Majority of Americans Identify as "Pro-Choice" Instead of "Pro-Life"

[MayfieldFan]

The pro-choice people on this thread have asked a lot of questions of the pro-life people challenging them...some very good questions. I, like Clyde, while I abhor abortion, could not see myself putting a woman in jail for having one. I admit I am conflicted on the subject. I do have this question for the pro-choice folks on here. Are you OK with performing an abortion a week before a woman is scheduled to have the baby? A day before? If it is truly the woman's right to choose (it is after all her body, right?) and you are consistent, you should be OK with this.

 

I doubt you will get a straight answer on this.

 

Straight Answer: No, I am not "OK" with performing an abortion a week before the due date.

 

Explanation of Straight Answer: The right to choose is a balancing act. As all of our rights are. A felon's right to own a firearm is limited (balancing competing interests). Your right to free speech is limited by balancing competing interests such as deterring slander, or harassment. Your question ignores this, and attempts to "lock in" a position. Our current laws already attempt to account for the balancing of competing interests; and as a result abortions are already prohibited under certain circumstances, including those posited in the question.

[spindoc]

Straight Answer: No, I am not "OK" with performing an abortion a week before the due date.

 

Explanation of Straight Answer: The right to choose is a balancing act. As all of our rights are. A felon's right to own a firearm is limited (balancing competing interests). Your right to free speech is limited by balancing competing interests such as deterring slander, or harassment. Your question ignores this, and attempts to "lock in" a position. Our current laws already attempt to account for the balancing of competing interests; and as a result abortions are already prohibited under certain circumstances, including those posited in the question.

Ironic, considering that's what Option A: Pro-Life, or Option B: Pro-Choice does as well.

[Science Friction]

It solves the question "does a woman have a right to make her own choices about her own body." To tell a woman who was raped and impregnated that she should carry to term because an abortion doesn't "solve anything" deprives her of her autonomy, the ability to make such a choice for herself. To decide for herself whether it solves anything.

 

It also, once again, forces your religion views on her. Without religion, this is really a non-issue by and large. We have opposition to the day after pill. Science has fetal development mapped out pretty well. There is no rational opposition to a day after pill, absent some religious belief about a soul at the time of conception. Ironically, science would lend itself to some pretty strong arguments against abortion in the latter stages, but pro-lifers don't generally seem to like to make such not-so-fine distinctions. Three cells can make a "baby", a raped woman is a "mom", the rapist is a "dad" (all of these examples are in this thread). oh, and "abortion" is "murder."

 

 

Without religion, lots of things are non-issues. Nothing causes more strife in the world than religion.

[Science Friction]

Always wondered why the mom gets the only choice in the matter. If there is a potential mom there is a potential dad. Mom decides to have an abortion baby daddy has not rights. Mom wants to keep the baby, daddy gets to pay for it. Both parties were involved in the creation event.

 

Oh they both can have a choice in the matter. But what if they disagree? I say in case of a tie, mother's choice wins . I'll side with the mother every time, whatever her choice may be.

[capt278]

Kudos to you and your bride for giving a home to two lovely girls. That's really cool.

 

Thank you Clyde, that's very kind.

[Science Friction]

Don't have sex, don't get pregnant, use birth control. Those are choices... See I'm pro-choice, ...before the fact. Pro-life after. You get knocked up, suck it up... That's life.

 

I'm sure that's a lot easier for some men to say than it would be for a woman in that situation. That statement should infuriate women.

[Fear the Nation]

I'm sure that's a lot easier for some men to say than it would be for a woman in that situation. That statement should infuriate women.

 

You're worried about that comment infuriating women, what is infuriating to society is the fact that you are killing innocent children. There are consequences for your actions. If you have unprotected sex you should not be having abortions because you made a bad judgement. Just like if you break a law, or you do something stupid there's a consequence that is usually incurred. Having protected sex is 99.9% effective thereof eliminating 99.9% of abortions. It's that simple killing a child because you have no self control or are not smart enough to use some form of contraceptive is ludicrous. It's not acceptable. Therefore if you plan to have out of wedlock unprotected sex you should be prepared to suffer the consequences of your actions. They give free condoms away at the clinic. So it's not a money or social status problem. It's pure laziness and a blatant disregard for human life.

[okie1]

I'm sure that's a lot easier for some men to say than it would be for a woman in that situation. That statement should infuriate women.

 

They made a choice to have sex...why should it infuriate them?

[Randy Parker]

Oh they both can have a choice in the matter. But what if they disagree? I say in case of a tie, mother's choice wins.

 

Maybe the child should break the tie.

[UKMustangFan]

They made a choice to have sex...why should it infuriate them?

 

Not all the time...

[okie1]

Not all the time...

 

I am not referring to rape victims, I am referring to those using abortion as birth control.

[UKMustangFan]

I am not referring to rape victims, I am referring to those using abortion as birth control.

 

Okay, and what about those rape victims? Should they be forced to carry their rapists child for 9 months?

[Clyde]

Thank you Clyde, that's very kind.

 

I've always put people who adopt up on a pedestal. We need more to do it.

[Fear the Nation]

Okay, and what about those rape victims? Should they be forced to carry their rapists child for 9 months?

 

How many abortions are performed a year because of rape in proportion to birth control abortions? Please andwer that. You won't because you know that's a stretch and a poor excuse to justify murder. You libs always go to that card. Sounds like libs have rape on the mind. Sure mention it a lot.

[UKMustangFan]

How many abortions are performed a year because of rape in proportion to birth control abortions? Please andwer that. You won't because you know that's a stretch and a poor excuse to justify murder. You libs always go to that card. Sounds like libs have rape on the mind. Sure mention it a lot.

 

1. It's minimal. Pretty sure the last number I saw was roughly 1% of all abortions performed. I question the validity of that number, but even so, if you think exceptions should be made in that rare instance, that by definition makes one pro-choice.

 

2. I'm anti-abortion, except in instances of rape, incest, or the mother's life is at risk. If my wife, God-forbid, was ever to be raped and become pregnant as a result, I wouldn't stand in her way if she wanted to end the pregnancy. It's not my place. My place would be to support any decision she made. If my wife became pregnant and wanted to terminate the pregnancy because it was an inconvenience, her and I would have major issues.

 

3. You can call me a "lib" all you want. All it accomplishes is making you look foolish.