Abortion - Are You Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[geminii]

Hi everyone!

Yes, I know this is an EXTREMELY sensitive topic...but I really wanted to get some of your thoughts on this as it is a very important issue. What is your stance on abortion? Are you pro-choice, pro-life, somewhere in between, undecided or apathetic, and why?

With the recent bill in NSW to decriminalise abortion rejected, it's definitely a big issue in our world today.

Looking forward to hearing everyone's views!

[geminii]

My view is that abortion is absolutely unacceptable unless the mother's life is in danger - in all other cases, abortion should definitely not be performed.
My basic reason for this is because it's wrong to kill babies. And I find it one of the most horrible things that anyone could do - to actually want to kill a helpless baby, who has no voice.

[Russ]

Just a reminder that the forum's code of conduct applies to all discussions. Thanks.

Page 2.

[geminii]

Just a reminder that the forum's code of conduct applies to all discussions. Thanks.

Page 2.

Hi Russ,
I'm unsure as to what you're referring to. Could you please quote the Code of Conduct here or paraphrase the relevant parts? Thanks.

[brenden]

Hi Russ,
I'm unsure as to what you're referring to. Could you please quote the Code of Conduct here or paraphrase the relevant parts? Thanks.

It wasn't directed towards you - it was a preemptive reminder

[geminii]

It wasn't directed towards you - it was a preemptive reminder

Ah! Cool, thanks, brenden

EDIT: So what does everyone think? Abortion, is it ethical/moral, should it be made legal, etc.?

[peterpiper]

In all honesty, I find this too difficult of a topic of debate to discuss. It seems to always come down to where you think life begins...and we can't really deduce that. Heck I can't even remember what I did two days ago, let alone try to discover when life really starts. Like I understand it if you have a conviction that life begins at conception...but on the other hand, we're assuming we know for certain that that is the case, which we don't... I know it sounds really boring (intellectually) for me to say this, but it's morally ambiguous/uncertain, because we just don't know enough.

For argument's sake, I'm right bang on the fence with this one, because I acknowledge that I'm limited by my perceptions as a human. I'm not saying I find it useless to discuss; I'm not averse to discussing ethics and morals with regards to this topic. I just don't think we can really have a conclusion to draw from to make any argument completely valid.

EDIT: I know it sounds quite contradictory what I'm saying as how I justified my stance could be applied to literally anything; I'm not saying I reject an objective truth behind this; but what I'm trying to say is I see both sides, and there isn't enough for me to choose or pick or say that I firmly believe this is the case etc. They both look equally shaky and my intuition freezes up. We don't know enough.

[brenden]

In all honesty, I find this too difficult of a topic of debate to discuss. It seems to always come down to where you think life begins...and we can't really deduce that. Heck I can't even remember what I did two days ago, let alone try to discover when life really starts. Like I understand it if you have a conviction that life begins at conception...but on the other hand, we're assuming we know for certain that that is the case, which we don't... I know it sounds really boring (intellectually) for me to say this, but it's morally ambiguous/uncertain, because we just don't know enough.

For argument's sake, I'm right bang on the fence with this one, because I acknowledge that I'm limited by my perceptions as a human. I'm not saying I find it useless to discuss; I'm not adverse to discussing ethics and morals with regards to this topic. I just don't think we can really have a conclusion to draw from to make any argument completely valid.

EDIT: I know it sounds quite contradictory what I'm saying as how I justified my stance could be applied to literally anything; I'm not saying I reject an objective truth behind this; but what I'm trying to say is I see both sides, and there isn't enough for me to choose or pick or say that I firmly believe this is the case etc. They both look equally shaky and my intuition freezes up. We don't know enough.

Really interesting post. So you have no moral intuition, whatsoever? Is that what you're saying, or are you saying that any stance is arbitrary, so it feels wrong to choose one (even if there is an inkling of intuition behind it?)

[Younem]

The thing is when it comes to the science, it seems pretty straight forward that life begins at conception, I think all the ambiguity has just arisen due to the politics around abortion. After conception the zygote, foetus etc. has different DNA to both the mother and father. If we found something on another planet with 23 pairs of chromosomes, we would be calling it life, so why is it different in the womb? In the womb a foetus is just a human being at a younger state of development, sure they are completely dependant on their mothers but so is a month old baby or toddler. 

I am against the killing of any human life non dependant on the circumstance or their stage of development or ability for reason. Hence, I am ProLife and think it's immoral to play judge, jury and executioner on an innocent life.

For the argument that it empowers women to have the choice, it's flawed. Governments regulate, the actions of individuals all the time when they affect the lives of another individual eg. I can't drink and drive because I am endangering my passengers and other drivers. I am all for gender equality and there definitely needs to be more support, resources and information provided to women who are in a difficult situation where they are considering abortion. But the ending of another person's life should never be the solution to any problem. Well, thats my opinion I guess.

8/6/17
2315
Mod edit to remove factually inaccurate and misleading information regarding medical consequences of abortion.

[jamonwindeyer]

The thing is when it comes to the science, it seems pretty straight forward that life begins at conception, I think all the ambiguity has just arisen due to the politics around abortion. After conception the zygote, foetus etc. has different DNA to both the mother and father. If we found something on another planet with 23 pairs of chromosomes, we would be calling it life, so why is it different in the womb? In the womb a foetus is just a human being at a younger state of development, sure they are completely dependant on their mothers but so is a month old baby or toddler. 

I am against the killing of any human life non dependant on the circumstance or their stage of development or ability for reason. Hence, I am ProLife and think it's immoral to play judge, jury and executioner on an innocent life.

For the argument that it empowers women to have the choice, it's flawed. Governments regulate, the actions of individuals all the time when they affect the lives of another individual eg. I can't drink and drive because I am endangering my passengers and other drivers. Women who have an abortion are significantly more likely to suffer sleep disorders or mental illness like anxiety or depression. Many abortions lead to fertility problems years after the procedure has taken place. I am all for gender equality and there definitely needs to be more support, resources and information provided to women who are in a difficult situation where they are considering abortion. But the ending of another person's life should never be the solution to any problem. Well, thats my opinion I guess.

Welcome to the forums Younem!! I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the ProChoice vs ProLife debate, but just wanted to say I enjoyed reading your arguments - Very interesting indeed

[peterpiper]

Really interesting post. So you have no moral intuition, whatsoever? Is that what you're saying, or are you saying that any stance is arbitrary, so it feels wrong to choose one (even if there is an inkling of intuition behind it?)

I'm just not satisfied with what I see in front of me. I don't think all stance is arbitrary per se, strictly speaking, just all the ones I have heard, read and know about. If we're talking about the ones I know, and whether I'd feel bad for holding any one of them, then yes, I would, because I'd be half-lying to myself that I believe them and that in itself disturbs me greatly; partly, because I find it disrespectful that I'm not taking full responsibility for the beliefs I am publicly announcing as my own; and partly also, because of personal pride -- I don't wish to hold a belief I don't believe in completely. I can play the devil's advocate, or try to argue one side, but since this is asking my view -- I say, I just haven't found one yet. I'm on-hold, and I don't think I'll be moving from that spot any time soon.

This topic is probably the closest equivalent I could find to my experiences with the process of essay-writing. There's just always something else. And it bothers me to no end because it's so blatant/conspicuous the moment you sound it out. And that doesn't happen very often for me. I mean at least with essays we can generally narrow our own scope; but with abortion, you just can't avoid the bigger questions, and they're all so fuzzy and overwhelming for me.

[heids]

peterpiper, you put into words so many of the nameless frustrations and confusions I face. Like, wow. So much in common.

Some random, not necessarily moral or well-thought-out musings:

My perspective is very warped here. I automatically lean towards pro-choice because, rather than feeling that abortion is "killing" an innocent being, I feel that giving birth is "inflicting" life on an innocent being.

Basically, I feel like abortion is doing the poor kid a kindness, because they never have to live. Sure, they miss out on many, many happy things - but they don't have a consciousness that realises they're missing out, so it causes no pain, and they also don't have to face the pain that life causes.

Especially a life where they are less wanted - abortion often occurs with unwanted pregnancies, and the child would be statistically less likely to be born into a stable family where they could receive the full love and support they need to develop fully. (Thus unhappier lives, less pro-social members of society, etc. ON AVERAGE.)

Also, overpopulation: better to "decrease the surplus population" () before it's born, than to have more people dying of hunger or w/e once they're loved by others and have a full consciousness. I just feel like our focus should be more on saving the lives that are already in full swing, rather than the ones that haven't really started, y'feel?

[ShannonB28]

I'm a bit on the fence with this one too. I believe that ultimately it is the woman's choice in this. She has the rights to her own body and if she wishes to get an abortion then so be it. But I'm also pro-life, in a way in such that if a woman wishes to get an abortion I would support them in a way that encourages them to not go through with it. I would ultimately offer to care for her through the pregnancy, pay for the needs of the child and herself and I would suggest adoption. I would love nothing more than for the life of this unborn baby to be saved but at the end of the day, her body, her choice.

[geminii]

Interesting. Do the rights of a woman's convenience usurp the baby's right to life?
For me the answer is a simple no. When there is the life of a baby hanging in the balance, a woman saying 'I don't have enough money' or 'I don't want to have a baby right now' isn't a justifiable excuse to kill that baby. If she didn't want to get pregnant she should have used contraceptives or just not have even gone near a situation in which she might become pregnant.

[jamonwindeyer]

What are people's views on abortion for medical reasons, but not for the mother, for the baby? For example, say it was proven at an early stage that the child would be born with a heart defect that only had a 10% chance of survival, and even then, would result in lots of painful surgeries and other complications (purely making this situation up). Genuinely curious, would your views 'soften' in this case? And if so, at what point do the complications become serious enough to warrant the exception?