Pro choice or pro life?

Would like to get some opinions in this. I know that our bodies should definitely not be some controversial issue but would like to know why people are so against people doing what they think is best for themselves?

Let's look at this another way.

A woman gets raped, and then she gets pregnant.

Should she have to have the rapist's child because it's unfair to the child?

It should go without saying that a woman raped should be free to have an abortion. It tends to only be uber Catholic states when this isn't so.
But seriously though. What proportion of the thousands of abortions a year do you really think are the result of rape?

Pro choice, because at the end of the day, it's the woman's body and she has every right to do what she want with it - I know that I certainly wouldn't want people telling me what to do, so why do it to other people?

Having said that, I find that a lot of people often jump to conclusions without considering the fact. Just because a woman is undergoing an abortion does not mean that they are 'evil' or whatever it is that people accuse them of. We don't know what's going on in their lives, they could be financially unstable, they could not want to bring a child up in an abusive environment, undergoing a pregnancy could result to medical complications etc, so I really don't see why people judge without knowing what's truly going on. Most woman don't just decide spontaneously to have an abortion, its a long thought out emotional process.

I've seen some people that are anti-abortion whatever the circumstance which is actually kind of disgusting, for all you know, that woman could have been a rape victim!

Not to put too fine a point on it, but... Death won't affect the child?

The original arguments for abortion in 1967 suggested that the 24th week was the hard limit for an abortion because children would not be 'Viable' before that - That is, that this child could not possibly survive if it was born in the 23rd week. This was universally agreed because medical technology had not advanced so far.

So, as the arguments for abortion in 1967 had the assumption that 24 weeks was a hard limit, my question would be:

1) Now that children have been born viable prior to this, should the number be changed? and, in relation to this;

2) As science advances, that number will decrease and eventually hit '0', where the child can be kept alive indefinitely - What then?

Also,even though foetuses can survive now before 24 weeks, they arent fully developed and so it can be expensive to then care for that baby once its born, especially considering the parents may not have wanted to have the child as they wouldnt be able to care for it, it would be really hard for the parents to go through that

pro choice because no one has the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body.

agreed

> implying the baby doesn't have a body

it just sits there and does nothing at early stages

it just sits there and does nothing at early stages

how does that equate to the fetus not being an individual human being?

Of course it is a human, but it isnt a person. It’s merely a potential person.
Webster’s Dictionary lists a person as “being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity.”

It is not physically independant. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence.

Without the mother’s life-giving nutrients and oxygen it would die. Throughout gestation the zygote-embryo-fetus and the mother’s body are symbiotically linked, existing in the same physical space and sharing the same risks. What the mother does affects the fetus. And when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother.
It’s not murder if it’s not an independent person.