No. pro-choice is understood to mean every choice a woman can make concerning her pregnancy: whether to terminate her pregnancy, continue with it to give birth, and then chose to keep the child or let it be adopted.
Whoopi Goldberg had two abortions when she was a struggling single mother and is as pro-choice is possible, demonstrated by the fact that she CHOSE to support her 16 year old daughter when the child was pregnant and CHOSE to keep the baby. I doubt that any “pro-life” group praises her for this, however.
Ask a pro-lifer what a person should do if they are pregnant, don’t want to be a mother, and don’t think they could give up a child for adoption. The only answer I’ve ever gotton is “Pray for the right answer.”
In reference to the “pro-abortion” vs. “pro-choice” debate: In his book “Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Questions” Randy Alcorn states: Pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people." Somehow, if there was a vote on forcing people to have abortions, I doubt that the two groups would vote the same.
Alcorn also states “It is reasonable to expect a woman to endure a temporary minor inconvenience if the only alternative is the death of a person.” Reasonable to whom.
It’s the heart of the issue. First because civil law should not, nay, cannot be based upon religious belief. Second because major religions do not agree on this issue, suggesting that the base point needs to be one religious take over all the others gets into a very ugly supremacy battle that none of us needs and no one wants.
What is the science that supports forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies?
The law exists for a reason. If you believe the law is wrong then you’d better have a good argument against it. Thus far, there is none.
It means that 1 in 3 American women will have an abortion, 3 in 5 women support the right to abortion on demand and 99% of American women use contraceptives for at least some portion of their reproductive years.
It is clear by what we do that women in this culture have rejected the notions that biology is destiny or that pregnancy is both inevitable and inescapable. We have shown that we understand the importance of controlling our fertility, and the timing and spacing our of pregnancies for both the financial security of our families and our health and the health of our children.
Exactly what it says. The anti-choice position is built on nothing of civil merit and put into action directly leads to the oppression of women and subsequent harm and damage to their families. We see that in U.S. states with extreme restrictions on abortion access, we see that in other industrialized nations, like Ireland and Malta that continue to deny all access.
As I said, it’s a response which truly lacks substance. You can simply look at abortion attitudes by age and age cohort (which gives a rather sobering outlook for pro-choicers) to see it lacks substance.
“Wantedness” is not adequate grounds to deprive another human of his or her life.
I find that ensuring no human is arbitrarily deprived of his or her life is a pretty good reason.
All right. I will bite at this.
(A) Last I checked, 1/3 is less than half. Are you trying to make a compelling argument based on what less than half of women (of reproductive age) do? That seems rather… odd.
(B) This is 100% false. Men and women do not hold fundamentally different attitudes regarding abortion, and less than 30% of the population supports abortion “under any circumstance” and have not for the better part of the last 36 or so years (go here scroll all the way down to the bottom and click on the “View methodology, full question results, and trend data” link).
(C) Has nothing to do with abortion, as the use of contraceptives does not mean you support abortion on demand.
And what does that have to do with abortion? I’m having a hard time trying to understand what point you’re trying to make.
I’d be quite curious is knowing how you came to the above conclusions
I never said that every woman is cut out to be a mother, but I do believe that a mother is the highest level any woman and perhaps any person could ever achieve. Within every woman is the life of all humanity contained within her and going further oneness with the life giving earth itself.
It is this that women need to reclaim, that life of every human comes from her womb, and not some time later, if women want to take their place in society. If we try to define the beginning of live as some time after we diminish the role of women and invite all sorts of discrimination against women.
It is acknowledging women for who they really are, the ones who bring forth life, that women must take their rightful place.
this is the problem caused by in part the devaluing of fetal life and abortion. We diminish the role of women and their children together, leaving men as the dominant while women believe their right to abort gives them freedom -while it gives them a inferior status.
Der Trist I believe religion is evil, but also the battle against religion. They are actually the same thing - designed to beat up each other instead of rising above.
The same thing can be said but more easily seen with the political parties, both sides being caught up against each other.
There is no difference, and when one side states a point the other side automatically dismisses it because it is not their religion.
You are doing exactly that.
I want woman to take their rightful place in society. I can’t see how if we devalue their nature by denying that they are the carrier of all human life - in denying that we just took their value and so diminished all women.
Defining life at conception gives women their role of importance in humanity, other wise they are just walking wombs.
If I free a slave or a person being tortured, do I have to provide for all their lives?
The guys in the underground railroad, those motherf…ers, they didn’t give jobs, houses, and money to the slaves.
If you are responsible for them being a slave or for being tortured then yes you owe them quite a lot in recompense. If you want to use that as a metaphor for being anti-choice, then the proper metaphor is someone who enslaves someone, discards them without means of support when they are of no further use, and makes self righteous speeches about how enslaving the the victim was an act ordained by God, they don’t owe the ex-slave anything and the ex0-slave’s misfortunes are all their fault.
I don’t care what you think the proper metaphor is since this is not a metaphor competition.
You simply cannot give a normal answer.
I see a slave. I freea slave. Do I have to support the now-former-slave?
Care to answer the question?
No, because it has nothing to do with abortion. It’s an attempt on your part to make opposing abortion look noble instead of an act of malice, and an attempt to deny responsibility. If you forbid a woman abortion, then you are responsible for all the negative results of your act.
An analogy that only makes sense if the reason she’s pregnant is because you raped her and/or you’ve forced her into getting an abortion. When you oppose an abortion, you are fully responsible; any problems that occur are problems that you forced on her; without you, there’d be no problems. So for you to be equally responsible for her getting an abortion you’d have to be forcing that on her.
Of course. The point of opposing abortion is to oppress, torment and kill women; and allowing them to get abortions doesn’t do that. So naturally you favor the option that does hurt them, since that’s the whole point.
Since the thread is not about abortion per se but rather the costs of not having one and the obligation of the person demanding/suggestion not to abort, I think it is perfectly acceptable, because it isalso about bearing the costs of an action you believe to be good.
I’ll answer it; yes, in part, you do. The most important difference to my mind is that the freed slave (assuming an adult) is capable of working for themselves. But let’s assume the slave you’ve freed is a young child (it’s still an imperfect analogy, but it works a bit better). I would say that your moral obligation would be to assure that child of an upbringing - the most obvious way would be your personal adoption, but otherwise by calling the authorities to ensure that the child can find a place in an orphanage or adoption agency or suchlike, in which case the cost of upbringing will be moved to society at large, either through government money or a charity. But that’s acceptable in terms of accepted “liability” given that a charity would be voluntary and government money would come through the whole “will of the people” thing.
I agree. Moving someone from slavery to destitution isn’t necessarily a morally upright action, which does analogise somewhat decently to the abortion costs problem.
Because its a rhetorical trap and I’m not interested in playing along.
People engaging in acts of malice that financially harm others normally are required to pay their victims money. Usually more than they cost their victim.
The law allows abortions up to a certain point,except in the case of the woman’s life, she has a right to life as well. If you choose to use your arguments to justify your claim that is your problem not mine!
A woman should have the right as to what she does with her own body. If she has agreed to let the fertile egg get to the stage where it is a child, then it is not legal to abort. She then has had time to decide unless it would mean her own life is in jepordy.
If she has other children then her life is even more important because they would be losing a mother. I would like to see a woman have good preventatve method of birth control so the problem of a unwanted pregnancy would be unessasary. I don’t think any one else except the woman or her mate, has any right to invade a person’s bedroom or life, because their religion doesn’t think it should be. THat is the case with the Right to (so called) Life people in many cases.
It is so easy to try to decide what someone else should be doing. I guess that is why Jesus despised the Pharisee’s so much, they spent their time trying to show how wonderful they were instead of living the spirit of the law they spent it trying to push the letter not caring about others.
Like the woman in adultry, Jesus told them who was with out sin to cast the first stone. To me he meant..Let the God you believe in handle the wrongs of others. Of course I can see that all laws are of human origin and were made to help the human race as a whole, some justify war or self defense, but would take that same right away from a woman.
