Pro-abortion arguments...those who are pro-choice, what do/did you really believe?

[hasikelee]

Are there any people on here who were at one time in their lives for abortion and now against it? Or anyone on here that is still for abortion?

I am genuinely curious about general arguments heard in the abortion debate. Did you, as a pro-choicer, believe these arguments, or was it more of a smokescreen or distraction?

For example, I have found in my own debating that the majority of accusations tossed at me are things such as:

“It’s not a person”

“It’s not a baby”

“You only care about babies, not women”

“Women will just go back to coat hangers if it’s made illegal”

“Abortion is needed in case a woman’s life is in danger”

In general, was there some experience in your life, or some authority/mentor figure who ingrained these beliefs in you? When arguing for abortion, was there a sincere belief that the pre-born child was human but not person, or that anti-abortion protestors had an agenda and didn’t care about women?

I’m sorry if any of this sounds leading. I’m not trying to bait, I really am curious. Because I know some people who honestly believe it’s not a person until it is completely removed from the birth canal. Or that pro-lifers are nuts who want to degrade women…etc.

What I am wondering is, did this belief form through taking a stance and needing an argument to hold onto? From personal experiences? Maybe secondhand stories? Or scare tactics from a leader?

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’m not pro-abortion, but I know someone who is. I’ve often thought that she HAS to be that way because otherwise she couldn’t live with herself. That’s because early in her marriage, when she & her husband thought they weren’t ready to have children yet, she had an abortion. “The time just wasn’t right” was the reason given. And it was all very hush hush. She and her husband later went on to have two children, both of whom are now adults.

In the interim, this woman’s opinion has altered from one of timing to the more general idea of control. She is still pro-abortion, but now her reason, as she puts it, is that “no MAN is going to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body”. (I would presume that would extend from her husband, to her doctor, and to any politician who sought to make a law about this matter.) So now, for her, it’s a matter of having control over her own life, as she sees it. I can only suppose that this control extends to timing as well as other factors. A couple of years ago, when her daughter thought she was pregnant, she was prepared to help her daughter get an abortion because of her daughter’s circumstances (unmarried, not ready for children) but it turned out to be a false alarm.

When confronted with opinions like this woman’s, I have occasionally suggested that “having control” over your own life can also include not having sex unless you are prepared to have the child that could result. The usual response is that I am hopelessly naive for even thinking that way.

 

[Island_Oak]

I spent many years self-identified as pro-choice. It reflected some personal ambivalence on the subject as well as a recognition that theologians, ethicists and even individuals whom I held in high regard disagreed on when human life began and/or when a duty could be imposed on one individual to sacrifice her interests and well being for the sake of another–particularly where the condition of pregnancy was not the result of consensual conduct. Given this debate–I felt the only way it could be addressed in secular society was to recognize that a moral decision making is rarely black and white and that the individual had to be given the ultimate responsibility to make the decision for herself.

Years of reflection, education and maturity have removed any doubt from my mind concerning the moral gravity of choosing abortion. I also believe there are consequences of the choice that can have long-term implications for some woman that can be very detrimental physically, emotionally and spiritually even if the initial response is neutral or positive. However, I remain as uncomfortable mandating the same conclusion upon everyone as I would dictating that everyone MUST become faithful Catholics–because I know mandating morality is an impossibility.

Removing free choice will never prevent evil or error. Education–in the science, facts and morality is the only avenue by which we can ever hope to convince women to make better choices. Murder has always been wrong, and yet has always been a part of human society. We will never see the end of abortion–with or without laws to that effect. So, in some respect you could say I’ve become pragmatically pro-choice–meaning I believe I know the “right” choice, but have to accept that not everyone will agree or come to the same conclusion–no matter what the law says.

 

[mapleoak]

However, I remain as uncomfortable mandating the same conclusion upon everyone as I would dictating that everyone MUST become faithful Catholics–because I know mandating morality is an impossibility.

It is not so much a matter of mandating morality, as laws are rarely instituted in the interest of fostering or coercing virtue. Rather they are intended to allow legal representation for a party that was wronged. They allow for criminal prosecution in the event of violation of such. If a person were murdered, the murderer is not sued, but prosecuted. In the case of an aborted child, there is no such legal protection. A law to protect the unborn is not a legislation of morality on the mother, but a protection for the child allowing for prosecution.

Removing free choice will never prevent evil or error. Education–in the science, facts and morality is the only avenue by which we can ever hope to convince women to make better choices. Murder has always been wrong, and yet has always been a part of human society. We will never see the end of abortion–with or without laws to that effect. So, in some respect you could say I’ve become pragmatically pro-choice–meaning I believe I know the “right” choice, but have to accept that not everyone will agree or come to the same conclusion–no matter what the law says.

As also we will never see the end of murder, theft, rape, etc., regardless of what the law says. This does not justify abolition of the laws of prohibition. Certainly agreed that education in science, facts, and morality are very neccessary to help in fostering conviction that abortion is murder. However, if someone does not understand that murder is wrong, a law is still neccessary, in addition to science and education that murder is wrong. In fact, laws are needed to protect the unborn from those who do not understand that abortion is murder.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[jack_hawkins]

It’s not really possible to have a rational discussion of anything remotely “pro-life” as defined by “pro-life” extremists on this board. I particularly take issue with their description of being “pro-life” as the more rabid campaigners actually promote death in certain circumstances. Basically some people when they take up the “pro-life” banner abandon all belief in science and logic and take on all the less desirable traits of secular rights groups.

 

[Island_Oak]

It is not so much a matter of mandating morality, as laws are rarely instituted in the interest of fostering or coercing virtue. Rather they are intended to allow legal representation for a party that was wronged. They allow for criminal prosecution in the event of violation of such. If a person were murdered, the murderer is not sued, but prosecuted. In the case of an aborted child, there is no such legal protection. A law to protect the unborn is not a legislation of morality on the mother, but a protection for the child allowing for prosecution…
Mapleoak

The complication with this issue is that it does impose a duty of rescue upon the pregnant woman–a duty that exposes her to a condition that can compromise, threaten or even claim her life. Our legal tradition does not require individuals–upon pain of prosecution–to expose themselves to mortal peril in order to save another. How much more tangled does this become when pregnancy is not merely the unintended consequence of consensual acts, but the result of violence? Even the Catholic Church recognizes a right to repel the attack with the use contraception where there is a rape (with the caveat of first assuring no ovulation.) A “choice” to continue with and sustain a pregnancy to its natural termination under these conditions is charitable and moral–but mandatory upon pain of prosecution…?! We DO start treading on legislating morality here.

And if we view all unborn as possessing rights–upon what moral code do you refer and rely to legally define the beginning of human life and attach legal rights to it? We have never achieved religious/ethical much less civil consensus on the answer to this question–now or throughout history. Who do you prosecute for violating the rights of the unborn–the medical personnel who provided the meds to accomplish and /or performed the abortion or the woman who procurred it–or both? What level of knowledge and intent is required? Could a woman unaware of a condition of pregnancy nonetheless be subject to presecution if she unintentionally causes harm to or kills an unborn child through neglect of her own health? Intentional drug/alcohol use or other risky/reckless behaviour? How about the intentional use of meds necessary to maintain her own health, but dangerous to the health/development of a fetus?

 

[love4mary]

At the age of 16, I was stupid, careless and scared. I had an abortion at my mothers urging.:crying: I was not given much information at the time, infact given NO information. Just that because the fetus could not possibly survive outside the womb, there was no moral issues. Talk about being lied to.

Many years later when I converted to a Strong belief in God and became Catholic, I spent many hours alone in my home just crying and begging God to forgive me. I know that He did, because I felt an instant peace come over me.

Now, I am 200% Pro-Live—Pro-Baby:thumbsup: Of all issues that face us as a society, be it war or taxes or what ever, This is the only issue that will send me into the streets protesting about, not that the other issues are not important because they are.

I wish that when I was 16, there was an internet and more importantly, Fr. Frank Pravones “Priests for Life” site to get information from. I wish I had been better informed and educated.

 

[jack_hawkins]

the thing is love4mary, how is it “pro-life” to ask a mother and baby to both die instead of terminating the pregnancy? it is rare, true, but for the person involved it is a very real dilemma
in the UK, abortion services are struggling because so many doctors are exercising their right to conscientious objection - not because they are necessarily anti-abortion, but because they see that the law is being used in a far wider way than it was originally envisaged and if they choose to be involved in abortion they have to be involved with the cases where it is a back-up form of contraception

 

[st_lucy]

It’s not really possible to have a rational discussion of anything remotely “pro-life” as defined by “pro-life” extremists on this board. I particularly take issue with their description of being “pro-life” as the more rabid campaigners actually promote death in certain circumstances. Basically some people when they take up the “pro-life” banner abandon all belief in science and logic and take on all the less desirable traits of secular rights groups.

I a not sure I agree with you on this. Do you think you can give some examples. I do agree that there are those who are against abortion but advocate the death penalty, but I really think that these are very few. After all the Pope asks us to be pro-life from conception to natural death. Not just from conception until you commit some kind of crime.

As for the OP. I was once in my younger day pro-choice. I did hold to the fact that it was a woman’s body to do with as she pleased. I remember saying that I would never have one but it is not my choice to say someone else shouldn’t have one. I don’t think I ever gave much thought to the child. I believe that that was my defense if you don’t think of the victim, you aren’t really seeing the truth. Well, what really made me see the light was my first miscarriage. My sister had just had her third abortion at the same time I was miscarrying. I remember arguing with her before my miscarriage to not have the abortion, I guess at the time I was already beginning to realize the horror of abortion but I still didn’t really want to step on her toes on what she should really do. After I lost my baby, I could not believe that she or anyone could not feel the same hurt and loss of their own child’s death. This was the first time I had ever stopped to realize that it was not at all about the mother, but about the child. From that point on I have never once thought of abortion as being a woman’s choice but of how someone is killing a child.

Well that is my story of conversion. Hope I didn’t bore anyone.

 

[guanophore]

Are there any people on here who were at one time in their lives for abortion and now against it? Or anyone on here that is still for abortion?

I am genuinely curious about general arguments heard in the abortion debate. Did you, as a pro-choicer, believe these arguments, or was it more of a smokescreen or distraction?

For example, I have found in my own debating that the majority of accusations tossed at me are things such as:

“It’s not a person”

“It’s not a baby”

“You only care about babies, not women”

“Women will just go back to coat hangers if it’s made illegal”

“Abortion is needed in case a woman’s life is in danger”

In general, was there some experience in your life, or some authority/mentor figure who ingrained these beliefs in you? When arguing for abortion, was there a sincere belief that the pre-born child was human but not person, or that anti-abortion protestors had an agenda and didn’t care about women?

I’m sorry if any of this sounds leading. I’m not trying to bait, I really am curious. Because I know some people who honestly believe it’s not a person until it is completely removed from the birth canal. Or that pro-lifers are nuts who want to degrade women…etc.

What I am wondering is, did this belief form through taking a stance and needing an argument to hold onto? From personal experiences? Maybe secondhand stories? Or scare tactics from a leader?

I used to be pro-abortion. I saw a documentary on pbs called “miracle of life” about conception and prenatal development that shattered all my ideas about the conception being “tissues” and not a baby. I realized that most women get abortions out of selfishness, because it is more convenient to take a life of someone else than to accomodate oneself. There was a time in my life when I would have done the same thing.

I also thought the church was very old fashioned and did not keep up with society by disallowing contraception, which I thought was a much better alternative than abortion.

My developmental psychology book defined human life from “conception to death”. If the science says that, why do people try to block out the facts? Because most people that go for abortion feel trapped, and don’t hae the strength to lay down their lives for the sake of another.

I think if women could see the ultrasound, and if they knew they were taking a life, and causing pain, they would find alternatives.

 

[jack_hawkins]

I a not sure I agree with you on this. Do you think you can give some examples. I do agree that there are those who are against abortion but advocate the death penalty, but I really think that these are very few. After all the Pope asks us to be pro-life from conception to natural death. Not just from conception until you commit some kind of crime.

As for the OP. I was once in my younger day pro-choice. I did hold to the fact that it was a woman’s body to do with as she pleased. I remember saying that I would never have one but it is not my choice to say someone else shouldn’t have one. I don’t think I ever gave much thought to the child. I believe that that was my defense if you don’t think of the victim, you aren’t really seeing the truth. Well, what really made me see the light was my first miscarriage. My sister had just had her third abortion at the same time I was miscarrying. I remember arguing with her before my miscarriage to not have the abortion, I guess at the time I was already beginning to realize the horror of abortion but I still didn’t really want to step on her toes on what she should really do. After I lost my baby, I could not believe that she or anyone could not feel the same hurt and loss of their own child’s death. This was the first time I had ever stopped to realize that it was not at all about the mother, but about the child. From that point on I have never once thought of abortion as being a woman’s choice but of how someone is killing a child.

Well that is my story of conversion. Hope I didn’t bore anyone.

sure, examples where “pro-lifers” are for death:
condoms to help prevent HIV/AIDS
abortion when necessary to save the mother’s life
contraception for women whose life would be threatened by pregnancy

 

[guanophore]

However, I remain as uncomfortable mandating the same conclusion upon everyone as I would dictating that everyone MUST become faithful Catholics–because I know mandating morality is an impossibility. Removing free choice will never prevent evil or error. Education–in the science, facts and morality is the only avenue by which we can ever hope to convince women to make better choices. Murder has always been wrong, and yet has always been a part of human society. We will never see the end of abortion–with or without laws to that effect. So, in some respect you could say I’ve become pragmatically pro-choice–meaning I believe I know the “right” choice, but have to accept that not everyone will agree or come to the same conclusion–no matter what the law says.

Ahh. Then we should repeal the laws making murder and rape illegal as well,s ince those immoral behaviors have been with us “from the beginning” and it is not effective to legislate morality!
jack hawkins;2215600:

It’s not really possible to have a rational discussion of anything remotely “pro-life” as defined by “pro-life” extremists on this board. I particularly take issue with their description of being “pro-life” as the more rabid campaigners actually promote death in certain circumstances. Basically some people when they take up the “pro-life” banner abandon all belief in science and logic and take on all the less desirable traits of secular rights groups.

Do you think that “belief” in science and logic should be the standard from which decisions about abortion are made?

The complication with this issue is that it does impose a duty of rescue upon the pregnant woman–a duty that exposes her to a condition that can compromise, threaten or even claim her life.

Natural law has already created that duty at the moment of conception. She has a responsibility for the life within her. she has a responsibility for the actions she took to create that life, as does the man who assisted her in doing so!

Our legal tradition does not require individuals–upon pain of prosecution–to expose themselves to mortal peril in order to save another.

Certainly not, but why limit this to babies that have already been born ? If the parents think that the child they brought into the world is exposing themselves to mortal peril, why not just kill the child AFTER birth?

How much more tangled does this become when pregnancy is not merely the unintended consequence of consensual acts, but the result of violence? Even the Catholic Church recognizes a right to repel the attack with the use contraception where there is a rape (with the caveat of first assuring no ovulation.) A “choice” to continue with and sustain a pregnancy to its natural termination under these conditions is charitable and moral–but mandatory upon pain of prosecution…?! We DO

start treading on legislating morality here.

And if we view all unborn as possessing rights–upon what moral code do you refer and rely to legally define the beginning of human life and attach legal rights to it? We have never achieved religious/ethical much less civil consensus on the answer to this question–now or throughout history. Who do you prosecute for violating the rights of the unborn–the medical personnel who provided the meds to accomplish and /or performed the abortion or the woman who procurred it–or both? What level of knowledge and intent is required? Could a woman unaware of a condition of pregnancy nonetheless be subject to presecution if she unintentionally causes harm to or kills an unborn child through neglect of her own health? Intentional drug/alcohol use or other risky/reckless behaviour? How about the intentional use of meds necessary to maintain her own health, but dangerous to the health/development of a fetus?

Ah, this sounds so familiar! these are the same arguments that were made in the controversy about whether woman should be considered property instead of persons, and whether blacks should be considered the same way! It really does open a can of ethical worms, does it not? If women are given the right to vote, what will come next!? If blacks are allowed to sit at the same counters as whites, and go to the same schools, what will they want next? Should we continue to persist in sin because we are afraid of the consequences of freedom?

 

[wabrams]

sure, examples where “pro-lifers” are for death:
condoms to help prevent HIV/AIDS

If you are refering to African nations, those countries where abstinence is pushed have a more lower rate in the spread of HIV than countries where condoms are passed out.

abortion when necessary to save the mother’s life

I have yet to find one example of where abortion is necessary to save a woman’s life.

contraception for women whose life would be threatened by pregnancy

There are other alternatives, such as NFP.

 

[LittleDeb]

As for the OP. I was once in my younger day pro-choice. I did hold to the fact that it was a woman’s body to do with as she pleased. I remember saying that I would never have one but it is not my choice to say someone else shouldn’t have one. I don’t think I ever gave much thought to the child. I believe that that was my defense if you don’t think of the victim, you aren’t really seeing the truth. Well, what really made me see the light was my first miscarriage. My sister had just had her third abortion at the same time I was miscarrying. I remember arguing with her before my miscarriage to not have the abortion, I guess at the time I was already beginning to realize the horror of abortion but I still didn’t really want to step on her toes on what she should really do. After I lost my baby, I could not believe that she or anyone could not feel the same hurt and loss of their own child’s death. This was the first time I had ever stopped to realize that it was not at all about the mother, but about the child. From that point on I have never once thought of abortion as being a woman’s choice but of how someone is killing a child.

Well that is my story of conversion. Hope I didn’t bore anyone.

Not boring at all. If fact thank you for sharing because it is helping me articulate my very personal experience. You see, all of my life I always thought I was pro-life. Except I finally realized I was really “pro-choice” because I thought, “No abortion except in the case of incest, except in the case of rape, except in the case of life of the mother…” I realized many of my pro-choice friends thought the same way. They disagreed with it as a back-up contraception, but made exceptions for these other things too.

Then, unmarried and fornicating I conceived. (Well duh. Sex is what causes that you know.) Unbeknownst to me, I was also miscarrying before I even realized I was pregnant. In the process of horrible cramping down my legs and an inability to walk (that’s as much as I will go into because I don’t want to bring up more haunting details…) I started seeking out doctors. Due to my endometriosis my own OB/GYN had told me, “have a baby or have a hysterectomy,” so I was afraid to go to him in fear that he would give me the hysterectomy. I called around to a clinic who claimed to be able to help me. I told them I think I’ve had a miscarriage, but I don’t know. They offered all sorts of help and said that I would get an ultrasound to determine life and they would “help me” otherwise.

That’s as much detail as I can handle right now. Needless to say after years of research I found that based on my conception date my baby had died before a heartbeat could have been detected on an ultrasound. The clinic was just “selling abortions.” I just happened to already have a deceased baby.

After that miscarriage I changed everything about my thinking. I found that a child is completely innocent despite the circumstances (rape or incest) I found that there was no justification for killing a baby just to save the mother. I could see allowing the natural death of a baby, or doing something for the mother alone that resulted in the death of the baby. (You save who you can save.) But because of that miscarriage I found there was no way to justify direct murder to save even my own life. After all killing can be justified. Murder is defined by the victim’s innocence.

I experienced another almost identical miscarriage shortly after my marriage. By God’s grace I made all the right decisions that time and was able to heal. I thank God for those two precious souls. The first whom I feared I killed, and the second who showed me I didn’t. I hope I make it to heaven to meet them someday.

So in answer to the OP, sorry of I took the scenic route to get here… I find the pro-choice argument I encounter is that one life is more valuable than another. It really is no surprise that the unborn are the current target. Throughout recent history it has been the elderly, the Jews, Catholics, blacks, …you name it.

 

[guanophore]

the thing is love4mary, how is it “pro-life” to ask a mother and baby to both die instead of terminating the pregnancy? it is rare, true, but for the person involved it is a very real dilemma
in the UK, abortion services are struggling because so many doctors are exercising their right to conscientious objection - not because they are necessarily anti-abortion, but because they see that the law is being used in a far wider way than it was originally envisaged and if they choose to be involved in abortion they have to be involved with the cases where it is a back-up form of contraception

The Church does not mandate any such thing. However, Jesus said there was no greater love than one lay down one’s life for another. However, most of the abortions happen not because of a threat to the mother’s life,but her freedoms and sense of control ofher life. It is entirely appropriate to teach that if a person wants to be saved, they need to take up their cross and carry it.

 

[puzzleannie]

when I started college I was the typical “I’m against it but I don’t make moral decisions for other people” type of Catholic. This was the period of time early in the 60s feminist movement (before the gay-lesbian ERA agenda took over the movement) when feminism meant concern for the well-being of women and their children, and sisterhood rather than man-bashing. This was also the time period of intenstive lobbying and manipulation of public opinion by NARAL, NOW and its predecessors in the years 1968-73 immediately leading up to the RoeVWade debacle.

What changed my mind was college research which I undertook in history, womens studies, philosophy, poli-sci and other classes. As a communications major I also focused in my academic work specifically (since this was the area of my professors) on how mass media have been used and are used in present time to manipulate public opinion in order to effect political and sociological change in a society.

My focus in my grad level history research was on social protest movements, particularly those pegged as women’s rights and civil rights, their rise and fall, their effectiveness in the long and short term, their tactics and strategy etc.

I also encountered both radical feminists and radical pro-life advocates in college and work life, and in the climate of intellectual debate that is college learned to listen and weigh arguments impartially.

In particular I reseached on paper on the constitutional issues involved in the abortion debate, and had to change my thesis from basically “you can’t legislate morality” to “Judeo-Christian morality is at the basis of our entire system including our constitution and system of government”. I also researched the history of feminism and women’s movements (there have been several) and found the historical basis for anti-abortion since historically abortion was a means to assert property rights over women and their children.

What I found in the historical record clashed with what the pro-abortion forces were basing their rhetoric and political action upon, so by the time I graduated I had done an about face. I also found that the statistics and “facts” the pro-aborts were using were fabricated and without foundation, and through my side job in the med school library, found that the medical literature on the topic concluded that there is never a medical justification for abortion, and that partial-birth abortion (which was called something different at that time) was a cover-up for medical malpractice, never medically necessary, and more dangerous to the woman than induced natural delivery or C-section.

that taught me to disregard all rhetoric on both sides of debate until proven factual by independed sources, a tactic I still apply to all social and political issues (including global warming).

I also learned early on to analyze strategy, tactics and methods of pro-life groups, to track success and failure of their various initiatives and the reasons for those outcomes. That is another story, but taking it to the streets through Birthright and other pro-life organizations involved directly in care for women and children crystalized my pro-life stance. More adult study on Church teaching as the “consistent ethic of life” doctrines became more clearly enunciated as confirmed and strengthened my attitude.

 

[jack_hawkins]

If you are refering to African nations, those countries where abstinence is pushed have a more lower rate in the spread of HIV than countries where condoms are passed out

and your knowledge of HIV prevention comes from where exactly? ever visited sub-Saharan countries?

I have yet to find one example of where abortion is necessary to save a woman’s life.

in your vast experience of what exactly? you haven’t looked very far, as this happens routinely in ectopic pregnancy

There are other alternatives, such as NFP.

This is precisely the sort of uninformed reply which makes discussion pointless - case proven. If you don’t know the science involved then obviously you will come to bizarre conclusions.

 

[wabrams]

and your knowledge of HIV prevention comes from where exactly? ever visited sub-Saharan countries?
in your vast experience of what exactly? you haven’t looked very far, as this happens routinely in ectopic pregnancy

And what exactly is your experience and where does your knowledge come from?

This is precisely the sort of uninformed reply which makes discussion pointless - case proven. If you don’t know the science involved then obviously you will come to bizarre conclusions .

By this statement alone you have proved YOU are the uniformed one. I do know the science very well behind NFP and I am very familiar with the risk of contraception, especially the BC pill. Like it says in your signature, John 8:32 “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

 

[guanophore]

And what exactly is your experience and where does your knowledge come from?

Jack is a physician whose area of expertise is reproductive medicine, so he is speaking authoritatively where this science is concerned. My question is, should decisions about faith and morals be based on science, and logic?

 

[church_mouse]

in your vast experience of what exactly? you haven’t looked very far, as this happens routinely in ectopic pregnancy

Removing an infected fallopian tube which contains a fetus is not a direct abortion (the intention is not to kill the child but rather the removal of the infected tube) and is considered an ethical procedure.
Do you have another example of the life of the mother vs the life of the baby?