Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Pro choice or pro life? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Pro choice or pro life?
    Pro choice
    127
    76.97%
    Pro life
    41
    24.85%

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I have always been pro choice all the way until a while back when I was on a feminist activist site forum when this was being discussed.
    I was amazed at how many (not all by any means)were calling for not only late term, but some up to birth.
    Somebody even posted a link to an American radfem activist group arguing for post birth abortions .😱
    The problem I have now is that all of them were describing themselves as pro choice and I certainly don't want to associate myself with their standpoint so I can't tick the pro choice box in your poll. It is too all encompassing. I would now say I am pro choice with restrictions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wolfegirl98)
    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?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheOpinion)
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    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?
    Your numbers are a little low.

    In 2011, in the US alone, over 1 million abortions were performed.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/datacenter/profiles/US.jsp

    In 2008, 1.2 million in the US alone. So the number is actually the (Worldwide) 'Millions of abortions a year'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cookiemonster15)
    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?
    Unless it harms others - in this case the baby if he/she is in a state of consciousness.

    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.
    If you really ask those who are pro-life, if they believe a mother who aborted her child willingly for an unacceptable (to them that is) reason was evil - they wouldn't say they do. No one is evil until he/she does evil while knowing it is evil. Abortion after 4 months of pregancy is just evil, but you can't be judged as evil because you believe it not to be so.

    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!
    Yes, but there should be a limit don't you think. After which stage would it be unacceptable. If you think there shouldn't be a stage, then you should find it acceptable for mothers to be able to kill their children of rape even after they were born. What's the stage?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    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?
    I understand your point but that's not the case at the moment. Plus they aren't babies/children until they are born, until then they are foetuses and some people don't consider a foetus to be alive yet until birth. 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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Pro choice every single time. I don't know if I would be able to go through with an abortion myself, I've never been in that situation, and it's certainly none of my business to judge anyone elses reasons for wanting an abortion. I can think of plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't want to be pregnant and I don't believe it's mine or anyone elses business telling someone what they should be doing with their own uterus. I honestly do not give a rats backside if someone has had an abortion. I wouldn't think any less of them. Besides, most late-stage abortions occur on children who are wanted by the parents
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carly2289)
    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
    If a female cat gets pregnant because the parents didn't spay them, it is the owners responsibility to look after the new kitten, and not just kill it because it is inconvenient.

    While it is not ideal, everyone involved is fully aware that sex can lead to pregnancy, and even if they take any precaution, the consequences deal with another living thing, and so they must deal with said consequences. I would say that abortion in the first few weeks is acceptable, anything beyond this is simply morally wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thestars)
    pro choice because no one has the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body.
    agreed
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by feministy)
    agreed
    > implying the baby doesn't have a body
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    > implying the baby doesn't have a body
    it just sits there and does nothing at early stages
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by feministy)
    it just sits there and does nothing at early stages
    how does that equate to the fetus not being an individual human being?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by feministy)
    it just sits there and does nothing at early stages
    It may be more pertinent to consider the function of the mind specifically.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joel 96)
    how does that equate to the fetus not being an individual human being?
    What i said sounded ableist i now realise, apologies.

    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm pro life as in when the baby has a life, you shouldn't terminate it. That is if you dont have an abortion before 10/11 weeks, you shouldn't get an abortion unless there is a medical issue or criminal activity such as rape or forced pregnancy. I honestly cant respect someone who chooses to have an abortion so late in the pregnancy, it just doesnt seem right. I'm pro choice but only until 10/11 weeks. That's morally speaking, if i was a law maker I'd abstain from the issue since it conflicts with my morals to be pro choice and I know what I believe could be controversial. I personally would never let my gf/wife have an abortion after 11 weeks, if they're afraid of giving birth they should say at the start, if they're afraid of raising the baby i'll happily part ways and take care of the baby myself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I would consider myself both pro-choice and pro-life.

    I am pro-choice in that I completely agree that people should be able to choose whether or not to have children. If they want to have them, they should have sex, fertility treatment, IVF, or whatever else might be required in order to create a child. If they do not want to have children, then they should not do any of those things. They have a choice in the matter.

    I am also pro-life in the sense that once you have already exercised your choice to take the actions which lead to pregnancy (e.g. having sex) and a life has been created, you should not try to reverse what you've already done by destroying that life.


    Most people would say that I am pro-life and not pro-choice, because "pro-choice" means you are in favour of the right to have an abortion. However I disagree with these definitions. I am in favour of the choice as to whether or not to have a child, but I think this choice must be exercised before creating life rather than afterwards.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by feministy)
    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.”
    The thing is, you're slipping from human to person. You're trying to define human, not as a physically, objectively existing thing, but as a social being, which of course nobody in the womb can be, so presumably you're not a person until the moment you're born by that definition, but you're still a human. This is the kind of sophistry you get when people try to justify killing when it suits them. There is nothing of the sort that can be seen in the womb that does not represent a distinct entity. That is a living human being that will grow into a social human being unless prevented from doing so by violence.

    If you wish to argue from an awareness standpoint, which h3rmit has constantly done, then it gets a bit more tricky, and I'd be happy to debate that, but at the moment you're arguing from a physical standpoint, and it seems to me to be so blindingly obvious that was is in there is an individual life. 'Person' means very little in correspondence to the objectivity here. If you wish to say "I have a subjective opinion as to when we should give rights", then I'd be a lot happier if you said it rather than trying to put forward an objective analysis on personhood, a pseudo-science backed by very little criteria and evidence.

    (Original post by feministy)
    It is not physically independant. It is absolutely dependent on another human being for its continued existence.
    Careful, there's two definitions under "independent". One is the dependency on another organism, and the other is the freedom of not being subjected to authority. The former is correct, the fetus/baby is dependent on the mother. However, the latter does not apply here. That is a separate entity with his/her own head, arms, legs, fingerprint, blood-type, etc. If you wish to make the latter definition, then what you have is a slavery argument.

    (Original post by feministy)
    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.
    I can't help but notice you're using the pronoun "it" in reference to the baby, as if the organism is not gender-specific. This obviously makes you feel more comfortable in asserting your opinion, but I must insist that it's a mistake to do that. Gender is determined at conception.

    And the rest, dependency doesn't devalue life. A baby outside of the womb is still dependent on those around to feed and look after him/her. You're making the baby sound like an unwanted parasite. 'Unwanted' only holds up if the mother was raped, but even so, I don't consider that a good enough reason to kill an unrelated human being. And parasite? Here: http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.