Why are you pro choice or pro life?

The old “fire in the fertility clinic” thought experiment tends to illustrate that mindset very starkly.

The scenario, for those unfamiliar with it, is that a fire is raging in a fertility clinic and is about to spread to two opposite wings. In one wing is a refrigerated medical case containing 3000 successfully fertilized cryogenically sustained embryos, and in the other is a bassinet containing a healthy six-month-old baby. You are in the middle of the two wings and will be able to successfully rescue either the embryos or the baby, but not both, and whichever one you don’t rescue will be destroyed in the fire. So which do you save?

Even “pro-life” people who adamantly claim to believe that a fertilized ovum is absolutely just as much a fully human person as a born baby are generally very unwilling to back up that claim by advocating for the rescue of three thousand “fully human persons” rather than one.

I believe that a woman who is pro-life ought not get an abortion and that a woman who is pro-choice ought to make that decision for herself. And that’s where I have a problem with the pro-life position: It tends to presume to impose their position on the rights of everyone, whereas the pro-choice position leaves the decision entirely in the hands of the pregnant individual.

I’m pro-choice since when a fetus becomes human is a question that cannot be scientifically settled, and so should be left up to the woman involved. A woman wanting to have an abortion for whatever reason is okay. A woman who decides she does not want to have an abortion for whatever reason is okay. It is not okay when someone wants to force a woman to adopt their ethical view. The second woman might be both pro-choice (she doesn’t want to impose her view on others) and pro-life (she feels a fetus is human and doesn’t want to abort it. That’s why I call those who do want to impose their views not pro-life but anti-choice.
My wife has an advanced degree in reproductive physiology and thinks that abortion is fine if required, but that good planning keeps it from being required.
We can tell from the fact that so many abortion opponents want to prevent very early methods that the cuteness of a bunch of cells isn’t the issue, but rather their religious view that a soul is implanted early.
Of course proving the existence of a soul of any kind is something they can’t do.

I’m pro-choice because I don’t think there’s a clear answer on this moral issue. Therefore it should be left to the individuals involved to decide for themselves what they think is right or wrong rather than having an answer imposed by society.

I’m pro-choice because even though I consider a foetus to be alive (I certainly mourned our 16-week stillborn one as such), I feel it doesn’t matter. The woman’s autonomy trumps that.

Practically, I’ll concede to a last trimester moratorium on non-medically-necessary abortions, but it’s just that, a concession, and morally I’m as OK with late-term abortions as I am with early ones.

Personally, I’m against the murder of ANY human, regardless of guilt or innocence.

^ And that, to me, is a non-hypocritical pro-lifer.

As opposed to sanctimonious hypocrites who want to punish women for having sex, force them to have a baby, then have absolutely no interest in that child once its born, or actually helping the baby’s parent(s) raise that child, provide for it, educate it, or otherwise treat it as an equal human being to said hypocrite.

Then there are the so-called “pro-life” jerks who are also “pro-death-penalty”. Inconsistent, much?

I’m pro-choice because I believe pregnant women have rights, too. I find the notion of treating women as walking incubators abhorrent, a reduction of women to something less than fully human.

Until EVERYONE, woman AND man, is educated honestly, truthfully, and fully with fact and science based sex and reproduction education, AND has access to ALL forms of birth control regardless of income and social status, AND full medical care without regard to income or social status, AND families raising children are given the social support needed to raise healthy, educated human beings (child care, medical care, education, etc.) without regard to income or social status …

… as far as I’m concerned until that day happens the so-called “pro-life” contingent can STFU because they’re not really pro-life, they’re pro-fetus. (Exceptions for those who ARE consistently pro-life from cradle to grave but in my experience that’s damn rare.)

But even on that day, I’d still advocate for access to abortion for a variety of reasons. Women should not be shackled to their wombs. Women should not be defined solely on their ability to squeeze out more babies. And, sorry pro-lifers, I don’t consider a blob of cells to be a “human being”. That status comes later. Even at the point where the developing baby is an actual human I don’t agree the rights of the baby supersede all the rights of the mother, who is also a human being, and whose life is just as important and meaningful as anyone else’s.

Actually no. I am unsure of the moral condition of the unborn. Since I am unsure, I default to kindness and caution. How did you come to be so sure of the true nature of a fetus? Certainly that is the center of the question.

We know the mother is a person and deserves all rights and protections, but since many are unsure of the nature of the unborn we would extend some rights and protections to her too, in order to avoid making a grave mistake.

I’m pro-choice, but most of those seem like bad reasons, to be honest. They are good reasons to dislike the pro-life movement or find it hypocritical, but not to base your own opinion about the underlying issue on.

My view is that it depends on the stage of development. A newly fertilised embryo is not a person, whereas a foetus in the third trimester probably is. So I support abortion for any reason in the first trimester, but only for very serious problems in the third. In between is where it gets complicated. And at the end women should have more choice about scheduling a C-section or induction if that’s what they want, rather than doctors making all the decisions.

Trick question. It’s a fetus until it graduates Harvard.

I’m pro-choice. In my day-to-day goings on, I respect life, but I don’t think there’s anything cosmologically special or sacred about it. A fetus that is not even able to form conscious thoughts is less “alive” to me than a cow or pig, both of which I’m happy to have slaughtered and eat, so I find it would be a bit hypocritical of me to place more importance on a (pre-)human thing that isn’t sentient in any meaningful manner than any of many animals I eat.

I am pro-choice because I believe a fetus is not a person, and thus may be disposed at will by the person carrying it, independent of whatever anyone else thinks about it.

That’s not the only reason, but it’s far and away the strongest one. It’s not a person. It’s a growth in one’s body that may be removed if it causes any distress whatsoever.

I’m pro-choice because I hate children.

I am pro-life, but I believe abortion should remain safe and legal.

That is, I would never have an abortion, but I would not deny the option to others. Too many dead women from botched illegal abortions.

But that’s how all laws work. We don’t say “If you think slavery is wrong, don’t own slaves,” and leave the decision in the hands of the individual. We don’t say “If you think molesting children is wrong, don’t molest children.”

No - In the gun case someone will die. In the abortion case someone will never be.

There is a difference.

I said a person who carries a gun is in state of moral peril. I did not discuss the case of a person who shoots someone. Killing a person, with a gun or otherwise can be anything from laudable to a very grave sin. Carrying a gun puts one in the position of being able to kill. That is to say, a state of moral peril.

What convinced you that an abortion never kills an unborn person? This is the center of the question and I am undecided on it. Since I do not know, I advocate reflection and erring on the side of mercy. You see to have moral certainty, often a dangerous thing. Can you tell us how you arrived at this position?

Not for anyone to decide beyond a woman and her doctor. I came to that decision by reasoning that those are the people who generally know best. Not me.

If you really hated them, you’d want them to grow up and have to live out their lives in the post apocalyptic hellscape we are careening towards.

That’s why it should not be a law, it should not be a matter that is imposed.

I’d say it’s more like saying, if you think eat meat is wrong, don’t eat meat. If you think that homosexuality is wrong, then don’t be homosexual.

There are many things that I think are wrong, so I don’t do, but do not raise to the point of thinking that no one else should do them. Slavery and child molestation are things that I think are wrong enough that I would advocate to my society that no one tolerates them, and we do not allow it.

There are also those who think that they should impose their opinions about eating meat or engaging in homosexuality on others, and would advocate to their society that it is not tolerated and allowed.

In my opinion, abortion is in the first category. In other people’s opinion, it is in the latter. That’s why we have an endless debate over whether we should impose our preferences on others.

I am pro-choice because I think that it is a difficult and hard enough decision that there is only one person who is in a position to make it, and that is the person carrying the fetus. I’m not carrying the fetus, I’m not going to have to raise it, so I don’t see how my opinion on the matter is relevant, nor that of anyone else who is not carrying the fetus.