Pro choice or pro life?

Original post by Andy98

How do you mean? I'm pro-life

The Greens are officially pro-choice, though, aren't they? I was just a bit surprised, that's all. :tongue:

Reply 102

Andy98

Original post by Hydeman

The Greens are officially pro-choice, though, aren't they? I was just a bit surprised, that's all. :tongue:

Real life Greens might be, but TSR Greens are allowed their own opinions.

Reply 103

skunkboy

Attachment not found

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 104

Pro-life. I believe abortion is not a subject to be taken lightly, and it is not something which should be encouraged. In a way, it's like the murdering of a child before it even gets to see the light. I believe that if the parents were deliberately being careless in their actions, the child should be born and the infant either cared for responsibly, or put up for adoption where someone who wants it can care for it.

Likewise, there are conditions I believe the grounds on which abortion is acceptable can be. Namely if the child in question is likely to live an unhappy life (Through serious disability), or the mother or child is at a potentially fatal health risk. Similarly, if the child is conceived through unruly circumstances, such as rape, then it may pose a mental health risk to the mother and therefore an abortion is fine, too.

But I don't agree on the idea of abortion, full stop, if the parents sleep about as this is just not fair on the foetus. Ideally, the parents should use at least one form of contraception. Adoption is always an open option...

Now, shoot me for being so opinionated. I assume at least someone will complain.

Reply 105

Original post by Wolfegirl98

why people are so against people doing what they think is best for themselves?

Because it doesn't just involve the mother, it's not only her body that's at stake.

We're talking about a life form, a proto-human, and I believe it should have some rights. I'm not totally anti-abortion or anything like that, but I do believe it's a very difficult subject and people do it a disservice when they pretend there aren't very fundamental, difficult issues at stake here.

You are talking about where one person's rights end and another lifeform's rights start.

My position is that abortions should be available for any reason before a certain point, but that once the lifeform has developed and progressed it should also accrue rights. It is a fellow human lifeform (I'm not saying a person, but it is human in terms of its DNA, and it is a lifeform) and therefore it deserves our protection to some degree.

It's a very difficult issue, I'd much rather people were much more careful and used birth control, the pill and so on. It's far better to avoid the situation completely than to fail to use birth control and then to have to destroy a viable, proto-human lifeform

Reply 106

Original post by mackemforever

So a woman who has already had a terrible act committed to her should have to suffer a constant reminder of what has been done to her. That to you seems more fair than removing a cluster of cells that is months away from being anything that could even vaguely be described as a human being?

Essentially what you're saying is that the victim of a terrible crime should be punished for having been the victim.

You could also ask, should the foetus also suffer because of the circumstances in which it was conceived? I don't know the answer to this, it's not an easy question to answer and I think at early stage in the pregnancy when the foetus is undeveloped of course it should be allowed to be terminated.

But if it is past, say, week 21 then the foetuses rights must also be considered; it is a proto-human lifeform, it is a part of the human race (I'm not saying it's a person, but we do share kinship with this being. It has human DNA) and as such is deserving of some form of protection

Reply 107

Original post by Tinemither

But I don't agree on the idea of abortion, full stop, if the parents sleep about as this is just not fair on the foetus. Ideally, the parents should use at least one form of contraception. Adoption is always an open option...

And what if contraception is used, but fails? :holmes:

Reply 108

pinkishwhite

Original post by al_94

I'm pro life people need to take responsibility

you said it. I agree.

Reply 109

Original post by MostUnciviIised

I just had a brain-wave. Imagine all of those potential minds which could have found a cure for: Cancer, AIDs, Dementia, Alzheimers, Mental Illnesses (Schizophrenia, Depression, and actual cures. Not ones with degrees of uncertainty), etc. Abortion puts an end to those possibilities...

Reply 110

Original post by Hydeman

And what if contraception is used, but fails? :holmes:

Personally, I think two forms should be used to maximise protections. I.e. one for both people involved. So... He uses a condom, she uses the pill? And even so, there's always the morning after pill to take, isn't there? I'm not 100% informed on such issues.

Reply 111

mackemforever

Original post by Tinemither

So what about abortion before the point at which anything resembling a human has formed? Before the point at which there is any kind of consciousness whatsoever?

You also say that the child can be put up for adoption where "someone who wants it can care for it" but you don't seem to realise that we live in a country where that is rarely the case. We have thousands upon thousands of children who aren't in foster care because there aren't enough foster carers. Even those that do get into foster care don't ever settle, they get bounced around from house to house, never having somewhere they can truly call home, never having a chance to become part of a proper family, moving between schools frequently, not having a settled group of friends anywhere, and as often as not being turfed out of the care system as a barely functional adult.

How is it fair to bring a child into this world knowing that you're condemning it to an awful life?

Reply 112

Original post by Tinemither

Yes, but do you think an abortion would be justified if the woman fell pregnant despite using two forms of contraception? Condoms can break, and the contraceptive pill isn't 100 percent effective, either.

Reply 113

Original post by Tinemither

Absolutely. There is a real, potential human bring whose existence is ended, and that's a stop not to be taken lightly. It's a profound and tragic situation, sometimes perhaps necessary but always in my view to be done with full appreciation and sorrow of the loss of what could have been.

Even with abortions for reasons of health I believe we should be careful. I was born with a very serious congenital heart defect, and I was quite ill for the first nine months of my life. I was born with a double aortic arch and instead of two major arteries coming out of my aorta, I had four and they were wrapping around my windpipe. It's quite a rare mutation and only three people were born in the United States with that issue in the previous couple of years before I was born. They had to send to the US for information about how to do the surgery that saved my life.

It's possible that some parents would abort such a child knowing it was unwell, and I find that prospect frightening, that potential human individuals like me could be killed before they even had a chance at life. So where a foetus is totally healthy, it seems to be like a real tragedy if they were snuffed out. As I said, I don't oppose abortion across the board, but it should be done with restrictions, with respect for the rights of the proto-human and with full appreciation of the seriousness of the act. Abortion shouldn't be looked at just as a backup form of birth control

Reply 114

mackemforever

Original post by MostUnciviIised

I agree that beyond a certain point abortion should only be allowed in certain circumstances, such as there being a risk to the mothers health, or the child suffering from a disability that will result in it having a vastly reduced quality of life.

However until the point at which the foetus has some form of consciousness it isn't suffering, it has no awareness of its own existence, and as such up until that point abortion should be openly available to every single woman, regardless of her reasons for wanting it.

Reply 115

Original post by Hydeman

If evidence could be provided of that, I guess so.

Simplest solution and best chance to avoid anyone falling pregnant, though... No sex (Unlikely)! Seems like a doable solution for myself :P Asexual lifestyle to the end, I suppose.

Reply 116

Original post by Hydeman

And what if contraception is used, but fails? :holmes:

Unfortunately that scenario is often used as an excuse not to use contraception at all, and as an excuse to use abortion as a backup form of birth control. I do not believe that should be allowed.

With modern forms of birth control, if you use say both a condom and the woman is on the pill, the likelihood of conception is infinitesimal. If a man complains about how sex doesn't feel as good with a condom on and he doesn't want to use one, that's fine but he should also take full responsibility for that decision. A human lifeform should not be killed simply because someone doesn't want to use a condom, that is totally disproportionate and unjust

Reply 117

Original post by Tinemither

That's only an argument if you believe in destiny and that these things are predetermined. If you don't, then you accept that a scientist finding the cure for a disease is the product of many, many, many more choices, made by himself and others, than just the choice of his mother to either carry her pregnancy to term or not.

Reply 118