Pro-Choice folks, what are your reasons for supporting abortion?

[mapleoak]

What is it that makes so many vehemently pro-abortion. I understand the abortion providers are there to make money and therefore do whatever in there power to support and keep abortion legal. What about the ordinary ‘lay’ people? What is their motivation? Past guilt? Close friends or family members who have had an abortion? Strong and innate resolve that women’s choices supercede innocent people’s very life itself?

 

[ribozyme]

What is it that makes so many vehemently pro-abortion. I understand the abortion providers are there to make money and therefore do whatever in there power to support and keep abortion legal. What about the ordinary ‘lay’ people? What is their motivation? Past guilt? Close friends or family members who have had an abortion? Strong and innate resolve that women’s choices supercede innocent people’s very life itself?

I acquired my position after reading Practical Ethics for a second time. In addition, I did not only become pro-choice after reading Practical Ethics, it convinced me that I should stop eating certain food products too. (And I did not stop eating those items after learning about the recent global food crisis, but because I was interested in reducing suffering.)

 

[mapleoak]

I acquired my position after reading Practical Ethics for a second time. In addition, I did not only become pro-choice after reading Practical Ethics, it convinced me that I should stop eating certain food products too. (And I did not stop eating those items after learning about the recent global food crisis, but because I was interested in reducing suffering.)

One major problem with Peter Singer’s philosophies regarding ethics is that he makes a determinant of good based on the flawed notion that that which results in good for the majority is therefore morally sound.

 

[ribozyme]

One major problem with Peter Singer’s philosophies regarding ethics is that he makes a determinant of good based on the flawed notion that that which results in good for the majority is therefore morally sound.

Peter Singer did not say that.

 

[mapleoak]

Peter Singer did not say that.

Not in those specific words, but one can derive that as one the major flaws in his views by applying logic to what he rationalizes as good by its effects. He also gives his approval wherever he rationalizes that benefit exceeds consequence. Further, he consideres human beings to be apes, and is therefore not to be taken seriously.

 

[RWMorris]

I acquired my position after reading Practical Ethics for a second time…

You read it a second time!? That’s like reading Catcher in the Rye twice, and just as useless.

 

[YADA]

I acquired my position after reading Practical Ethics for a second time. In addition, I did not only become pro-choice after reading Practical Ethics, it convinced me that I should stop eating certain food products too. (And I did not stop eating those items after learning about the recent global food crisis, but because I was interested in reducing suffering.)

So the ending of a childs life causes no suffering? The child whose ife is ended does not suffer? one minute they are safe and secure in the womb th next instance thay are being caustically burned by salt water or ripped fromt he womd or chemically casued to be expelled from the womb … and there is no suffering here?

The mother who now has a dead baby does not suffer from this “choice”?

The mother who is coerced or forced to obtian an abortion by the boyfriend [or parents] does not “suffer”?

The father [grandparents, siblings] of the aborted chilld do not suffer? What about the society … it suffers no loss? What if the aborted child would have found that "cure’ for some disease? …

Obviously, you have bought into the concept of a “value system” where some lives have a greater value than others … in that you join not only Mark Singer but Margaret Sanger, Adolf Hitler and others … the Eugenics movement is alive and well

 

[ribozyme]

The father [grandparents, siblings] of the aborted chilld do not suffer? What about the society … it suffers no loss? What if the aborted child would have found that "cure’ for some disease? …

Obviously, you have bought into the concept of a “value system” where some lives have a greater value than others … in that you join not only Mark Singer but Margaret Sanger, Adolf Hitler and others … the Eugenics movement is alive and well

Well, if the aborted child had a “cure” for the upcoming energy crisis…

No, the eugenics movement is dead. I could care less about eugenics now.

Thinking about eugenics now makes me rather depressed. I wonder if human ingenuity will save humanity now. What good are ideas about controlling our own genomes if we cannot control the photon? Ultimately, we have to find a way to power our Kardashev 0.72 (and growing civilization) or else we will regress to the Olduvai epoch again.

And yes, eugenics should not be our concern now. The human future looks ominous right now and we might not even develop the means to utilize the new eugenics. Maybe within two decades, eugenics will remind me of all our broken dreams; dreams such as social justice that could not be fulfilled because we lack the requisite energy to do so.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=233039

:crying: :crying: :crying:

I do not see any available technology that will adequately sustain civilization. I do not see any point to discuss eugenics now although I USED to support pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and human genetic engineering. I wonder if it is possible to be “pro-life” once we run out of oil. I wonder how will a Malthusian catastrophe be averted, but I do understand that I am going off topic to vent my frustration with the current state of the world.

sigh

 

[wabrams]

Well, if the aborted child had a “cure” for the upcoming energy crisis…

How many Albert Einstein’s, Stephen Hawking’s, Louis Pasteur’s, and Martin Luther Kings have we aborted?

 

[YADA]

Well, if the aborted child had a “cure” for the upcoming energy crisis…

No, the eugenics movement is dead. I could care less about eugenics now.

DO NOT KID YOURSELF…IN THIS WORLD:

As long as Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood Centers exist so lives the Eugenics movement …

It is not an accident thatthese centers are located in minority neighborhoods and that minorities are the recipients of this ‘service’ nor that when a donor could call in and offer donations targeted towards racially based abortion procurement and that donation be accepted …

As long as medical tests can be offered as a screening device to indentify ‘defects’ and abortion be offered as the solution the Eugenics movement is alive and well removing the ‘undesirables’ from the gene pool …

 

[Emervents]

First, to call me “Pro-abortion” as you do in your message content is a bit like me calling you a “forced-birther”. Both are inaccurate and misleading are they not?

We are Pro-Choice. This means that no woman should be forced into any reproductive action against her will.

I do not believe that a woman should be forced into having an abortion, nor do I believe that a women should be forced to give birth against her will like a farm animal. Both situations are a shameful transgression of the woman’s autonomy, and are blatantly dismissive of women as moral agents.

I am pro-choice because I think the facts speak for themselves and I have not had a “sanctity of human life” ethic drummed into me since infancy.

The facts that influence my view:

It is a fact that women will seek abortions whether they are legal or not.

It is a fact that women who seek abortions in countries where abortions are illegal put their health and lives at risk undergoing backyard abortions. It is also a fact that In countries where abortion can be performed under safe conditions the risks are reduced and are lower than the risk of childbirth.

It is also a fact that an 8 week embryo (the stage at which the majority of abortions are performed) is not sentient, and cannot suffer.

I choose the route of minimal suffering, therefore I choose to campaign to keep abortion legal and safe for anyone who chooses to have one.

Emervents

 

[YADA]

First, to call me “Pro-abortion” as you do in your message content is a bit like me calling you a “forced-birther”. Both are inaccurate and misleading are they not?

We are Pro-Choice. This means that no woman should be forced into any reproductive action against her will.

I do not believe that a woman should be forced into having an abortion, nor do I believe that a women should be forced to give birth against her will like a farm animal. Both situations are a shameful transgression of the woman’s autonomy, and are blatantly dismissive of women as moral agents.

I am pro-choice because I think the facts speak for themselves and I have not had a “sanctity of human life” ethic drummed into me since infancy.

The facts that influence my view:

It is a fact that women will seek abortions whether they are legal or not.

It is a fact that women who seek abortions in countries where abortions are illegal put their health and lives at risk undergoing backyard abortions. It is also a fact that In countries where abortion can be performed under safe conditions the risks are reduced and are lower than the risk of childbirth.

It is also a fact that an 8 week embryo (the stage at which the majority of abortions are performed) is not sentient, and cannot suffer.

I choose the route of minimal suffering, therefore I choose to campaign to keep abortion legal and safe for anyone who chooses to have one.

Emervents

the abortion is not safe for the child …a few survive, but those that do usually suffer defects from the ‘abortion’ procedure … I have a friend who adopted just such a little boy some 16 years ago…

… and it is not true that most abortions are at 8 weeks or less … in fact women are usually just realizing that they are pregnant at 8 weeks … most abortions are late first trimester early scond … but in the US Roe V Wade and it companion decision made abortion on demand the law of the land right up to the point of birth … also called partioal irth abortion where the chilld is delivered except for the head and then the babies brains are sucked out …

Abortion is always a moral evil … it leads to a cheapening of all life …

 

[Emervents]

QUOTE=YADA;3583924 "the abortion is not safe for the child …a few survive, but those that do usually suffer defects from the ‘abortion’ procedure … I have a friend who adopted just such a little boy some 16 years ago… "

To say that abortion is not safe for the child is not a response to my points and is a very bad argument against abortion given that the intent of abortion is not to produce a child at all. A few children survive traumatic births with defects and are adopted out. But I wouldn’t use that as an argument against giving birth, that would be irrelevant at best.

"…and it is not true that most abortions are at 8 weeks or less … in fact women are usually just realizing that they are pregnant at 8 weeks … "

This is an example of the view that women are somehow mentally wanting. The overwhelming majority of menstruating women keep track of their cycles both in their head and on paper… Unless the circumstances are highly unusual, it does not take a normal woman 4 weeks (a whopping 28 days) to notice that she hasn’t menstruated. Forgive me for assuming that you are a bloke.

For women who do not want a baby and find themselves pregnant, the abortion is carried out as soon as possible, normally before 8 weeks, definitely before 14.

"most abortions are late first trimester early scond … but in the US Roe V Wade and it companion decision made abortion on demand the law of the land right up to the point of birth … also called partial birth abortion where the child is delivered except for the head and then the babies brains are sucked out … "

Right. More graphic descriptions please, because they help your argument - not.

In the one state of Australian where accurate data is available, 98% of all terminations were conducted before 14 weeks. That is well below the threshold for pain let alone sentience. 2% of abortions might have been performed using the method you describe - might have been. That 2% of abortions are performed that way is not a good reason for prohibiting the other 98%.

“Abortion is always a moral evil … it leads to a cheapening of all life …”

Actually I think that enslaving children so that the rich west can eat cheap chocolate bars is a cheapening of human life. But I’m entitled to my opinion am I not?

I was hoping for a response that addressed my points, not more of the same old sentimental religious based rhetoric. I’m disappointed.

Emervents

 

[rlg94086]

We are Pro-Choice. This means that no woman should be forced into any reproductive action against her will.

Is that really the definition you are going to use? If so, you may want to go through a basic health class again. Abortion is not a “reproductive action.” As you have written it, you are against a man forcing himself onto a woman.
Evervents:

I do not believe that a woman should be forced into having an abortion, nor do I believe that a women should be forced to give birth against her will** like a farm animal**. Both situations are a shameful transgression of the woman’s autonomy, and are blatantly dismissive of women as moral agents.

What a strange comparison. Are women being forcably impregnated somewhere for breeding purposes? A woman makes a choice of whether or not to have sex. A baby is a probable consequence of having sex during a period of fertility.

Emervents:

I am pro-choice because I think the facts speak for themselves and I have not had a “sanctity of human life” ethic drummed into me since infancy.

The facts that influence my view:

It is a fact that women will seek abortions whether they are legal or not.

The fact that we have laws against rape, theft and murder don’t stop people from raping, stealing and murdering. I guess we should get rid of those laws too…you are using faulty logic for your “facts.”

Emervents:

It is a fact that women who seek abortions in countries where abortions are illegal put their health and lives at risk undergoing backyard abortions. It is also a fact that In countries where abortion can be performed under safe conditions the risks are reduced and are lower than the risk of childbirth.

Then, we need to create an environment where women are cared for during their unplanned pregnancy, if they are not in a position to care for themselves. If they can’t take care of their baby, we need to help them in finding a good adoptive family.

Emervents:

It is also a fact that an 8 week embryo (the stage at which the majority of abortions are performed) is not sentient, and cannot suffer.

Well, until you realize that life begins at conception, I am willing to compromise with you and only ban abortion past 8 weeks.

 

[YADA]

So I’ll admit that I miss remembered the US stats [based upon one site I found] where it had this …52% before 9 weeks makes 48% after …

At what gestational ages are abortions performed:
52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.

But these statistics are also chilling:

Who’s having abortions (marital status)?
64.4% of all abortions are performed on never-married women; Married women account for 18.4% of all abortions and divorced women obtain 9.4%.

And this: [underlining mine]

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Lets see 93% of Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996) or the approximately 3,700 per day are just unwanted or inconvenient …

But different sites have different statistics so the tables can swing and reporting and statistical analysis [even for Australia]…

Here is another site [gutmacher institute] with this startling stats:

The clock is ticking…

• One baby is aborted every 26 seconds
• 137 babies are aborted every hour
• 3,304 babies are aborted every day
• 23,196 babies are aborted every week
• 100,516 babies are aborted every month

 

[mapleoak]

I wonder if it is possible to be “pro-life” once we run out of oil.

Of course this is not a good reason to be vigorously pro-choice, as there once was a “pre-oil industry” era in which it was possible to be “pro-life”.

 

[mapleoak]

First, to call me “Pro-abortion” as you do in your message content is a bit like me calling you a “forced-birther”. Both are inaccurate and misleading are they not?

No, I wasn’t calling anybody anything. Only asking why many of those who support abortion are so militant in their stance, as if they feel their intrinsic right to be able to kill people is at stake.

We are Pro-Choice. This means that no woman should be forced into any reproductive action against her will.

In what way are women forced into reproductive action against their will? Please clarify.

I do not believe that a woman should be forced into having an abortion, nor do I believe that a women should be forced to give birth against her will like a farm animal.

Agreed women should not be treated like farm animals. They should not be corraled, genetically selected, artificially bred, nor kept in captivity. You are saying that because a women is helpless to decide if she should get “bred”, then she should at least be able to decide if she can kill her offspring, right? Just trying to understand to pro-choice reasoning here to be able to determine if there are more effective approaches in the pro-life movement. That is the purpose of this thread.

Both situations are a shameful transgression of the woman’s autonomy, and are blatantly dismissive of women as moral agents.

You forget that a woman is not autonomous when she is with child. There are two people to consider.

I am pro-choice because I think the facts speak for themselves and I have not had a “sanctity of human life” ethic drummed into me since infancy.

The facts do indeed speak for themselves. It is a fact that a human life is ended, whether one believes in the sanctity of life or not. Serial killers don’t hold much regard for the sanctity of life either. It doesn’t remove the fact that they end human life.

The facts that influence my view:

It is a fact that women will seek abortions whether they are legal or not.

It is a fact that bank robbers will rob banks whether it is legal or not. It is a fact that rapists will rape whether it is legal or not. It is a fact that embeezelers will embeezle whether it is legal or not. It is a fact that hit men will assassinate whether it is legal or not. It is a fact that serial killers will kill whether it is legal or not.

It is a fact that women who seek abortions in countries where abortions are illegal put their health and lives at risk undergoing backyard abortions.

It is a fact that bank robbers who seek to rob banks in coutries where bank robbing is illegal put their lives and freedom at risk carrying out bank robbery.

It is also a fact that In countries where abortion can be performed under safe conditions the risks are reduced and are lower than the risk of childbirth.

It is a fact that if bank robbery was legal and could be performed without fear of being shot, less bank robbers would be dead. The risks of abortion cannot be reduced because abortion is always fatal.

It is also a fact that an 8 week embryo (the stage at which the majority of abortions are performed) is not sentient, and cannot suffer.

So you only support women having freedom to choose to kill only 8 week and under human beings? After 8 weeks old the women should then revert back to being treated like farm animals?

I choose the route of minimal suffering,

Is your definition of minimal suffering to simply kill someone?

 

[mapleoak]

To say that abortion is not safe for the child is not a response to my points and is a very bad argument against abortion given that the intent of abortion is not to produce a child at all.

No, the intention of abortion is not to produce a child, but to exterminate a living human being. The child has already been produced through a prior action, independent of abortion. Don’t mix up issues here. Abortion kills.

A few children survive traumatic births with defects and are adopted out. But I wouldn’t use that as an argument against giving birth, that would be irrelevant at best.

No, it is an argument against attempting to kill someone and they happen to survive in spite of failed attempt. It is very relevant as the intention was to kill the person.

This is an example of the view that women are somehow mentally wanting. The overwhelming majority of menstruating women keep track of their cycles both in their head and on paper… Unless the circumstances are highly unusual, it does not take a normal woman 4 weeks (a whopping 28 days) to notice that she hasn’t menstruated. Forgive me for assuming that you are a bloke.

Now this is irrevelant.

For women who do not want a baby and find themselves pregnant, the abortion is carried out as soon as possible, normally before 8 weeks, definitely before 14.

What does before 8 weeks or definitely before 14 have to do with anything?

Right. More graphic descriptions please, because they help your argument - not.

I have found many folks in the pro-choice crowd to be adamant in not wanting to be exposed to the reality of what it is they support. This includes graphic descriptions as well as graphic images of choice they support. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[Newbie2]

First, to call me “Pro-abortion” as you do in your message content is a bit like me calling you a “forced-birther”. Both are inaccurate and misleading are they not?

… nor do I believe that a women should be forced to give birth against her will like a farm animal.

Emervents

Birth is going to happen to a pregnant woman unless there’s some intervention; the term “forced birther” is a made of straw.

“Farm animal”. Not hard to support abortion if one can lower the dignity of women to that level, even if just in discussion.

QUOTE=YADA;3583924

I was hoping for a response that addressed my points, not more of the same old sentimental religious based rhetoric. I’m disappointed.

Emervents

Then maybe you should have considered that this is the CATHOLIC answers forum.

 

[mlchance]

Actually I think that enslaving children so that the rich west can eat cheap chocolate bars is a cheapening of human life. But I’m entitled to my opinion am I not?

Which has what to do with the topic?

I was hoping for a response that addressed my points, not more of the same old sentimental religious based rhetoric. I’m disappointed.

And I was hoping for something more substantive in support of abortion that a laundry list of bumper stickers. But, in order to alleviate your disappointment, I charitably point out that abortion is not a religious issue:

godlessprolifers.org/

Also:

prolife.liberals.com/articles/hentoff.html

– Mark L. Chance.