What are the best reasons for being pro-choice?

For me the argument boils down to whether or not the state should be allowed to compel a woman to bear a child.

Everyone should have autonomy over their own body. Also, if you are so pro-life, where are the pre-natal, parenting and health and education programs to support unwanted children after they are born?

Being pro-choice leaves the decision to have an abortion up to the woman involved, where it belongs.

Not wanting children. I would think.

I think it is important to distinguish late-term vs nearly immediate abortions. Short-term you are talking about a zygote late-term it’s a life. I don’t understand why people believe that “life starts at conception” when it’s literally a handfull if cells. Hard to argue against a womans choice here unless the father does not want the child. I believe they have some say when they don’t want the child. Most abortions happen early so I don’t know why people raise hell about that. When a life is involved the whole “my body my choice” argument starts to fall apart because it’s a literal person we are talking about. The argument that a fetus is not a person until right after birth is a bunch of bullshit.

The objection to the notion that the State should have the power to force a woman to go to term. It should not.
On the other hand, the problem arises when the state forces people to pay for it when they think it is wrong, given that it is not an enumerated power in the Constitution.
No win debate.

Assume life does start at conception. For the sake of argument, I’ll even agree that conception occurs when sperm and egg meet. The gestational age is irrelevant.

The pregnancy requires the use of the pregnant person’s body – Her uterus. Her blood. Her hormones.

Now, consider a corpse in a hospital. The body is newly dead, and has no further use for its organs. If, in life, that person who is now a corpse, refused to donate their organs, it is in no way legal for the state to compel that person’s corpse to provide the organs they are no longer using, in order to prolong the life of another person.

Forced pregnancy, in that case, effectively gives a living person fewer rights than a corpse.

1. My first main reason is that I greatly disagree with the idea that a fetus is anything like a human being, or that it warrants being treated that way for moral or legal purposes.

2. My second main reason, related to #1, is that requiring a woman to give birth to an unwanted pregnancy can ruin or end the life of the woman, who is a full human being who others have invested many years of time educating and supporting. By contrast, a fetus isn’t even a formed infant, has no experience and relatively little investment in it, and to me seems unformed being with at most an extremely limited experience of existence. So it seems to me a fetus is of less concern than a young animal (and see the lamb industry for how much society generally values those).

3. A third main reason for me is that I feel that a woman should have the right to make that choice, and that it’s an atrocious violation of her human rights to try to refuse that.

4. My reason #3 would be enough for me by itself, but on top of that, I consider that a pregnant woman is generally extremely focused on and invested in the situation and usually already strongly inclined to keep a child, and anyone (especially a man, law, or religious dogma) would seem almost certainly an inferior authority to make that choice for her.

5. Moreover, when abortion is illegal, it results in women ending pregnancies through improvised methods which are much more dangerous to the woman.

One less car in traffic.

Rockfan: There is no justification for Abortion beyond maybe three weeks of pregnancy. If there is brain activity and a beating heart and an assigned sex, it is a human life and indeed has rights.

The only justification that I can give is that being pregnant and bringing that child to term COULD ruin the life of the mother—her boyfriend abandons her and evades responsibility. She cannot work or get income and loses her job and apartment. There is virtually no help for homeless women except maybe the temporary company of prostitutes and drug-addicted pregnant women who share a bunk with her at the “woman’s shelter”—can you imagine being pregnant through this? Her relationship with her parents, well, maybe they aren’t as supportive as they ought to be.

There ARE services and pro-life agencies that help women through this—often up to two years after the baby is born. They are extremely supportive, comforting, even therapeutic and will help a woman through the pregnancy and get on her feet again and her life in order. But you are unlikely to hear about them from your local Abortion “clinic” such as Planned Parenthood.

I know a woman who deeply regrets her abortion and I try to console with what I gave in my answer above—that she wasn’t given one iota of help and everyone abandoned her, But in reality, there were at least two pro-life agencies in the city where I lived that would have helped her up to two years after the child was born—although she probably would have put the child up for adoption—as there are many capable and able-bodied parents who would have gladly accepted the child as their own. Or, maybe she’d still have the child today.

Being pro-choice means being considerate of all people everywhere.
Being pro-choice is civilized.

@Yellowdog, as a man, you don’t have to worry about bodily autonomy. Lucky you.

As a woman, the idea that others (usually men) get to decide when an embryo or a fetus is a human life and take away my autonomy, troubles me.

And being pro-choice does not equate to pro-abortion.

How arrogant of you to want to assume control of my person.

@Yellowdog Using your standards, Abortion is justified up until 24 weeks.

The earliest test for fetal gender determination is 7 weeks. And the earliest for regular wave patterns in an EEG (the measure for determining brain death) is about 25 weeks.

Thanks for setting a brighten on when abortion is okay and strictly a woman’s choice.

Candmajor: Did you even READ my answer?

How opposite your response.

The girl had NO help that she could find. Help was available but she had no access to it that she knew of. How is it “pro choice” if abortion is the only viable option besides living on the street ?

(or bearing the fruit of incest or rape) ?

Maybe I’m trying also to refute the claims that no one will help the mother after the child is born. That is a lie. Most women would be better off with help from such an agency because it will help her get independent and financially solvent.

Yes, to all— about 7 weeks makes a viable human being and the earliest signs of what constitutes life and personhood (from a medical standpoint). You may not like this reality, but you cannot wish or proclaim it out of existence. You DO have to deal with it in making this decision.

I read your posts, I still call bullshit. I might go with the idea that as soon as the fetus is viable extrautero, it might constitute a fully viable human, but until then, the fetus is a potential human.
I don’t care how bad you feel for women who don’t have support, or that you read something somewhere that states that “life begins at” whatever time frame, the fact is that you are unequivocally stating that a person should not have bodily autonomy because you get to decide.

I don’t decide anything.

But I have spoken with several women who deeply regret their decision to abort. Maybe they would have decided differently if they had information and access to help. Maybe not. There is still choice. But choice is only possible if options and information is available, Information which some are so die-hard adamant to suppress so that there really is no choice.

Don’t worry—no one is taking away your rights to abortion. No one will. Such arguments serve only to keep choice and a conscience from entering into the equation

And YOU don’t decide what constitutes personhood. It is a medical and biological reality.

Actually, I decide, with my research and learning as much as you do, because the determination cannot be made yet.
Your arguments are circular and silly. Simply talking to women who regret their abortions (which is most women, by the way) does not qualify you, in any way, to speak for them.

I’m not going to argue with you anymore, @Yellowdog, because your musings on the subject are not really cogent.

Consider that the fetus one might terminate today might mean sufficient food and water for another child that is already born. Consider the possible humaneness of being pro-choice.

Not your body, not your choice. Simple.

Canidmajor: There is nothing “circular” about anything I’ve said.

That would mean, I would be quoting sources which are verified by the source I quote.
And I find it rather disgusting that you find the topic silly.

I think you’d rather discuss the topic with me than with women who have had an abortion and regret it, or women who believe in the sanctity of life.

Kritiper: There is certainly no shortage of food and water for anyone—though it must be purchased with money—that doesn’t mean there isn’t enough. In the U.S. there is so much milk. eggs, chicken, and wheat that the government pays to destroy it. And supermarkets destroy about 10–15 percent of viable goods.

The “humanness” of pro-choice is in that olur society doesn’t give most women a choice.

Tinyfaery: Thank you! The unborn child is not your body, therefore not a choice. However, many women don’t have options.

This topic has been debated to death the religious sect says it is a person and terminating it is simply murder at any stage of pregnancy .
And I have heard very little about late term abortions, and unless the woman’s health is in serious jeopardy I very much doubt that any doctor would do it.
My self I frown on it as a form of birth control, but am 1000000000000% for it in cases of rape, incest, or the mothers health is in danger of carrying it to term.
But even though I might frown on it as a form of birth control it is still the woman’s choice.

As long as that fetus is a parasite feeding off the mother’s body, she has every right to withdraw her permission for that parasite to continue using her body.

Regardless of the “life” of the parasite.

@Yellowdog No shortages…yet.
In 1800 the world’s population hit 1 billion.
1930 2 billion
Approx. 1963 3 billion
Approx 1993 6 billion
2007 7.5 billion
2017 about 8.25 billion.
and growing by about 1% per year.
Get the picture??

I certainly do get the picture.

If someone aborts their child with saline burns or a curvette blade, , some other children get to eat wholesome food and have clean fresh water.

I have a hard time regarding babies as parasites. Even after birth they are still completely dependent, arguably for years. Thing is though, late-term abortions are quite rare and are usually health related which needs to be allowed. I can’t say I’m really against civilized abortions for reasons like this. The one case I would be against is when a pregnancy is months in, nothing is wrong and the mother suddenly decides, nah, don’t want it. Pretty rare that this happens so I’m basically against regulations stopping abortion. I have a problem with the ridiculous arguments that left and right activists make when it comes to abortion, I mean it’s really mostly crazy talk that people use to justify their positions. This is one thing that many are passionate about yet few are really in any way reasonable.

I think you have the most level headed response. I would also include women whose lives would literally fall apart (lose job, income, home) and have no support from family and others if they carry their pregnancy to term. Some would include teens in this category—but they are just outside the pale unless there was rape or statuatory rape. But there are women who would not be able to work or support themselves if pregnant and not have a job even when able to work, and would be disowned by their families and the one who got them pregnant. Merely not wanting the child doesn’t qualify— and abortion is certainly not “good for the planet”— the planet is about life and proliferation and teeming with it.

Maud Dib: To say that an unborn child is a parasite is a bit sickening. I have to be careful what I say to come across as a personal attack.—but to regard an unborn child as a parasite sounds perverted and morally / psychologically sick.

The unborn child is, therefore, like a Blood Fluke? A Roundworm? Something foreign growing in the intestines? Listen to yourself.

If a woman’s body is designed to reproduce, and give birth, then how can an unborn child be regarded as a parasite? It is a human, a child, and It is doing what it is supposed to do—the body of the mother is doing what was intended for reproductive purposes.

But thanks for demonstrating how morally bankrupt this position can get.

Not everyone considers babies and unborn babies as something wonderful, but before I am attacked for that a child can be ones biggest blessing or extreme curse.
BUT again with todays birth control one shouldn’t have to resort to an abortion, but in cases where it does fail then by all means have one.
We don’t have to populate the damn planet it already is way over populated.

@Yellowdog, if I can ask, since you seem like the most pro-life/anti-abortion person on this thread—what do you think of @Muad_Dib‘s point in this quip? Because for that argument, whether we define a fetus as a full human with the full legal rights of a human is irrelevant. It points out, if I may paraphrase, that we do not violate a person’s right to bodily autonomy in any other case, even when doing so would save or sustain another’s life—yet a pro-life position takes that right away from pregnant women. It would follow, then, that the legally and morally consistent position is a pro-choice position.

Based on your comments about life being about begetting life, and women’s bodies being designed for reproduction, I would assume you’d say that a woman’s biology forfeits her right to bodily autonomy. Is that the case? (If so, how would you defend that? If not, what is your response? I’m genuinely curious. I’d ask someone who’s more staunchly pro-life, but I haven’t seen that on this thread… But if anyone is pro-life and reads this, and I know you’re out there, what’s your response to Muad_Dib’s point?

I know others raised the bodily autonomy issue, too. I just think Muad_Dib’s corpse’s-rights comparison is especially interesting! Also, sorry if it feels like I’m singling you out, Muad_Dib and Yellowdog. I don’t mean it to be that…)

Ok what about conjoined twins. Say one would live if the other was cut away but that one would die. Is it still ok to use such “my body my choice” arguments and let the twin who would live decide to have her sister killed because she was using her body to live? That is an extreme scenario but it does outline that the bodily autonomy arguments the pro-choicers use is not black and white, it’s pretty grey.

Then there is the very obvious fact that laws restricting abortion fall nearly exclusively on women without means.

I’ve been pregnant twice. The first time nearly killed me. The second time I miscarried.

I do not intend to bear another child, and have taken steps to assure that.

I will not die for a fetus. Period.

Soubreasaut: — My argument against Maud Dib’s answer is not about abortion—its about Maud Dib’s reference to the pre-born as a parasite living off the mother’s body. Like the worm clusters growing in the intestines. That’s what human parasites are—hookworms, bloodworms, tapeworms, etc.

When pro-choice advocates make such a comparison, it shows the perversion of their position—as does the idea that abortion is sort of good for the planet. Slaughter that bloody fetus and offer it up to Gaia or the soul of the universe—the cold and pitiless stars. Is that what we’ve devolved to?

Why not make a Danbury Mint statue conveying primitive tribe abortion and offering the slaughtered fetus to Gaia—while other less fortunate children are made more well and whole

You failed to answer the question:

Do you feel that pregnant women deserve less bodily autonomy than a corpse, or not?

@Yellowdog Your conscience is not at issue as the woman bearing the child, if you believe in that and that somehow it is. Your being guiltless, in reality, is being pro-choice. But you are also not guilty if you are pro-life. You are simply not involved in the process.
Even grown humans are parasites (vermin) living off of the planet as well as others, so it doesn’t matter where or to who or at what stage of development this parasite belongs, if a parasite it is.
And the perversion is yours, and your choice to see it as such.
If what we are doing is devolving, it could well be for the betterment of mankind as a whole, rather than overpopulate the planet with humans and cause ever so much more suffering and turmoil from mass starvations and disease.

You COULD say that the purpose of human beings is to manufacture feces and make a little more carbon dioxide via breathing. Is THAT what we are?

Muad Dib: Yes, a pregnant woman has more value and bodily automomy than a corpse—so does an unborn child. So why does a corpse’s organs get more sanctity than an unborn child?
A corpse’s organs cannot be donated but those body parts of a baby at X-number of weeks are really valuable to Planned Parenthood or the local abortuary. The Abortion industry is far more gruesome than the charnel house of horror movies and Halloween caricature. And the abortion industry, for federal dollars or anatomical parts, is real.

I feel sometimes like I am writing like a freaking fanatic, but abortion is really happening to unborn human beings. Not always for good reasons.

But then again, humans only purpose is to manufacture excrement. This proves there is a God and God has a weird sense of humour. He thought of poop and needed a way to make it. So He created Adam.

@Yellowdog, I know you didn’t mention the argument I pointed to. I was just curious. I took from your posts that you’re against abortion after 3 weeks (perhaps you meant months?) and/or you want the mother to show proof of hardship for an abortion, because you mentioned that simply not wanting children wasn’t a good enough reason for one. But perhaps I’m misreading your statements—I’ve been assuming you meant you want a change in law to reflect those parameters, but maybe you’ve just been stating your personal opinion, and are fine leaving the door open for women to make their own choices for their own situations. (And then, like you indicated, you really don’t have an objection to the argument I pointed to?) I was looking for some sort of response like @ARE_you_kidding_me provided, maybe I looked for it the wrong way. Sorry if that’s the case.

Thanks, @ARE_you_kidding_me! That was exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. I haven’t seen arguments against the bodily autonomy argument before (not that I remember, anyway), so I wasn’t sure what someone might say against it.

I’m not yet sure how I’d respond to the conjoined twins situation. Part of me wants to say it’s still different enough from the abortion issue to be a separate issue, but I’m trying to figure out if that’s because it really is, or because I want it to be. My not fully formed idea would be, loosely: For conjoined twins, it’s not necessarily as clear whose body it is, or even where which body “begins” or “ends,” since they grew together from the outset? Especially in difficult-to-separate cases, as the example is, where the twins often share organs that belong to both of them—whereas for a woman and fetus, the division is clearly defined. I’m not yet sure if that’s a significant distinction or not, but I feel like it might be? And since there are so many different possible situations for conjoined twins, I can imagine the case-by-case examples complicating where to draw the line. So I’m poking around a bit on the web to see what I can read to try and sort it out for myself. I can at least see where a pro-life argument could draw parallels between the conjoined twins argument and the woman/fetus argument, which is the kind of thing I was wondering about. So, again, thanks!

As ‘Are You Kidding Me; said above, I believe ‘civilized’ abortions should and will remain legal—but the decision is far too reckless. Options should REALLY be available

I AM just stating my personal opinion and not desiring a change in laws because there really ARE cases where an abortion is the only option.

What would be best would be if enough factual and unbiased information was available and part of our culture that the situation could be handled rationally—about abortion and about the problems of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

It’s difficult to argue against the fact that abortions are about the destruction of a potential human being. But in THIS society, the decision to enforce pregnancy cannot be delegated to governments so callous to the dire odds against mother and child trapped in unwanted pregnancies.

The label pro-life is misleading. Life covers a wide range of organisms from paramecium to whale. Nobody should be advocating the preservation of all forms of life regardless of the circumstances. The issue should be the preservation of human life. Individual sperm and egg cells are alive, but the vast majority of t hem never get beyond the single cell stage. When a sperm and egg cell of any plant or animal come together, it is the start of a rather extraordinary process but, in the case of our species, it takes a period of time before this process results in anything that can be described as human. There is no soul inserted upon conception.

Deciding the exact point that the fetus becomes human is not possible, but we can say that at a certain point it should be considered a person and that at some previous point we can say that it is definitely not human. To be on the safe side, we should choose the earlier date as the latest time that an abortion should be permitted.

As an extension of this argument, the philosopher Peter Singer has controversially argued that a child does not become fully human at birth. I do not share this view, but it should not be dismissed out of hand.

Do you know what the words “bodily autonomy” mean?

I’ll rephrase the question:

“Do you believe that when a woman becomes pregnant her body then belongs to someone other than herself: that the state has the right to compel her to give her blood and organs to another person.

And if the state has the right to compel a pregnant person to give blood and organs to a fetus at great risk to their own health and with lifelong consequences, do they have to right to compel a person (say, yourself?) to give a kidney that you can live without, naturally at risk to your health, with lifelong consequences, to another person who needs it to survive?

My argument is not that a fetus is not a person.

My argument is that a woman is a person.

I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint. There are two bodies involved, that of the woman and that of the child, assuming that the fetus has reached the stage that we can call it that. Unless the health of the woman is in serious peril, I do not see what damage the woman is going to incur that justifies murdering the infant.

If the fetus has reached an age where it is no longer dependent on the pregnant person for survival, it’s not an abortion, it’s birth.

If the fetus is of an age to be born but it is not viable, than it is the medical removal of a harmful parasite.

If the fetus is dependent on the mother for its life to continue, it is the mother’s right to terminate the use of her organs for that other person.

Once the child is born, is it not still dependent on the mother? Let’s simplify things to consider a single mother to avoid consideration of the father’s role. The mother has to feed, clothe and bathe the child. It is still a parasite. Why not just toss it in a dumpster?

The child’s birth does not change the dependency. In fact, it becomes easier to kill the child. The default option for the woman before childbirth is to nurture the child. That is what her body is set up to do. The default option after birth is to let the child starve to death. Why not do what comes naturally? And make no mistake about it. Infanticide is far more common than most people realize.

You’re diverting.

I’m not talking about caregiving or monetary concerns.

I’m talking about the state requiring a person to give their body and blood to another person.

Let,s say people under 16 yrs. are not capable of liviing on their own. Are they therefore not persons?

@Muad_Dib , We are talking about dependency. It really does not matter what form that the dependency takes. Being attached to the mother by an umbilical cord does not make the child an accessory of the mother. It is its own entity.

The mother has a choice, either before childbirth or afterwards. What difference does it make when she makes the choice? I don’t mean to be diverting. I am dead serious. In the past infanticide was fairly common and there are places today where it still occurs.

I agree with @Muad_Dib‘s exact argument. It does not matter when life starts. If I get in a car accident with my seven year old child – no argument about whether she’s alive or not – in the backseat, and she is bleeding out and the only way to save her is for me to donate some of my blood, I am not legally required to give it to her. Even if the car accident was my fault. The government does not compel us to give up our bodily autonomy to save others, ever – not even after death, as @Muad_Dib showed! Except in the case of denying abortions.

Do you favor infanticide? Why should you forfeit your resources to care for a child? Picture a young teenage mother scared to tell people she has a child and without the resources to care for it. Why shouldn’t she just toss it in the nearest dumpster?

Forfeiting resources is completely different than forfeiting actual pieces of my body. Forfeiting resources does not violate bodily autonomy. That’s why you can be arrested for failing to feed your child at all but you can’t be arrested for failing to breast-feed your child. That’s why infanticide should remain illegal but abortion should not.

So being inconvenienced for a few months, allowing a natural process to unfold, is a huge burden, but being required to provide food, shelter, clothing, health care and education for a child over the course of several years is okay. Strange logic.

Pregnancy for many women is far more than an inconvenience. I know you know this. This is a healthcare decision that does not belong in the hands of anybody besides a woman and her doctor.

“Inconvenienced for a few months” is a matter of perspective in a society where the penalties for falling behind are augmented by social stigma. And it is no coincidence that those places in this country most vehemently opposed to abortion are exactly the ones where the penalties for being “invonvenienced” are most rigorously enforced.

Why am I pro-choice?
The first and foremost reason is that I do not believe it is anyone else’s duty or responsibility or right to make life altering decisions for me. I make them myself for myself. And if I demand that right, that ability, for myself then who am I to demand that others not be granted the same right? Everyone should have to make their own decisions since it is they who then have to live with the consequences. The best we can do is provide the education necessary to make informed choices and then let people decide for themselves.
The abortion issue is only a portion or extension of this philosophy. You should have the right to decide how and when you are ready to become a parent just as you should have the right to decide when and how to die.
When I was younger I used to agree with @josie about the state “forcing” those who disagree to pay for something they don’t agree with but I have come to terms with it. For years the state has forced me to pay for wars I don’t agree with, paychecks for Congressmen I don’t agree with, to bail out banks, etc and for a myriad of other things that they believe necessary that I don’t. Abortion is no different. The money goes into a big pot and some comes out to pay for health services.
What If I believed that cancer was bestowed from God and you deserved it if you got it and my tax dollars should not go into trying to cure you? How do we separate out my dollars from cancer treatments and put it toward abortions or elective surgery? We don’t. As I said, it all goes into a big pot and is pulled out to pay for everything, some we agree with, some we don’t but supposedly all for the common good.

Federal tax dollars don’t get used to cover abortions.

Pregnancy is not a few months’ inconvenience. It is a permanent change to your body, even if you’re lucky enough for it to go well. And people seem to forget that many times it does not go well.

Women die in childbirth. Women die during pregnancy. Women end up with postpartum psychosis and commit suicide. Their bodies go through less deadly permanent changes that destroy their abdominal muscles, cause aesthetic changes to their skin, leave them with prolapsed uteruses and bladders, perineal tears that can reach clear to the anus, they can have placenta left behind in the uterus which causes sepsis, severe infections and death. And then there’s the fact that a good half of birth happens through c-section, which is major abdominal surgery with all the risk of complication that comes with, including chance for blood clots, stroke, etc.

Anyone who considers a pregnancy as a baby “renting your body for a few months” is too ignorant to take seriously in this kind of discussion. Honestly.

Exactly. I don’t want anyone making decisions for me about how much risk I should be willing to take on with my health.

If I got pregnant today, I’m sure I wouldn’t qualify for an abortion on the grounds of my life being at risk, because people with my medical condition manage to have babies successfully all the time. However, people with my condition have to have birth via C-section because we’re at risk of pushing our intestines out through our anus while pushing during a natural delivery (yes, really). C-section means another major abdominal surgery, which means more scar tissue buildup in my abdominal cavity, and I’m already having frequent problems with bowel obstructions due to my guts getting tangled up in the scar tissue that I already have in my abdominal cavity.

But because pregnancy probably wouldn’t actually kill me, it’s somehow the government’s business to tell me that I have to be willing to take on that risk?

No. Fuck no. This is a personal health decision.

@Mariah , @Muad_Dib , I was not aware of the extent of the damage that can be caused by pregnancy and childbirth. You have given me something to think about. From a moral point of view, one needs to weigh the risk to the mother versus the certainty of killing a child (we only disagree about abortions late in the pregnancy). One thing we can agree on, I hope, is that a decision to have an abortion should be made as early as possible, both for the sake of the woman and to remove any moral considerations as to the stage of the fetus.

And that moral decision needs to be in the woman’s, not the government’s, hands. She is the one who will live with all the consequences of her choice. She is competent to weigh it and make her own decision.

I appreciate you for being open to new information.

It might comfort you to know that the VAST majority of abortions occur early in pregnancy; women generally make every effort to get an abortion early on if she wants one. Late-term abortions are nearly always due to medical necessity.

Proposed laws to make abortion harder to get, such as waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, parental consent, etc. will only serve to make abortions happen later.

I would like to see links on late term abortions, the pro life side say they happen quite often I personally DO NOT believe that.
If they do happen I have been lead to believe it is because there is a serious health risk to the mother and not because at month 8 she all of a sudden says nah I don’t want to go on with this kid, I believe not to many Doctors would perform an abortion that late in the pregnancy just because the women changed her mind, but the prolife side says it does well show us stats on it.

Here is a blog post about the rarity of late-term abortion, which provides sources for its claims: http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/21/late-term-abortions-in-america-2016

This is such a polarized issue that it’s hard to find material that is not tainted with propaganda.

And that would be from both sides of this topic, right @ARE_you_kidding_me ??

100% yes. It’s overblown as all hell. I mean, use birth control, if the pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted get an abortion asap. If it is wanted but there are complications then allow an abortion. If you wait months then decide it’s still ok but fuck you. The little bit of grey area IMO is when it’s almost to term and the mother does not want it. By that point most of the pregnancy complications have happened. Plenty of families want to adopt. If there are no major health risks why not let the child live and give it up for adoption. For those tiny, tiny fraction of cases that are in this scenario is it really worth getting in bed with the pro-life religious nutjob crowd? Most reasonable people would say no. That does not mean I’m in bed with the “babies are parasites” crowd either. I don’t have nice words for that line of thought.

Unplanned pregnancy does not mean the mother/father has to raise the baby. There is adoption, leaving the baby at a Church etc., as soon as the baby is born. But you wouldn’t hear that from the pro-choice side.
https://www.wikihow.com/Drop-Off-an-Unwanted-
Is it humaine or inhumaine to advocate for tiny invisible people who can’t advocate for themselves?

Enter @flo, to once again interject an off-topic response to a thread she couldn’t be half-bothered to read.

In 2017 or even decades befeore 2017, in an educated population, wealthy, industrial, western democracy, between condoms etc. people can manage to not end up with unplanned pregnancies. Much easier to fight pregnancy in the 1st place than killing a person who just happens to be invisible.

Minority children are less likely to be adopted. White people would prefer to adopt white children from other countries than a minority child from the US. People with less money are also less able to get birth control or information on family planning. Another reason Planned Parenthood is so important.

Issues of access and information are not all neat and tidy as you think.

@flo But there is just no getting around the argument that the decision on whether to undergo a pregnancy must rest with the potential mother. And again, I must point out that ethical or religious arguments countering a woman’s right to abortion are meaningless in the face of stark reality. And the reality is that prohibitions against abortions will always fall exclusively on women who can’t afford them.

Nicely said @stanleybmanly ^^^^^^^^^^^^.

Edited
1)The arguments for being pro abortion are as as misleading as the name “pro-choice” Case in point, ones health is about excercing and eating right, ...not about taking someone’s life, regardless of the size or location of the person.
Doing one one wants with one’s own body can be about donating a kidney getting a tattoo piercing, ... It is not a bout taking a person’s life, regardless of the size or location of the person.*
2)No one has addressed the point in my last post about preventing pregnancy is much easier than….x, y, z.

@stanleybmanly Re. your ”...the reality is that prohibitions against abortions will always fall exclusively on women who can’t afford them.” That is the case with everything. Poor people suffer more than rich people in every area. Calling a fetus a non-person or even worse parasite until however old, is part of what brings about more women who go for abortion.
If a person finds the idea that Trump could be President of US, beyond horrid and unimaginable, is it dumbfounding or not that they can be so called “pro-choice” ?

Thank goodness for anyone who calls out the poster about unborn person is parasite. Wowee!!

@tinyfaery sorry you did address access and info above. But are the majority of women who get even more than one abortion, not the well informed who have easy access to contraception city women?

@flo, of course everyone prefers that people try to prevent conception in the first place instead of seeking abortions. Unfortunately, sometimes contraceptive fails, and women should not be forced to forfeit the right to control over their bodies when it does.

Bodily autonomy does indeed extend into situations in which a person’s decision results in the death of another. Choosing not to donate blood or a kidney to someone who really, really needs it is legal, for example.

Thank goodness for anyone who calls out the poster about unborn person is parasite. Wowee!!
^^ Really that unborn person damn near killed that poster and you look down on her for feeling that way?
I totally agree with her in that circumstance.
Why don’t people get the fact that all pregnancies are NOT a wonderful gift from GOD.
Some are indeed a curse from Hell itself.
How about these do good pro lifers fighting to protect, feed, and care for the unwanted children that are already on this damn planet, than fighting for the unborn ones that are not?
Now that is a great cause, and leave the unborn ones up to the women that are carrying them.

My nine-year-old former parasite nearly killed me. My second parasite killed itself before I had to seriously consider anything – and can I tell you I’m really glad at this moment that I’m here talking to you guys and my kid’s still an only child with two parents, rather than holding a newborn with a widower for a father.

Hey I am on your side @Muad_Dib I don’t get why these pro lifers don’t concentrate on caring for the unwanted children that are already here than focusing on the unborn ones that are not?

@SQUEEKY2 _
Another ridiculous misleading thing:
if a person is anti-abortion they must not be adopting fostering etc. with your:
“How about these do good pro lifers fighting to protect, feed, and care for the unwanted children that are already on this damn planet,”
If a person is “fighting to protect, feed, and care for the unwanted children that are already on this damn planet,” of course it is more than highly likeky to be a do good pro-lifer, not the do bad pro abortionist. The pro abortionists are too busy not willing to see that one can’t get to be a newborn, a toddler…an adult , without going through the necessary zygote stage. So, aborting the zygote is not different from starving the newborn to death. Killing a newborn is no different from killing a toddler

Bullies pick a fight with the smaller people, the ones with the least amount of power. This is what it’s all about.

@flo Have you ever had a pregnancy at a time when you would not have been able to care for a baby?

@flo so isn’t it the “smaller” poorer women who are defenseless when abortion is banned?

Why does US have Trump as president? One of the major reasons, the pro abortionists.

@rockfan
I hope you see the Knock it out of the park posts like
https://www.fluther.com/204349/what-are-the-best-reasons-for-being-pro-choice/#quip3420773

@flo, that makes no sense at all. Trump stated he thinks women who get abortions should be “punished.” His party is the one that wants to outlaw abortion. You cannot pin Trump on pro-choice people.

Totally agree ^^^ @Mariah ,I think she is trying to answer a couple of different questions and got them mixed up.

But she’s saying that a primary reason for Trump’s success is “pro abortionists”, one of those terms like Democrat Party or death tax.

It’s an interesting conjecture. Pro life life voters driven into the arms of Trump. On the other hand, it would be difficult to look at Trump and miss the thought that there are certainly instances where abortion is called for.

Pro-life is not misleading because when we talk about abortion it has only to do with the life of the life of the zygote or fetus, not any other form of life.

@stanleybmanly (why isn’t it going red?) (ok it gets red as soon as it is posted)
1) ”...it would be difficult to look at Trump and miss the thought that there are certainly instances where abortion is called for.”” Some of the aborted could have have been the everyday people who make the world a better place, (not well known ones) or someone who saved all those children out of Germany during Hitler for example. (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/world/europe/nicholas-winton-is-dead-at-106-saved-children-from-the-holocaust.htm

What a wonderful way of trying to sell it, or maybe they might have been the next Green river killer, Charles Manson, or Hitler but we will never will know that either..
I suppose we should force a woman who was raped to carry it to term after all it’s not zygotes fault?

Of course there are both potential Nobel prize winners and potential serial killers that are lost to abortions. But no argument you can make should override the right of the one person indispensable to childbearing on the decision to become a mother.

Thank goodness for most of @Yellowdog‘s and @LostInParadise‘s posts.
@Yellowdog I’m sure you must have meant “There is no justification for Abortion below maybe three weeks of pregnancy

@stanleybmanly You only brought up Trump an example earlier. I was debunking it.

Well do you believe the rest of us have the right to force a woman to bear a child?

Because the child is a viable human being rather early in pregnancy.

There are lots of consequences we don’t get a “choice” about. We can argue our case and sometimes get an exception. And some decisions and laws are genuinely unfair. But carrying a child to term is the only medically ethical decision unless doing so would destroy the life of the mother. Now, THAT’s a good term to use when deciding. Would the mother become destitute and on the street from abandonment by the father and her family and employer? Is her physical health at risk?

It is NEVER an ethical decision after 3–4 weeks because you ARE dealing with a viable human being, and it doesn’t matter if the child will become Hitler or Ghandi— or if it is male or female. So quit playing the higher “moral” ground about “forcing a mother to bear a child” It DOES matter, maybe, if rape or incest is involved. Sometimes, abortion IS the only viable option, but it is never ethical per se’

@Yellowdog Wouldn’t focusing on caring for and feeding the millions of unwanted children that are already on this planet be a greater good, than focusing on the unborn ones that are not?
Leave the unborn ones to the mothers that are carrying them, and turn your attention to caring for the children that really do need help.

We’re having a bit of trouble with definitions again.

Viable means capable of living outside the uterus.

Without literal millions of dollars of medical intervention, that doesn’t occur until quite late.

But I’m not taking a moral position. And the government does indeed try to compel us to act against our own personal interests. The draft was a clear example of this. And just as with abortion, compliance was conveniently avoided by the rich and the slick. But laws against abortion are particularly onerous since the burdens of compliance fall exclusively women, and then again only on women lacking means or sense to acquire a bus ticket. If you want to insert ethics into the conversation, consider the reality of a law passed for ethical reasons which in reality penalizes ONLY those least capable of mustering the resources required to undergo the burden mandated. As if a woman who cant afford an illegal abortion is in a position to afford a 9 month pregnancy.

Viable is not the same as being human. If a 4 week old fetus is removed from the mother, it does not remotely resemble a human. Just being viable is no reason for being treated as sacrosanct. A paramecium is viable, but we have particular regard for its life.

Out of all the issues we wrestle with here, abortion is for me the toughest. I’m frankly conflicted about the whole thing and admit that those opposed to it have powerful, valid arguments. I think it is a good thing that the subject is hotly contested, and the gravity of the issue will not allow abortion to become an item of casual regard. It is simply that the translation of this particular prohibition into working actuality promotes evils exceeding the singular wrong it is mandated to prevent. Those opposed to abortion should not be allowed to disregard the injustice around a society where a woman might be forced to bear a child with scant regard on the part of said society for the care or nurturing of either mother or child. But the hypocrisy with opposing abortion in THIS society is that consequences are borne EXCLUSIVELY by those most desperately in need of care and nurturing.

Literally no one considers it “of casual regard”. An eighth week miscarriage causes months of pain. Trust me. An abortion is not an afternoon at the spa.

There are pro lifers who would have us believe otherwise.

And they are wrong.

They should be corrected, not coddled.

And I have not the slightest doubt that if it were men bearing the children, there wouldn’t be any question about the right to a government funded abortion, routine disability payments for menstrual cramps, and months of paid paternity leave as routine.

@rockfan didn’t bring up legality.

Things that have been responded to are being brought up again, by the pro abortionist side.

^^ On the legality issue. In terms of the abortion debate, if you’re anti-abortion/pro-life, you’re in favor of laws making abortion illegal, or at least finding legal ways to make it very difficult (if not functionally impossible) for a woman to obtain one. If you aren’t personally in favor of abortion but also don’t believe there should be laws preventing (or functionally obstructing) a woman from seeking an abortion, you’re pro-choice. Because that’s what the debate is about—whether other people get to legislate whether a woman has a right to decide what happens to her body. And in the end, that’s all the pro-choice position is: that women have the right to choose.

I understand the pro life side,they think terminating the pregnancy at any stage is just plain murder of an innocent child.
The more intelligent pro lifers will agree somewhat that if the mothers life is in true jeopardy of carrying it to term they can see the need to end it, but from what I understand those are the only circumstances they will agree to.
The die hard ones I talk to think the woman should carry it to term even under the circumstances of rape or incest,and that is truly disturbing they argue that it isn’t the fetus fault,true but it sure as hell isn’t the womans either and if she wants it gone then gone it should be, but pro lifers don’t see it that way.
In the end it is the woman’s choice, but that is my opinion.

Bravo @Soubresaut!

@flo There is a distinction between pro abortion and pro choice. It seems to me that if you call me pro abortion, you’re saying that I prefer all pregnancies aborted. This is clearly not the case. Pro choice is almost certainly the more accurate definition for anyone on my side of this issue. We don’t murk your side up with an anti choice designation. I am NOT advocating that anyone have an abortion.

Pro abortionists (“pro choice” is a meaningless term) are repeating themselves.
@SQUEEKY2
Permalink: https://www.fluther.com/204349/what-are-the-best-reasons-for-being-pro-choice/#quip3421592
It’s been responded to here:
Permalink: https://www.fluther.com/204349/what-are-the-best-reasons-for-being-pro-choice/#quip3421307

@stanleybmanly
1) “But the hypocrisy with opposing abortion in THIS society is that consequences are borne EXCLUSIVELY by those most desperately in need of care and nurturing.” It’s been responded to here:
Permalink:
2) https://www.fluther.com/204349/what-are-the-best-reasons-for-being-pro-choice/#quip3421666
It’s been responded to here:
” That is the case with everything. Poor people suffer more than rich people in every area.”
Permalink: https://www.fluther.com/204349/what-are-the-best-reasons-for-being-pro-choice/#quip3421135

@Soubresaut so you mean just because the term abortion issue is used almost all the time, women haven’t been contemplating/ discussing with close family and friends what to do about an unplanned pregnancy without looking into what the law says/knowing what the law says, and then deciding to continue to not abort? Of course there are plenty of of disadvantaged women who bear the child and have it adopted etc. just like there are people all over the world who sacrifice their own life for another.

@flo, if I understand correctly, that’s the opposite of what I’m saying. Of course an individual woman can discuss her options with others. Of course other people can try to dissuade a woman from choosing an abortion. Because, well, free speech. But they can’t prohibit (or otherwise prevent) that woman from seeking an abortion. If you believe that’s the way it should work—well, then you’re pro-choice. That’s all I’m saying.

Pro-choice houses a mixed group of perspectives and decisions about abortion because… well… that’s kind of the point of it. All pro-choice asks is that everyone gets to choose for themselves. That’s really it.

Why did I bring it up? I was simply responding to your comment that @rockfan didn’t mention legality. Pro-choice, as a position, is inherently one about laws. So are pro-life movements—though the name “pro-life” muddies that fact… hence, for example, common analogies like “abortion is murder” (notice how it’s comparing abortion to something that is illegal).

But I seem to be reading posts with law in mind while some of the posts are just people expressing personal reasons why they wouldn’t choose abortion themselves. (But, again, that would be a pro-choice position. Not a pro-life one.) Sorry if that’s the case again…

Dang it, out of edit time. I think I may have misread your reply, @flo? Sorry if the above post isn’t super relevant to what you were saying. (Just to clarify: are you saying that being pro-choice is somehow the same as being against a woman choosing to carry a fetus to term? If so, that’s a misunderstanding/mischaracterization of the issue that we can clear up…. Or are you saying that women shouldn’t be able to get abortions, that they shouldn’t have a choice in the matter? That’s the pro-life position.)

@flo, and anyone else in this thread who does not believe in the right to choose. Can I ask you some questions?

I am on birth control pills right now. My boyfriend and I also always use condoms. However, it is still possible for us to get pregnant. All birth control can fail. You cannot deny that many unwanted pregnancies happen to people who did everything they could to be responsible.

I understand that I could adopt the baby away, but my main concern here is not what happens after the birth. I am afraid of the effects that pregnancy would have on my body. I have a serious medical condition that has come extremely close to killing me many times in the past decade. People with my condition cannot give birth naturally, we have to deliver via C-section. I have already had multiple abdominal surgeries and am plagued with complications due to the scar tissue they created. A C-section would make my problems even worse by creating more scar tissue.

Pregnancy might not actually kill me, but it is extremely probable that it would leave me very ill for the rest of my life.

Please read what I just wrote. Now please answer the following questions. Please do not side step them.

Do you believe I should be forced to carry a fetus to term? Do you believe I should be forced to go through pregnancy even though it would probably ruin my health?

I am asking you to give your opinion on my specific situation. I might have some follow up questions depending on your response.

Unintended pregnancies in US Somewhere between 35% & 60% depending on where in the US you live.

I think that the basic premise of those who are anti-choice is that the mothers life is less important than that of the fetus. And I think that the reasoning behind that is that since you are pregnant and didn’t want to be you have already proven yourself to be sinful, impulsive and undependable and therefore are worth less than the mass of tissue you carry that could become another Einstein or Alexander the Great. It could just as easily become another Hitler, Pol Pot or, more likely, a cud chewing member of the underclass but we don’t take the negative into account.

Excellent answer ^^^^^^^ @rojo!!

And @Mariah I have noticed not one pro lifer has chosen to answer your question, what a shock.
I get the feeling from them they would only consent to it if the mothers life was in true jeopardy , anything else and I mean anything else the fetus comes first to them,to heck with whatever the mother has to endure, and after it’s here it’s some others bleeding heart problem, for they only care for the unborn.

I consider myself to be pro-death on all fronts, abortion, death penalty, assisted suicide, population control, etc..

@flo pro choice is an accurate description for those opposed to restrictions on abortion. Pro abortion is a dishonest portrayal of my position. I am not promoting nor advocating abortion. If I personally dislike the color orange, yet oppose efforts to outlaw everything orange, it is not only wrong but dim witted to label me pro orange. I would be in fact pro choice.

Nice try @stanleybmanly anyone that isn’t strict anti abortion, is pro abortion in their eyes.

Pro choice = any law in the world.

Let me shift gears here a moment because these arguments go nowhere. I’m basically but reluctantly pro choice so keep that in mind. @Mariah, what the pro-lifers probably want to say is if you have a medical condition that is complicated by pregnancy and since intercourse can lead to the possibility of pregnancy then don’t have intercourse. That’s not saying you should not have sex.

This will be unpopular but… since it is a womans choice if an unplanned pregnancy is carried to term and the father did not want it then he should not be forced to pay for child support. There also needs to be legal channels for this to keep things honest. A guy should not be allowed to change his mind and say he does not want it at the very last second either.

Abstinence-only for adults with disabilities, for life, got it. I am sure disabled folks will have no problems finding companionship and having fulfilling lives under those conditions. And the punishment for those of us not chaste enough to follow this antiquated advice is that we have to forfeit our health for the sake of a clump of cells that has yet to develop consciousness in any meaningful sense of the word and cannot even feel pain.

Pro choice = any law in the world.<OMG so far out of context it goes beyond sense!
And @Mariah YUP that is pretty much how these pro lifers see it, the mother pretty much means nothing to them, she is just a vessel for the fetus, and that is what it is all about.
They could care less about the health of the mother.

How dissimillar are a newborn and a fully grown adult? Very. A newborn doesn’t have teeth for one. So, does that mean you should be able to kill it?

I find there is absolutely no point in trying to change people’s minds about certain issues. I’m reading a book about morality and its premise is that morals are based on one’s emotional make-up and not on rational thought.

Very true @janbb the problem is that these people with very little rational thought, a lot of times get dumb laws passed that affect a lot of good people.

@Mariah No intercourse does not equal abstinance. In any sense they will call you selfish for taking that risk. I don’t agree either but this is their perspective.

Have you read these articles? https://www.lifesitenews.com/pulse/pro-choice-when-a-euphemism-becomes-a-euphemism
https://jezebel.com/5889061/pro-choice-means-anti-conscience-and-other-bullshit-rules

No problem with killing an a 9 month old fetus unborn person, right? If against killing it, is that like getting 100% on an exam or 60%?

…If he exam is basic arithmetic let’s say.

Oh for fucks sake @flo late term abortions are very rare, and would only happen if the mothers life was at risk if she took it to term, I doubt any doctor would do it if it was suddenly a change of mind type thing.
You are reaching beyond sense, you never did answer @Mariah if with all the precautions her and her boyfriend take and if she did conceive, would it be all right then?
Knowing if she carried it to term would have a huge impact on her health?
No you come back with killing new borns, and comparing them to adults.

Should murder be legal because there are people who end up killing for self defence? Of course not. The pro abortionists want abortion anytime, anywhere, for rich women or poor women… Only in a debate do they bring up “the defenseless women ” etc.

@flo That is patently false since you’re the only one arguing for it here.

@flo I’m curious as to what you believe the outcome would be if abortion were once again declared illegal in the United States.

@flo, the second article you linked is decidedly pro-choice. It’s outlining the problematic ways in which people are putting laws in place to explicitly put additional burden on doctors who perform abortions, and on women seeking abortions—while putting in place various protections for people who want to stop abortions via various means. And it’s saying that such policies are wrong.

Here’s the final paragraph, to show that I did read it and am summarizing it accurately:

During this contentious, divisive, and confusingly retro national debate on women’s reproductive rights, much has been made of how providing women with reproductive services violates conscience rights. But what’s lost in the discussion is that government overreach into medical care violates many medical doctors’ right to practice medicine according to their moral beliefs, which means we’re in a place, as a nation, where the feelings of religious men trump both the needs of women and the rights of their doctors. So why is the conscience of the right more important and valuable than the conscience of the left? That just seems, well — wrong.

I’m not sure what the first article was supposed to show. But if you’re interested, here’s a pro-choice perspective I found on the same topic.

Just like an anti abortionist posted an article from pro abortionists, go ahead and post an article from anti abortionists.

@stanleybmanly many things in my posts already, that need to be responded to ( although most of them are rhetorical) before going to another one, which is still about legality, when there is no need to refer to the legality.

The legality is settled. But as with the other civil rights struggles, the efforts to circumvent and restrict a now
legal procedure gallop apace.

@flo the argument isn’t that it’s okay to abort fetuses because they are different from adults. It’s because they are dependent on a woman’s body in a way that puts her health at risk. Nobody thinks infanticide is okay, because a child that has been born is not putting its mother’s health at risk anymore. There is no inconsistency here.

@ARE_you_kidding_me I mean I lost my virginity because my boyfriend at the time said we’d have to break up if I wouldn’t have sex with him because blow jobs weren’t good enough. Expecting people with disabilities to go without “intercourse” for their entire lives is just fucking absurd. They can call me selfish for not risking my body once they have experienced the torture of my health condition and understand what it is I am trying to avoid. Until then they are in no place to judge me.

@flo “The pro abortionists want abortion anytime, anywhere, for rich women or poor women…”

Yes, we want the choice to be available to all women, so that they and their doctors – the people who have the full information about the woman’s situation – can be the ones making the decisions, rather than having the government which knows nothing of our lives and struggles make our decisions for us.

There has been something floating around the internet about choices. Lets see if I can remember it. It is something like this:

You are attempting to escape a burning building. As you run down the hall you hear screaming coming from one of the rooms. You enter the room and the first thing you see is a container that states that it contains 1000 viable fetuses. In the container is exactly what the label says, and there is every reason to expect that all 1000 could be brought to full term with a host mother. The next thing you see is a three year old child screaming from the opposite corner. The fire is fast approaching and you only have the ability to save either the child or the container of fetuses; you cannot save both. Which do you choose to save?

I would rather discuss this with Yellowdog at least he seems to listen and read what people are saying, not comparing newborns to adults.
And even though he didn’t like the idea at least could see some abortions are for the best in certain conditions.
And late term abortions are just propaganda spread falsehoods by the anti abortion movement. .

What makes this discussion difficult is that there are two extreme positions being presented. @flo is opposed to all abortions, and the other side allows women to choose an abortion at any point in the pregnancy.

For what little it is worth, I take a position between the two extremes.

Argument against @flo‘s postion:
When egg and sperm come together, it is not endowed with a soul, and is not a full fledged human being. Roe v Wade uses the viability criterion for when an abortion should be permitted. I think this is wrongheaded. Suppose medical science discovered a way to clone an egg cell and allow it to reach maturity in a vat. That would make every egg cell a little human being. This is absurd.

Argument against extreme pro-choice position:
Just because a child is attached to a woman by an umbilical cord, it is not automatically a part of the woman. At some point, the child must be recognized as being human. Once that point is reached, termination of the pregnancy must be a determination of the relative threats to the mother’s health vs the death of a child.

@LostInParadise thanks for making an effort to see both sides.

“Once that point is reached, termination of the pregnancy must be a determination of the relative threats to the mother’s health vs the death of a child.”

The crux of the question is who should be in charge of making that determination – the woman and her doctor, who actually know her situation? Or a one-size-fits-all rule set by the government?

It need not be a single rule. If the danger to the woman’s health is small then the child should be saved. What is meant by small is something for others to determine. It should be set up so that any significant uncertainty should call for the choice to be made by the woman.

What is the cutoff for how risky something has to be before it’s enough? Who makes that determination? And who is going to make the determination about what the level of risk is for a given woman? The government? Her doctor? Will she have to jump through hoops to prove her level of risk? Will there be a list of health conditions that you have to have in order to be eligible for abortion? Are mental health concerns figured in?

The government does not compel people to take on any level of health risk in any other situation. Even when lives are at stake. If someone really needs my blood but I have concerns about giving it, I will not be forced, even if that person will otherwise die. We don’t even force people to get vaccines for christssake, even though it endangers others to go without them.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Parents are required to “act in the best interests” of their children. Here is an example where the government overruled religious belief. The nature and quality of the sacrifice needed for a parent to maintain the child’s best interests is open to debate, and perhaps should be better defined.

There is definitely a case to be made for requiring vaccines. The danger extends to entire communities.

Then you have situations like down in Texas where you have someone who is, or was, less than 14 weeks pregnant seeking an abortion but having the abortion delayed by the government.

Yes, there are complicating factors like she is being held in detention as an illegal immigrant but the government stance is not that she cannot have one but that if they allow it they are facilitating abortion and they cannot or will not.

So, she is not scheduled for deportation and has yet to have a hearing and will not be released in the meantime and time is passing. It is only my opinion but I think she will be held without hearing or any action until she has passed the 20 week deadline that Texas allows abortions to be performed.

Article I apologize in advance for the one sided tone of the article but it is difficult to find information on this story that does not have spin. If it interests you, there are more out there that take the other side. Please look for them

@LostInParadise I don’t think anyone who is pro-choice here is pushing for “optional” abortion up until delivery. There has always been valid debate about at which point it should be restricted. I do think that many feel that if a fetus is strongly impaired or a mother’s life or health endangered near term, the decision on how to proceed should be between the mother and her doctor

But it does seem to me that those who talk about the sanctity of all life and then vote to unfund children’s health programs are talking out of their asses. This is not a reference to you at all.

You and I appear to be in agreement, but there are those who have taken choice to refer to the entire pregnancy. Fortunately, the number of cases involving late term abortions is pretty small, and usually only done if there is a serious threat to the health of the woman or the child.

Exactly @LostInParadise and yet the anti abortion side would like everyone to believe late term abortions are common place.

@LostInParadise, your second sentence is exactly why people support late-term abortions. The idea that there are women waiting until the final month or so of their pregnancy, and then suddenly deciding they don’t want the baby and therefore abort it—it’s a straw man argument. This article outlines the situations of women who are aborting at later points, and the (quite legitimate, often tragic) reasons why. I think it’s worth a read.

Also, I don’t feel that your linked example of the government overruling parental decisions has any conflict with any of @Mariah‘s points. There is a difference between requiring someone to not withhold available care from a child, and requiring someone to donate the use of parts of their own body.—And that seems like quite a natural line for determining “the nature and quality of the sacrifice needed for a parent.”

I trust women and their doctors to make the decision. My main beef is with people trying to find ways to obstruct or delay a woman from seeking an abortion in a timely manner. That’s why I’m for fewer abortion restrictions. Also, fewer restrictions are not going to cause a run on demand. They’re just not.

At the same time, I don’t have an issue with abortion restrictions for late-term abortions provided they don’t interfere with a doctor’s ability to determine a late-term abortion necessary—I just think it’s a bit of a waste, since it’s a law against a straw man fear rather than an actual problem.

And of course such a thing as soul, corresponds with secular, science, evidence based, ... Not.

If some so called pro choicers or pro abortionists find late term abortion wrong, or wrong-ish ( why do they call themselves pro choicers then? There must be another term to distinguish them from the ones who say it’s always between me and my doctor ones. ) it’s because of the existence of anti abortionists, not because people who call a zygote or a fetus a parasite

So, the further you go toward a lesser number of weeks for it to be called late term the more you are anti abortion.

Eventually it’s going to be possible to go from fertilization straight through the entire pregnancy outside the womb. Woud @flo and the rest of the country’s taxpayers assume the enormous obligation and financial load involved with rearing so very many children?

More anti-abortionists —> much much much fewer unplanned pregnancies in the first place.” So, it’s the opposite of * “rearing so very many children”*….

@flo So you support sex education classes and free contraception for women provided by the government?

Good for you those of you who didn’t post anything aftet my 2 posts before the previous one.

I’m confused.

So let’s face it, the people that are pro-choice aren’t really pro-abortion they just realize that certain abortions are really for the best, such as the mothers health, or in cases of rape or incest.

Anti- abortionists only see it as killing an innocent child and could care less about the mothers health,or even cases of rape or incest, hell they could could care less once the child is born for they only care for the un-born, BUT please correct me if I am wrong.

I stopped responding less because you bested me and more because you’re so incoherent that trying to talk with you feels more like a fever dream than a debate tbh

@flo the assumption that fewer unplanned pregnancies are in our future hinges primarily on either a decline in overall population or a huge reduction in poverty. It is in the main, and always has been kids or those with no money for abortion who aren’t in reality pro choice. Legal or not, you’re either pro choice or FORCED no choice.

@stanleybmanly that’s been responded to already.