Anti-Abortion / Pro-Choice - Can you be both?

[Soltis]

This is a question I've had for a somewhat long time, and figured I'd finally bring it up for discussion. I ask that you leave your trolls at the door when you enter, thank you.

I consider myself pro-life in that I don't agree with the idea of abortions for reasons that aren't medically life-threatening, but I also realize that people(specifically women for this issue at hand of course) should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies when in medically sound mind.

Because of this, on underlying principle I would have to be pro-choice, but immediately the question comes to mind as to why anyone would get an abortion apart from the reason I just gave earlier?

From my point of view, when it comes to the fetus not being a person yet, even though we more or less know it will be eventually, that would be like if someone removed a piece of railroad tracks from the railroad. You may not know when the next train is coming, but you know one will come eventually and have an accident if you gave them the ok to go previously, and such an action would warrant an arrest if proven that you removed the tracks. Abortion is not nearly to the same degree, but is the same type of action imo.

The argument for choice is sound imo, but when it comes to reasons to actually do it I've only heard things like "I don't want to get fat" and other reasons that seem trivial when compared to a person's right to live.


A few years ago I saw a campaign ad that depicted a teen coming home to tell her parents that she is pregnant, and the camera zooms in on a window with curtains and you hear what is implied to be the father beating on her. Then the ad says "not all parents are understanding".

When I saw this ad, I thought to myself, "Wow that has to be the stupidest reason to allow abortions. So a parent that is abusive will be less inclined to beat his daughter..."(edit: this commercial was for allowing teens to get abortions without telling the parents)

So today I ask, do you consider yourself pro-choice but anti-abortion? And if you are/are not, for the purpose of discussion, what reasons seem substantial enough to warrant an abortion?(outside of life-threatening medical reasons)


NOTE:I personally don't consider the day-after or "Plan B" pill abortion. I'm talking about termination after you "know" know, or no period/did a test, etc.

 

[TruePaige]

I consider myself pro-life in that I don't agree with the idea of abortions for reasons that aren't medically life-threatening

Well then you aren't worth talking to.

Keep your hands and laws off of other peoples bodies.

P.S. your thread is dumb and has been done here ad nausem.

/done

 

[Tristicus]

Well then you aren't worth talking to.

Keep your hands and laws off of other peoples bodies.

P.S. your thread is dumb and has been done here ad nausem.

/done

You've got such a brilliant point.

 

[dguy6789]

You've got such a brilliant point.

Indeed he does.

 

[ShawnD1]

Because of this, on underlying principle I would have to be pro-choice, but immediately the question comes to mind as to why anyone would get an abortion apart from the reason I just gave earlier?

Because you don't want kids at this time?

Read articles posted in ATOT for a few days and you'll see what happens when people have kids they don't want. One I remember from a few weeks ago was when a young girl, I think 14, collected money from a bunch of older men so they could gang rape her 8 year old sister. Where were the parents? Not fucking there. They don't want these kids so they end up not caring about them. Bad stuff happens when the parents don't care. We had an entire education thread where the problem of parents not caring was stated over and over again, and one can bet it has something to do with parents having kids that they don't want.


An essay written by someone else outlines this a lot better than I can
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_ocr2.php (it's an essay, not a journal article)

In summary, there is a substantial literature that documents the serious health, social, psychological, and economic consequences of unintended and unwanted childbearing. These consequences can include increased maternal and infant death and illness, unstable marriages, and the restriction of educational and occupational opportunities leading to poverty and limited roles for women. These adverse effects are not shared equally by all segments of society, and in the United States fall more heavily on those who are poor, young, or members of an ethnic minority group. Further, evidence suggests that even in advantageous social and economic circumstances, when a pregnancy is unwanted and the women requests an abortion, to deny it forces her to bear a child at risk for psychological problems that are long lasting. In this context, the watchword of the family planning movement - 'Every Child a Wanted Child' has particular meaning for health professionals.

Taking care of kids is not easy. Maintaining one costs more than maintaining a BMW, it consumes more time than your job, and this goes on for many many years. This is why people don't want kids.

 

[Soltis]

Well then you aren't worth talking to.

Keep your hands and laws off of other peoples bodies.

P.S. your thread is dumb and has been done here ad nausem.

/done

It's a shame when people don't bother to read the whole OP because of one sentence. In the very next sentence I say that I'm ultimately pro-life because of the reason you just stated. . . . .

 

[Soltis]

Because you don't want kids at this time?

Read articles posted in ATOT for a few days and you'll see what happens when people have kids they don't want. One I remember from a few weeks ago was when a young girl, I think 14, collected money from a bunch of older men so they could gang rape her 8 year old sister. Where were the parents? Not fucking there. They don't want these kids so they end up not caring about them. Bad stuff happens when the parents don't care. We had an entire education thread where the problem of parents not caring was stated over and over again, and one can bet it has something to do with parents having kids that they don't want.


An essay written by someone else outlines this a lot better than I can
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_ocr2.php (it's an essay, not a journal article)


Taking care of kids is not easy. Maintaining one costs more than maintaining a BMW, it consumes more time than your job, and this goes on for many many years. This is why people don't want kids.

Even though there is the option to allow adoption(there are many good people who want to be parents), I understand your point to a degree and can respect it.

 

[Carmen813]

I would consider myself pro-choice and anti-abortion. I don't like abortion, but I do not believe it is my responsibility to dictate what decision others should make. I can imagine circumstances in my own life that would lead me and my wife to consider having an abortion, but I don't really want to go into a hypothetical discussion about that.

My feeling is that decisions such as this one are best left to the individuals involved.

 

[ShawnD1]

Even though there is the option to allow adoption

You still need to pay for all of the medical things associated with being pregnant. I don't live in the US so I had to google this.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/parenting/119705-how-expensive-pregnancy.html (question: how expensive is pregnancy)

I ended up changing my insurance when I found out I was pregnant because my husbands insurance wasn't very good. Everytime I went to the Doctor to get blood drawn or a test it was like 200 bucks on top of my copay. It was crazy. With the Hmo I switched too the test's costs went way down but my hospital stay cost like 500 a day! Needless to say I only stayed 1 day.

Child birth for me was very, very expensive. Thank goodness we had good insurance. I was pregnant with twins, originally went into labor at 26 weeks so was on home contraction monitoring and to have a terbutaline pump throughout the rest of my pregnancy. I was hospitalized at 33 1/2 weeks, to make a long story short, I had to be ambulanced to a hospital that had a higher level NICU, was in intensive care for a week (before and after the delivery), my boys ended up having to be in the NICU for 3 and 4 weeks, respectively (they were both born dead and resuscitated). Overall, our medical bills were something like 250k between the three of us before and after birth.

I had 3 c sections. One a long time ago. I was in the hospital 7 days, the bill and pregnancy on that one was over 15k.

My insurance is 80/20, meaning I pay my deductible, then 20% of the overall cost. In my case, I had complicatins and my DH and I had to pay 20% which came out to a little more then $5,000

That seems like an awfully expensive favor to do for someone else.

How expensive is abortion?
http://www.womensmedcenter.com/faqs/default.asp

An early pregnancy abortion, up to 11 weeks, costs less than an advanced pregnancy abortion. As the pregnancy advances after 11 weeks the cost increases approximately $100 per week due to the increased supplies and time required to perform them. The cost for a late second trimester procedure can cost up to as much as $3,000.

Yikes. That's not cheap either, but apparently it's covered by a lot of insurance companies. Maybe it's so they don't need to pay for the birth

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't see a problem in being pro-choice and anti-abortion. You can be against abortion personally but feel it isn't your prerogative to interfere in other people's business.

 

[Slick5150]

That's the fallacy of the pro-life movement, their belief that pro-choice people must be pro-abortion. I don't think I know ANYbody that thinks abortions are a great thing, but I know many many people who also think it isn't any of their business what other people choose to do with their body.

 

[Lemon law]

My only comment is that the argument more applies to the pro life side.

To say absolutely no exceptions should be made for rape, incest, or the health of the mother may be the pure real deal pro-life position, but as soon as pro-lifers make compromise exceptions, they enter the the pro-choice camp. `

Nor have we been able to address the rights of both parents, if the male father says no to abortion, should the female have a right to say no, I want an abortion? Or vise versa. Lots of slippery slopes here and the logic is enough to drive the human mind crazy.

Net result we have a totally divisive issue where no one will be happy. Is a happy middle ground even possible?

 

[ProfJohn]

I am pro-choice, I choose life.

That is a position that I think many within the pro-life movement agree with. I don't like abortion, I think it is a horrible thing to do, but I am not going support a complete ban on the procedure and instead would like to see it only used in limited cases.

 

[ShawnD1]

That's the fallacy of the pro-life movement, their belief that pro-choice people must be pro-abortion. I don't think I know ANYbody that thinks abortions are a great thing, but I know many many people who also think it isn't any of their business what other people choose to do with their body.

I'm pro abortion because I spend too much time in ATOT and I assume every unwanted child will be neglected

Luckily a lot of people are good hearted people who prove me wrong. My friend's youngest brother is about 10 years apart from the next youngest sibling. He was clearly a mistake, but he's in a good home and he does well in school

 

[llee]

I believe you can support both sides. A pregnant woman should have to choice to have an abortion, but this needs to be a priviledge and not a right. I think that some women like hookers or sex-addicts that might need an abortion every other day should be dealt with by denying abortions. People need to learn how to take responsibility for their actions and not abuse the system. Perhaps you could have a system where 'excessive' operations will have some denial policy kick-in, upping the fine for each successive abortion or flat out refusing one. I don't want to hear anything about human rights on this- controversial as it already is, getting these operations for silly mistakes takes up manpower that could otherwise be used for saving a life or aiding the sick.

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta love the Shawn D position of, "Child birth for me was very, very expensive. Thank goodness we had good insurance. I was pregnant with twins, originally went into labor at 26 weeks so was on home contraction monitoring and to have a terbutaline pump throughout the rest of my pregnancy. I was hospitalized at 33 1/2 weeks, to make a long story short, I had to be ambulanced to a hospital that had a higher level NICU, was in intensive care for a week (before and after the delivery), my boys ended up having to be in the NICU for 3 and 4 weeks, respectively (they were both born dead and resuscitated). Overall, our medical bills were something like 250k between the three of us before and after birth."

Proving again that no rational adults should ever engage in any sexual contact that could lead to pregnancy, its hazardous to our financial health. Either achieve our sexual needs by masturbating alone, or engage in same sex sex with a fellow human.

The lemon Law solution to peace on earth. Make that a totally enforced legal policy, and in a 100 years or so, we shall have peace on earth.

Pregnancy is truly the root of all evil.

 

[First]

A super, super majority of Americans are actually this way. They support the right to choose, but expect that most people aren't insane enough to actually want abortions. I think it was something like 70% of Americans don't favor abortions but would still not overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

[ShawnD1]

hookers or sex-addicts that might need an abortion every other day should be dealt with by denying abortions.

They don't care about their own bodies but they'll take care of a child. This makes sense.
:awe:

engage in same sex sex with a fellow human

Careful. The people who oppose abortions often oppose gays as well. Your only option left is to jack off. Maybe infront of a school laptop's webcam.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Because of this, on underlying principle I would have to be pro-choice, but immediately the question comes to mind as to why anyone would get an abortion apart from the reason I just gave earlier?

I take issue with this bit. You're not pro-choice, because even though you believe that abortions should be available, you don't believe that the woman should have a choice in the matter; either she gets an abortion if it means saving her life, or she doesn't get one at all. That is not 'pro-choice'.

This is also a reason why I object to people labelling themselves and others as 'pro-life', or 'pro-choice'; they're leading stereotypes that don't really convey the gist of the members' real opinions.

From my point of view, when it comes to the fetus not being a person yet, even though we more or less know it will be eventually, that would be like if someone removed a piece of railroad tracks from the railroad. You may not know when the next train is coming, but you know one will come eventually and have an accident if you gave them the ok to go previously, and such an action would warrant an arrest if proven that you removed the tracks. Abortion is not nearly to the same degree, but is the same type of action imo.

But then according to that analogy using a spermicidal condom, an IUD, or an ECP are also the same as inducing the abortion of an implanted foetus?

So today I ask, do you consider yourself pro-choice but anti-abortion? And if you are/are not, for the purpose of discussion, what reasons seem substantial enough to warrant an abortion?(outside of life-threatening medical reasons)

I consider myself neutral about abortion. It is purely up to (primarily) the woman concerned but also her partner and maybe parents. It is not a decision for the government, nor is it a decision for right-wing fundamentalist Christians.

 

[theflyingpig]

I am in favor of abortion. In fact, I believe abortion should be subsidized by the government. Any woman should be given the opportunity to terminate her pregnancy at any time. No use bringing a child into the world if it is not going to be cared for properly. Everyone knows this.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Simple ans . YES. 1 example rape. mother has a choice here.

 

[Soltis]

I take issue with this bit. You're not pro-choice, because even though you believe that abortions should be available, you don't believe that the woman should have a choice in the matter; either she gets an abortion if it means saving her life, or she doesn't get one at all. That is not 'pro-choice'.

I asked for reasons why she would want one that seem sound and not incredibly shallow(some people have answered and for that I am grateful).


But then according to that analogy using a spermicidal condom, an IUD, or an ECP are also the same as inducing the abortion of an implanted foetus?

Actually I don't believe it is considering that before a sperm enters an egg cell both it and the cell are only half the DNA needed to produce a child. In regards to the metaphor I suppose it would be akin to preventing the train from starting and/or telling all the passengers and staff to get off the train.


I consider myself neutral about abortion. It is purely up to (primarily) the woman concerned but also her partner and maybe parents. It is not a decision for the government, nor is it a decision for right-wing fundamentalist Christians.

That's more or less how I feel in a nutshell. The idea of abortion seems harsh to me at first, but like any medical procedure whether or not its "good" or "bad" will come down to how and when people choose to use it imo. The choice is theirs to make.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I asked for reasons why she would want one that seem sound and not incredibly shallow(some people have answered and for that I am grateful).

Rape? Financial conerns? Job concerns? However, even if someone wants an abortion because they don't want to get fat, that is their prerogative.

Actually I don't believe it is considering that before a sperm enters an egg cell both it and the cell are only half the DNA needed to produce a child. In regards to the metaphor I suppose it would be akin to preventing the train from starting and/or telling all the passengers and staff to get off the train.

That is true. However, that still doesn't explain away the IUD, which is currently one of the most widely-used long-term contraceptives.

 

[sandorski]

Not only am I Pro-Abortion, I'm for Mandatory Abortion.

 

[Noobtastic]

abortion was inspired by eugenics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

i dont see how eugenics is a moral solution to crime, poverty, "unwanted children", etc.

I think it's disgusting.

However, I accept the fact that abortion will continue to happen whether or not it is criminalized. If it were made illegal women would simply turn to home-made devices to do it as they did in the early 1990s.

I say abortion laws should be more restricted. In places like the UK abortions are legal up until the 7th month of pregnancy. At that point the fetus is capable of living outside the womb.

that is just awful and evil.