Pro-choice? Where do you draw the line?

[WizardofOz]

If you believe abortion should be legal, do you believe it should be legal for the duration of pregnancy or is there some cutoff point after which you feel it should no longer be a legal option?

If you choose an option that includes "up to a certain period during pregnancy", please explain where this distinction should be made and why.

I'd like to keep posts limited to those who consider themselves pro-choice for at least the first page or two.

If I missed an option, let me know!

 

[Rusha]

If you believe abortion should be legal, do you believe it should be legal for the duration of pregnancy or is there some cutoff point after which you feel it should no longer be a legal option?

If you choose an option that includes "up to a certain period during pregnancy", please explain where this distinction should be made and why.

I'd like to keep posts limited to those who consider themselves pro-choice for at least the first page or two.

If I missed an option, let me know!

Heh, I voted PRIOR to reading this message. When I was reading the options, I misread option number one as meaning "abortion should be illegal at all times for any reason.

Sooo ... oops, sorry about that.

 

[WizardofOz]

All good, Rusha. I know where you stand :cheers:

 

[Wunderhund]

I do not recall a choice of "never an option" so I could not pick any.

 

[Samstarrett]

I do not recall a choice of "never an option" so I could not pick any.

That's because this poll is specifically for pro-aborts.

 

[Buzzword]

Meh. That there isn't an option for my stance doesn't surprise me.
The political stances of most intelligent people can't be summed up in a soundbyte or enraged mantra.

Available at all times to rape/incest victims or when the life of the mother is in danger.
Available to everyone else up to 48 hours after fertilization.

Main reason for that time limit is because that's slightly longer than the limit of "morning after" pills.
Thus, a backup (abortion) to the backup (morning after pill) to the backup (birth control/condom).

Anything longer is, in my opinion, awarding irresponsible persons who refuse to use the available methods of birth control.


Note: I'm not saying the above is extremely realistic regarding legal implementation.
It's mainly what I'd prefer the ideal situation to be regarding abortion, given that it will exist in society as long as it exists as a concept.

I'm also not saying that is the system which would benefit me personally.
We're speaking in terms of ideals here.
My wife and I will gladly welcome any child God chooses to send to us (we're hoping for a daughter), when we are able to financially support raising him/her.
Until then, my wife is on the pill.

 

[Dena]

That's because this poll is specifically for pro-aborts.

I hate that term.

 

[Samstarrett]

I hate that term.

You're not the only one. May I ask why? I certainly have no problem being called anti-abortion.

 

[mighty_duck]

You're not the only one. May I ask why?

Because it misses our position completely. It insinuates that we find something positive about abortion, when many of us don't.

Abortion is the snuffing of a human life, and has psychological and physiological consequences for the mother. Those who carelessly use it as birth control are worthy of condemnation. It is a tragedy (especially as the pregnancy progresses and the fetus gains more and more of the qualities we value in a person), and we are not trivializing it.

However, forcibly removing the rights of a woman to control what goes on in her own body is an even bigger tragedy.

Hence pro-choice, not pro-abortions.

I certainly have no problem being called anti-abortion.

How about pro-"having the state remove a woman's right to choose who can and can't use her body?"

Besides not fitting comfortably on a bumper sticker, it misrepresents many pro-lifers, who do acknowledge that depriving women of their right is not something they aspire to, but is only an acceptable evil to save a life.

 

[Pragmatic_Liberal]

You're not the only one. May I ask why? I certainly have no problem being called anti-abortion.

That's probably because you have the wrong analogue. The correct one is 'anti-choice'. The difference of course, being that 'choice' is generally a positive thing, while abortion generally isn't. Being against something negative, or for something positive, is of course untroubling (as is the case with your 'anti-abortion'). It is being for something negative (pro-aborts, in your words), or against something positive (anti-choice), that most people would typically find troubling.


PL

 

[Wunderhund]

That's because this poll is specifically for pro-aborts.

I guess I should have paid a little better attention.

 

[Sherman]

I wish there was a none of the above. Any of the choices is worse than hammering your big toe. :mmph:

 

[Silent Hunter]

I hate that term.

Attica! . . . Attica! . . .

 

[MaryContrary]

Because it misses our position completely. It insinuates that we find something positive about abortion, when many of us don't.

Abortion is the snuffing of a human life, and has psychological and physiological consequences for the mother. Those who carelessly use it as birth control are worthy of condemnation. It is a tragedy (especially as the pregnancy progresses and the fetus gains more and more of the qualities we value in a person), and we are not trivializing it.

However, forcibly removing the rights of a woman to control what goes on in her own body is an even bigger tragedy.

Hence pro-choice, not pro-abortions.

How about pro-"having the state remove a woman's right to choose who can and can't use her body?"

Besides not fitting comfortably on a bumper sticker, it misrepresents many pro-lifers, who do acknowledge that depriving women of their right is not something they aspire to, but is only an acceptable evil to save a life.

It kinda puzzle me, this habit pro-choicers have of consistently (and I mean really consistently) inflating the anti-abortion position out to "forcibly removing the rights of a woman to control what goes on in her own body" and "having the state remove a woman's right to choose who can and can't use her body". I wouldn't argue against outlawing marijuana use by calling it "the state regulating everything people are allowed to consume" or "suspending all human rights of self-determination and proclaiming martial law". Or something. Can't even come up with a half-decent analogy here.

I mean it's so obviously done here, MD, so you can present something you hope will sound worse than "the snuffing of a human life" that "has psychological and physiological consequences for the mother". As it is done elsewhere by others for largely the same reason.

I get that you want to acknowledge abortion is horrible while making the case that there are larger human rights/freedom/whatever issue at stake here...but I just don't think it holds up. We limit human rights, freedom, self-determination and whatever else along those lines that you might think relevant in specific cases with just about every law we have that forbids something specifically.

If this argument works then it works for every law we have outlawing something, anything, that an individual choices for themselves as well.

And it completely and totally ignores the question of whether or not a fertilized egg/fetus/whathaveyou is a person with rights that should be upheld. Which is and has been the question all along, yeah?

 

[chrysostom]

I hate that term.

so you like choice?
where
you choose to kill your baby?

 

[Morpheus]

The argument of "choice" to defend abortion doesn't hold water. Pregnancy is the well-known result of an activity. A woman chooses to engage in that activity. A woman chooses not to protect herself from the likely result. Women have several choices available to them.

If I choose to drive my car I know that there is a chance of getting in an accident. I can drive carefully and reduce the likelihood of an accident greatly, yet I know that one still exists. I may also choose, in spite of that knowledge, to drive very fast and recklessly, vastly increasing the likelihood of a wreck. So if I choose to drive, and I also choose to drive recklessly, and then end up killing someone, can I then claim, ""I am not responsible; I didn't "choose" to drive into that person. I choose not to be responsible for the results of my actions.""

Abortion is usually individuals choosing to kill their child to avoid living with the results of their irresponsible behavior. Personally, I believe that when someone engages in sex they imply consent for pregnancy. Claiming otherwise would only be an admission of ignorance.

I have only dealt with the "choice" argument here. When it comes to rape and incest and life of the mother, one must enter into different arguments, including personhood and rights of the unborn; and do the "rights" of one outweigh the "life" of another.

 

[Sherman]

When should abortion be a legal option?
_ Anytime for any reason
_ Anytime, but only in cases of rape, incest or life risk to mother
_ Anytime, but only if the mothers life is at risk
_ For any reason, but only up to a certain period during pregnancy
_ Only in cases of rape or incest and only up to a certain period during pregnancy
X None of the above

There fixed it. :chuckle:

 

[mighty_duck]

It kinda puzzle me, this habit pro-choicers have of consistently (and I mean really consistently) inflating the anti-abortion position out to "forcibly removing the rights of a woman to control what goes on in her own body" and "having the state remove a woman's right to choose who can and can't use her body". I wouldn't argue against outlawing marijuana use by calling it "the state regulating everything people are allowed to consume" or "suspending all human rights of self-determination and proclaiming martial law". Or something. Can't even come up with a half-decent analogy here.

Of course it's absurd. That's the whole point . I don't claim that any pro-lifers would or should use it.

But in the same way, "pro-abortion" casts a net that is too wide, and conflates our position with one that we don't agree with.

I get that you want to acknowledge abortion is horrible while making the case that there are larger human rights/freedom/whatever issue at stake here...but I just don't think it holds up. We limit human rights, freedom, self-determination and whatever else along those lines that you might think relevant in specific cases with just about every law we have that forbids something specifically.

I don't think there is an all purpose rule that works here, such as "always allow total freedom", but freedom is something we aspire to, and need a darn good reason to remove it. The more intrusive the freedom we remove, the better the reason must be.

I totally understand that you think the life of the fetus is indeed such a reason. I respect your position and see the merit of it, but I disagree.

 

[Dena]

so you like choice?
where
you choose to kill your baby?

I don't think women should have abortions and I hope that "you" isn't directly particularly at me.

 

[Dena]

Because it misses our position completely. It insinuates that we find something positive about abortion, when many of us don't.

Abortion is the snuffing of a human life, and has psychological and physiological consequences for the mother. Those who carelessly use it as birth control are worthy of condemnation. It is a tragedy (especially as the pregnancy progresses and the fetus gains more and more of the qualities we value in a person), and we are not trivializing it.

Yes, that pretty much sums up my problem with the term "pro abort". I think it's a very complicated issue that goes beyond "legal" and "illegal".