First off, don’t think I’m trying to attack you or anything, but am just bringing a question to the table. And Pro-Choice’ers, not to discriminate, but I’d just like to ask you to hold off posting in massive amounts for now, to avoid clutter.
To answer my question, first you need to have to agree with the coming statement, which is: Abortion is ultimately wrong due to the fact that a fetus, regardless if its a living human or not, is being robbed of its ultimate end, which is becoming a human, by its being aborted and therefore is in-directly being killed.
So the question essentially is that, if you agree with this, then would you think of birth control as wrong, because a condom or the pill is also inadvertantly not letting cells become a human?
I won’t answer for other pro-lifers, but for myself I believe it’s wrong because I believe that the fetus is a human being. Therefore I have nothing against birth control because its purpose is to stop sperm and egg from joining in the first place.
But how many pro-life supporters actually do agree with this statement? Most of the ones I know are opposed to abortion because they think of the fetus as an actual human being, not just a thing that is ultimately going to become a human being.
If it’s wrong to deny a potential human being the right to become an actual human being, then, taken to its logical conclusion, this makes it wrong not only to use birth control but also to pass up any opportunity to have sex involving a fertile woman. And even then, there are gazillions of possible combinations of sperm and egg cells that will never become people.
No, my intention, in saying “involving a fertile woman” instead of “with a fertile woman,” was to allow for the possibility that the reader could be the “fertile woman” involved.
Great question, and I appreciate the way in which it was asked. Thanks!
To me, as others have stated, the fetus is human, and that is why I believe abortion is generally wrong. However, I believe there are situations regarding abortion and life in general when killing is justified, such as cases when the mother’s health is threatened or when the fetus is suffering. In such cases the decision to abort should be made by the family involved (hopefully with counseling from doctors and other people important to the family), and if a family is not available, the mother). I’m not sure how this would look legislatively.
It is hard for me to say when a human becomes human. To me its a stretch (but not unbelievable) to call a zygote a human, but to me a developed fetus is certainly human. Therefore, I would tend to err on the side of safety (against abortion).
I have no problem with the forms of birth control you mentioned. However, I do not believe birth control makes sex outside of a truly committed relationship OK, but if you do give in to your earthly and natural desires, its certainly better to do it with birth control!
I’m assuming that you are discriminating in your question against those who are pro-life personally, and those who feel that pro-life should be the law of the land (or certainly the state the live in?)
For example, there are many like myself who are part of the former *(not counting the exceptions mentioned by pyromite) but not part of the latter… at least not to the extent the bulk of the current pro-choice crowd would like to see.
Might be angels on the head of a pin, I admit, but I know lots of people like this.
I dislike abortion because I believe there is never any positive outcome for anyone, it hurts all of humanity, the woman incurs the deepest penalty and has to accept ridiculous lies to be able to go on in life, and sometimes (rarely) the innocent child suffers. I accept it because God allows it and wish not to impose any other penalties on people who are already suffering and a woman who just lost her child.
For birth control, it is just a physical representation of a wish not to have a child, simply a request of the couple to ‘the gods’ (the child, lesser gods and God may desire otherwise). But if they are to have a child they will no matter what form of BC they are on, so BC is basically a non-issue to me.
I never really get this distinction. If you’re saying that, despite your personal beliefs you think that women should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, then you’re obviously pro-choice.
Being pro-life means at a minimum that you’re against abortion* and might also be against things like the death penalty and euthanasia.
*Exceptions apply, such as the life of the mother being at risk.
I believe that, at some point prior to birth, the fetus becomes a person, and that abortion is wrong after that point because of that. Very early in pregnancy (certainly in the timeframe of the “morning after pill”; I don’t know much about other methods) or before conception, there isn’t a person, so abortion or contraception is not a moral issue. It’s not about potential persons, it’s about actual persons.
Well, since you ask, I believe personally that it’s not right to kill kids, even the unborn ones. But since the country seems to be of two minds about this, and whether a fetus is a kid is certainly arguable but not a universal given, I don’t think it’s reasonable for the government to heavy-handedly pass a law about it; despite what the choicers say, the constitution is pretty damn silent on this (and privacy) issues. So it should be up to the states. If Virginia (where I live) says don’t kill kids, then fine. If Calif makes abortion mandatory or whatever, fine. If you don’t like it, move (or elect different politicians).
Does that make me pro-choice? pro-life? You can decide, I suppose.
I’m pro-life, but my conviction does not rest on the argument that the fetus is “being robbed of its ultimate end, which is becoming a human.” It’s already a human. An unfertilized egg or sperm are not. I have absolutely no problem with birth control; in fact I see it as the most important strategy of preventing more abortions.
Right now, as a practical matter, the most I can hope for is to convince others that abortion is wrong. Perhaps legislation can be passed concerning abortion’s worst abuses, but the public won’t stand for making the practice illegal, and I would see this as a very false victory if it merely drove the practice back underground.
The pro-choice movement is prepared for the day that abortion becomes illegal - they will conduct it anyway, with trained volunteers. The most I can do is convince others that this is wrong whether it is legal or illegal.
In the face of this the birth-control debate fades into the far background, and really affects only my immediate family.
Some do, you’re right, but they’re very few. It’s easy for those extreme views to get assigned to all of us pro-lifers because it helps to demonize us. Don’t fall for that trap, Annie. Most don’t believe that the Pill is an abortion.
I’d like to futher what everyone else has said. It’s not about potential humans, it’s that they already are human. I’m against abortion after week 10. I think the quibble over personhood should be a matter of weeks around that number, not months. I think it’s silly to think that personhood could possibly occur at weeks extremely distant from week 10, be it conception or birth.
So I think you’ve got the wrong idea, OP. No pro-life person that I know of would agree with the statement in the OP.
As somewhat of an aside, and I hope you accept I am being genuine is asking this, is it possible to come to this conclusion without a religious aspect to it?
Without bringing a concept of God into it, I don’t see any difference between ovum and sperm a nanosecond before conception and ovum and sperm a nanosecond after it. I mean I can understand if it is simply the idea that a person feels a line has to be drawn somewhere, and conception is that line, but it seems you are making more of an argument that there is a fundamental difference that makes this line make sense.
So is the basis for humanity at conception purely religious?