of it, and the fact of reality is some people don't rise out of it. They can't, or they give up. (More than likely they couldn't get out of it regardless if they still tried or not) My mom worked 2 part time jobs (when Obama had the full time must be insured thing going around -- everyone got cut juuuuust under full time) to make ends meet. She'd get up at 6 AM, and come home around 12 AM most days to make ends meet. She never got out of poverty.

If she had a baby at that time? I cannot even imagine how she'd do that.

Speaking more personal, I knew (vaguely knew, we ran on same circles) a man who fell from his cozy job. There was (was is the keyword here) an anti-homeless feeding law, which he broke. When the law got removed, he was charged on resisting arrest. He paid his fine but he lost his job and just couldn't find stable employment, so he broke his back doing craiglist ads or other forms of hard labor to make ends meet. It was gruelling. Couldn't shower a lot, ate ramen and beans all the time, only enjoyment was alcohol and the thought of dying to end his misery.

He gave up. Killed himself. Lost hope in life and was sick and tired of it.

There are those who escape poverty, and those who don't.

 

[Shireling]

I love when I see the poverty argument in favor of abortion. It's not a very convincing one. Being poor, or the child potentially being poor, isn't a very good reason to kill an unborn child. A better argument would be to simply deny the humanity of the unborn without resorting to the poverty argument. The poverty argument seems like backpedaling, and it's like backpedaling off a cliff.

 

[hails]

I love when I see the poverty argument in favor of abortion. It's not a very convincing one. Being poor, or the child potentially being poor, isn't a very good reason to kill an unborn child. A better argument would be to simply deny the humanity of the unborn without resorting to the poverty argument. The poverty argument seems like backpedaling, and it's like backpedaling off a cliff.

I'd like to hear how the poverty argument doesn't tie into abortion, or how it is at all back-pedaling?

 

[Shireling]

I'd like to hear how the poverty argument doesn't tie into abortion, or how it is at all back-pedaling?

Typically I hear the poverty argument once the discussion accepts the following: a) that a fetus is living, which is supremely obvious if we just use the scientific definition of what it is to be alive, b) that such fetuses are human persons in that they possess a unique genetic structure and a certain potentiality of human experience, or at the very least that they are potentially human persons, and c) that the comparison of the fetus to a parasite is dubious at best, and even so not a moral justification for killing it.

You are then left with a much murkier situation which acknowledges that abortion is, at the very least, a potential evil or harm. Naturally then, you must present the scenario such that the abortion is actually framed in such a way that it either prevents or alleviates a harm. The two harms are usually considered a lack of bodily autonomy and the specter of a life of poverty.

This is a much weaker argument than simply standing on the red line of maintaining that a fetus has no more moral worth than an ant; which is a stronger argument logically and rhetorically but seems on it's face, baldly, and intuitively untrue.

 

[hails]

Typically I hear the poverty argument once the discussion accepts the following: a) that a fetus is living, which is supremely obvious if we just use the scientific definition of what it is to be alive, b) that such fetuses are human persons in that they possess a unique genetic structure and a certain potentiality of human experience, or at the very least that they are potentially human persons, and c) that the comparison of the fetus to a parasite is dubious at best, and even so not a moral justification for killing it.

You are then left with a much murkier situation which acknowledges that abortion is, at the very least, a potential evil or harm. Naturally then, you must present the scenario such that the abortion is actually framed in such a way that it either prevents or alleviates a harm. The two harms are usually considered a lack of bodily autonomy and the specter of a life of poverty.

This is a much weaker argument than simply standing on the red line of maintaining that a fetus has no more moral worth than an ant; which is a stronger argument logically and rhetorically but seems on it's face, baldly, and intuitively untrue.

Once again, though, a fetus being alive does not mean anything beyond that. Sure, it could become a human and has the potential for a human experience, but it is not entitled to that at the expense of another.
The "poverty argument" is an extremely valid one. If you do not have the funds and resources to raise a child, you should not have that child. If that means terminating a pregnancy, so be it. If you'd like to define abortion as something evil, then it is, at the very least, a necessary evil.
However, I'd think it extremely judgmental and harsh to call any woman in that situation "evil" for making the impossible decision to end a pregnancy. It isn't like women wake up and just decide they'd like an abortion today.

 

[Shireling]

Once again, though, a fetus being alive does not mean anything beyond that. Sure, it could become a human and has the potential for a human experience, but it is not entitled to that at the expense of another.
The "poverty argument" is an extremely valid one. If you do not have the funds and resources to raise a child, you should not have that child. If that means terminating a pregnancy, so be it. If you'd like to define abortion as something evil, then it is, at the very least, a necessary evil.
However, I'd think it extremely judgmental and harsh to call any woman in that situation "evil" for making the impossible decision to end a pregnancy. It isn't like women wake up and just decide they'd like an abortion today.

I understand that you feel the poverty argument is a valid excuse for this necessary evil, as you say. But this does not make it so. It's an argument that reduces the worth of a life to economics, which is morally dubious at best. But at either rate, you all carry on. I was just making a quip.

 

[hails]

I understand that you feel the poverty argument is a valid excuse for this necessary evil, as you say. But this does not make it so. It's an argument that reduces the worth of a life to economics, which is morally dubious at best. But at either rate, you all carry on. I was just making a quip.

Just a quick note, when attempting to make a point, you could be less condescending. All of our opinions are just feelings here. You feel it's invalid, I feel it's valid. That's just how opinions work. The point of this thread is to debate them, not assert one as truth over the other.

 

[madame moiselle]

My stats are coming from the Guttmacher Institute, which is highly credible in their abortion research.
You say that woman can just use birth control, but are you aware that over 50% of women seeking abortions became pregnant while using some form of reliable contraceptive? That isn't even considering the fact that contraceptives are not accessible for many, especially those in low-income areas. Sure, health clinics give out condoms and planned parenthood can get you free pills, but that's IF you have access to those places. Not everyone does. To add yet another setback, too many school districts are teaching abstinence-only sex education and not arming young people with the information or resources that they need to prevent pregnancy.
A fetus is not a baby, scientifically, until it leaves the womb. That is when we no longer refer to it as a fetus, but as a child. I believe that abortion becomes morally questionable when a fetus is able to survive outside of the womb on its own, should a woman go into labor at that very moment. Otherwise, it requires another person to sustain itself and therefor has no "right to life" at the expense of another.

If someone handcuffed themselves to you and required you nourish and sustain them otherwise they'd die, I doubt you'd just accept that situation for what it was and do exactly that. That is essentially what you are forcing women to do by making it impossible for them to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

I'm not even going to get into the intricacies of the American class system and how absurdly difficult it is to rise up from poverty regardless of how much hard work you're willing to put in. Just because you hear success stories doesn't meant that the other 99% of people attempting to work their way out of the lower class will manage to do so.

Well, women who are sexually active have a 70% chance of getting an unwanted pregnancy if they and their partner do not use the contraceptive properly and consistently. (This statistic is also from the Guttmacher Institute)

The right to obtain and use contraceptives is part of the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the United States Constitution---and as you said, Planned Parenthood sells pills for less, and birth pills as well as doctor visits are covered by many health insurance plans. Condoms can be bought in your average store for about a dollar and 12 cents without prescription. So in terms of access, I'd say it is pretty accessible---even for the low income areas.

And yes, I agree with you there---schools should also prepare kids with the knowledge and resources for future sexually active people as well as sex education.


Biologically speaking, a fetus is a human at the moment of conception. And by the time it becomes an embryo at day twelve up to week six, the American Pregnancy Association determines that "everything present within an adult is present within the embryo."

Now, I know that most pro choices don't disagree with this. And usually, they'd say that the fetus is viable once certain milestones occur within brain development, or they'd say it's the moment of birth, or they'd say it's the earliest time in which the fetus could survive, which is around 20 to 24 weeks, just as you believe.

It all boils down to whether you think human life, adult or fetus, has intrinsic moral value.
If we draw a line at the heartbeat, then what about adults who's only way of being alive is because of a pacemaker that forces their hearts to beat?
If we draw the line at brain function, then what about adults that are in comas? Can we kill them too?

See, if you apply this logic elsewhere, you always end up drawing a false line that can be applied to adults as well.
As for believing that being sentient is only requirement that makes one viable (which means not necessarily being a human) then there shouldn't be anthing wrong with stabbing a catamose or coma-induced person, right?
Wrong.
Why? Because even if reduced to a coma, you are still thought as a potential sentient because we know you might awake from the coma. The same can be applied to a fetus---we know that fetuses, whether some consider it full on human life or not, are still potential human life therefore they cannot be tampered with. If left to its natural processes, it will develop into a fully grown baby.

And yes, if there is such a case that the mother''s life is in danger (like she has some form of cancer while pregnant) then she will he to get chemo, which will inevitably kill the baby, though I am on board with you there---the mother should have the right to the chemo.

 

[hails]

Well, women who are sexually active have a 70% chance of getting an unwanted pregnancy if they and their partner do not use the contraceptive properly and consistently. (This statistic is also from the Guttmacher Institute)

The right to obtain and use contraceptives is part of the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the United States Constitution---and as you said, Planned Parenthood sells pills for less, and birth pills as well as doctor visits are covered by many health insurance plans. Condoms can be bought in your average store for about a dollar and 12 cents without prescription. So in terms of access, I'd say it is pretty accessible---even for the low income areas.

And yes, I agree with you there---schools should also prepare kids with the knowledge and resources for future sexually active people as well as sex education.


Biologically speaking, a fetus is a human at the moment of conception. And by the time it becomes an embryo at day twelve up to week six, the American Pregnancy Association determines that "everything present within an adult is present within the embryo."

Now, I know that most pro choices don't disagree with this. And usually, they'd say that the fetus is viable once certain milestones occur within brain development, or they'd say it's the moment of birth, or they'd say it's the earliest time in which the fetus could survive, which is around 20 to 24 weeks, just as you believe.

It all boils down to whether you think human life, adult or fetus, has intrinsic moral value.
If we draw a line at the heartbeat, then what about adults who's only reason of being alive is because of a pacemaker that forces their hearts to beat?
If we draw the line at brain function, then what about adults that are in comas? Can we kill them too?

See, if you apply this logic elsewhere, you always end up drawing a false line that can be applied to adults as well.
As for believing that being sentient is only requirement that makes one viable (which means not necessarily being a human) then there shouldn't be anthing wrong with stabbing a catamose or coma-induced person, right?
Wrong.
Why? Because even if reduced to a coma, you are still thought as a potential sentient because we know you might awake from the coma. The same can be applied to a fetus---we know that fetuses, whether some consider it full on human life or not, are still potential human life therefore they cannot be tampered with. If left to its natural processes, it will develop into a fully grown baby.

And yes, if there is such a case that the mother''s life is in danger (like she has some form of cancer while pregnant) then she will he to get chemo, which will inevitably kill the baby, though I am on board with you there---the mother should have the right to the chemo.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. There isn't really much more I can argue, our beliefs are fundamentally different in almost every way.

 

[madame moiselle]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. There isn't really much more I can argue, our beliefs are fundamentally different in almost every way.

Yes---and since you replied so quickly I have to assume you didn't read my post xD Please do---posts of this length do take some time---especially when done on a phone that has terrible autocorrect

 

[hails]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. There isn't really much more I can argue, our beliefs are fundamentally different in almost every way.

Yes---and since you replied so quickly I have to assume you didn't read my post xD Please do---posts of this length do take some time---especially when done on a phone that has terrible autocorrect

Um, I did read your post.
I don’t agree with your argument, so I’m bowing out. I don’t have any more to say and continuing to debate your fundamental beliefs is, to put it frankly, a waste of time. You are strong in your convictions which I admire, whether our opinions differ or not.

 

[Shireling]

Just another quick aside, in the United States it's fairly common for the corpses left over from abortions to be sold piecemeal for medical research or what have you. Yet, even in communist Vietnam they give the remains to nuns for burial after the act.

 

[madame moiselle]

Just another quick aside, in the United States it's fairly common for the corpses left over from abortions to be sold piecemeal for medical research or what have you. Yet, even in communist Vietnam they give the remains to nuns for burial after the act.

Yes I think I heard of this somewhere. Personally I think it's despicable. Now usually, I'd be fine with scientific research done on a corpse, but only if the cause of death was some out-of-their-control disaster that didnt have some horrid motive behind thr death---like a car accident (more or less in that case) or they died due to natural causes.
But the difference with abortion is that there is a motive behind killing babis. You are selling human parts of a baby that you killed with the excuse that it 'trchnically' isn't a human life so you arent 'technically' murdering. It's a lame excuse and I explained why in the previous post.

 

[hails]

Just another quick aside, in the United States it's fairly common for the corpses left over from abortions to be sold piecemeal for medical research or what have you. Yet, even in communist Vietnam they give the remains to nuns for burial after the act.

Many facilities allow a woman the choice of what happens to the remains, actually. You may choose to donate them or bury them or have them disposed of.

 

[Shireling]

Many facilities allow a woman the choice of what happens to the remains, actually. You may choose to donate them or bury them or have them disposed of.

And yet many facilities choose to sell them. For a profit. This is an incontrovertible fact.

 

[hails]

Facilities are entitled to compensation for the process of donating remains to science, yes. For a profit? Staff and providers do not profit from the donation of fetal remains to science. No. This has been debunked many times.

 

[rubycats]

And yet many facilities choose to sell them. For a profit. This is an incontrovertible fact.

Source? A reputable one if you have it

 

[Meredith]

My thoughts on abortion (hopefully I won't regret this?)

1. I wouldn't do it.
Unless it was medically recommended. I love children and my conceiving would be a miracle and a half in itself - endometriosis and other issues make me a likely infertile mess.

2. You cannot be pro-life because you 'love children' and go about disadvantaging children.
People that want less money put into education but are against abortion can take their opinions and shove them. Same with pro-lifers that want to defund food stamps (which disproportionately negatively affects children).

If you care about children only until they're born, then you don't care about children, and you need to step back and examine the real reasons for your opinions.

3. Women should not be punished because of the decision to have sex.
The 'you did it, you deal with it!' argument is an attempt to punish a woman for having intercourse. There are many reasons why an abortion may be had - a lot of them medical - and you have no idea why a particular woman might end up having an abortion. Leave people at abortion clinics alone.

4. Alternatives to abortion need to be available if you want to lessen it.
The idea that a poor woman can afford to birth a baby and give it up for adoption is ludicrous. Time off work, medical bills, etc. Those costs are huge to even well-off families in America. Besides that, putting a child up for adoption can be incredibly difficult, especially if you are a rape victim. In many states it is possible for a rapist to gain parental rights.

You know a system is broken when not being able to raise a child means you might have to hand them over to an abuser.

5. Abortion happens even when it is illegal or unsafe.
Coat-hanger abortions. Taking pills.
47,000 women die as a result of unsafe abortion each year.
That's 13% of all maternal deaths.


Your morals will never be able to dictate someone else's medical decisions. People do what they feel is best regardless.

I am pro-choice because I value life.
Too many women find themselves in situations where they have no choice but abortion.
Too many women go about protecting themselves or their social status in a dangerous way.
Too many women die because of a lack of options.

Abortion is nobody's first choice.
I believe it is our responsibility to make sure it's nobody's last.

 

[Meredith]

EDIT: I forgot to address whether I believe life begins at conception!

I do believe life begins at conception - that's a large reason I wouldn't want to have one myself. At any point.
I am pro-choice regardless.

 

[Neon Valkyrie]

I consider myself pro life. I believe it is never ever okay to kill a baby or child, and in the scientifically proven fact that life begins at conception. Therefore, I cannot justify abortion in any way, shape, or form.

Pro-life and pro-choice aren't really in natural conflict; you're free to believe whatever you like. Even if that horrific event you endured had caused a pregnancy, a pro-choice advocate should respect your choice not to have an abortion. Likewise, you should appreciate the fact that it's not your choice to make on someone else's behalf. Nature chooses to end life prematurely all the time, and I don't think anyone who wanted a child has ever enjoyed a miscarriage being forced on them ... or y'know, that anyone has ever enjoyed a miscarriage at all. Regardless of when you think life begins, it's a question of when you think personal freedom ends, because you're not the one on whom the consequences fall.

To put it another way, let's say, hypothetically, that the opposite of your preference became law, that the state began mandating abortions like ... before a certain age, or in the absence of a recognized marriage, or if there was any chance of a birth defect ... would you want someone else making decisions about your beliefs, and your womb, for you?

And if none of THAT made any sense ... well ... if you don't like steak, don't eat steak ... but for pete's sake ... don't outlaw abattoirs ... and people actually LIKE steak, people don't LIKE having abortions, they just like having accidental or unwanted children even less.

Alright ... *sigh* that's all I got ... now you can hate me.

 

[Shireling]

Source? A reputable one if you have it

The House formed a committee to look into this. By federal law, abortion providers can (and do) sell tissues post-op to cover costs. The House Committee alleges that some do so for profit, furthermore the procurement agencies certainly profit, that's beside the fact that many "non-profits" in fact profit. Goodwill for example. The House's report should be below.

 

[Rachael of the Shire]

While I won't attack those who have had abortions...I will strongly advise against them, will not finance them, and will do all I can to help someone I know facilitate a child's survival. The only exception is if I had proof that it was going to cause severe physical harm or death to the mother.