emphatically pro-choice.


if you're not sure why, check out the 'election 2008' and 'the big G' topic threads.

pro-choice.

Devil's Advocate:


Currently, Roe vs. Wade allows both first and second trimester abortions, based on a decision by the woman with her doctor.


How do you know that the mother will suffer emotional damage in the future? And how much emotional damage is enough to warrant the killing of the child?

Why should the child get screwed out of life for what it could not control?

Also, who determines whether a life is worth living (rape/incest babies) in the long-run, damaged or not? Essentially, who gets to play God and say who lives or dies?


So if the woman has second thoughts in the first trimester because she thinks "I don't want pregnancy to ruin my figure" and decides to get an abortion, that seems legitimate to you?

How about if she just feels like "this isn't the right time." ?


Who's to say who would absolutely end up in a bad home or without a home at all? And even if those children don't live in homes, who's to say they wouldn't get some enjoyment out of life?


God puts a soul into the bundle of cells as soon as it multiplies. Are you saying it's OK to murder those babies for the sake of science?

you're right.  i flaked.


rape/incest cases are pretty damaging.  i was raped (not something i generally talk about, but...yah), and had i also become pregnant from it (fortunately, i did not), that would've compounded the psychological issues i was going through, because it's an added stressor in an already difficult time.  i know it would've been very difficult for me to handle.

depending on the case, it might be worse for the parent to carry and have that child, because the mother might be resentful and project those things onto their child - the product of such a traumatic event.  rather than be that sort of parent, especially when they're not ready for parenthood, they realise that they'd rather terminate the pregnancy.

i'm not sure what i'd do in that situation.  i'd like to say i wouldn't have aborted it, but i can't know for sure because i've never been there.


also, if god doesn't exist, then it's an issue of going against nature.  i wonder if the religious lot's opinions would change if there were no invisible man telling them what to do.



i definitely do not feel that losing one's figure is even a remotely legitimate reason to have an abortion, but it's been known to happen.  however, i don't feel i have the right to tell that woman what to do, no matter how freakin' stupid i think that reason is.

both cases would better be solved by choosing adoption, in my opinion, but i think it really depends on the situation.


that can't be predicted, i realise.  however, the world is already far over-populated, and babies that don't have homes to go to don't help matters.  that sounds incredibly harsh, but it's true: we can barely take care of those that are alive right now, and we'll have to further extend ourselves and our resources to unwanted childen.  we are running out of food, global warming is getting worse, and cities are expanding into each other because we have to keep building.  in this country alone, the healthcare system is already woefully inadequate.


these babies aren't being aborted FOR their stem cells,
the stem cells are a by-product OF aborted babies.
instead of tossing them in rubbish bins - which is what would otherwise happen - we are making use of these cells for medical and scientific advancements to help people.

in order to prove that cells have souls, we have to first prove souls exist.  conceptually, they do, but do they physically exist?

It really depends on what you think a baby is.  To me a fetus is not necessarily a baby.  a conglomerate of cells with vaguely forming organs is not a baby to me.  I don't know at what point a person has a soul, but I find it hard to believe that a soul is formed immediately upon an egg's fertilisation.  And even if it is, what damage is imparted upon the soul in the case of abortion? should the embryo spontaneously abort, which happens by some estimates up to 50% of the time, what happens to the soul of that embryo if there is one?  Big questions, I guess, questions I don't know the answer to. 

Anyway, I guess to me, a life already on earth is more important to a life not yet born, which is my major backing behind woman's choice.  That said, in the 3rd trimester, despite the life not yet being born, I think the baby is more of a baby and less of a fetus and partial birth abortions are hideous and probably a lot more traumatising to everyone involved than a first or even second trimester abortion.

Abortion is a difficult issue, and really the most important thing to do is to prevent abortions from happening with decent education and availability of birth control.

i don't have to answer regarding my other post, scott, because you just did it for me.
i wish i were as concise and organised with my thoughts, though. haha

(quoted by melidere in where do you stand on gay marriage?)

I wanted to address this, so I put it in the relevant forum.

how do you know that they are all future positive contributors to society?  how many would've otherwise become murderers, rapists, general criminals?
it is incredibly presumptuous (and, to me, incredibly aggravating) when pro-'lifers' (only where the unborn are concerned, of course) assume that all unborn life would've grown up to be model citizens.
we don't assume that every child born will likewise be upstanding assets to society, because that's just not how life works.

it seems to me just another example of propaganda.



I'd love to address scott's previous post, so I'll try to do so next time - my last post (in 'where do you stand...') took longer than I'd thought it would.