Anyone else here pro-choice?
- Thread starter Starks
- Start date
newmedia4ron
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,191
same here
DirtMcGirt
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 2,721
it just depends when you believe life begins...
merrimac
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 359
I'm pro-life but I would consider becoming pro-choice except for one thing. This is a topic I've been thinking about for years and I eventually arrived at this conclusion:
Let me start off by saying that I would classify myself as an agnostic leaning towards atheist so my argument against abortion doesn't come from religion but rather the right to "life" as espoused by the Declaration of Independence. It seems to me that the whole abortion debate hinges upon when human life actually begins. If a clump of cells is not human life, then the woman has every right to do what she wants with her body (I don't think anyone on here will disagree). But if the clump of cells IS human life, then that's a totally different story.
So pro-lifers will claim it is and pro-choicers will claim that it's ridiculous to think of a clump of cells as human life. And I would agree with the pro-choicers except for one thing: if it's not human, then when exactly does it become human? Their whole argument depends on there being some exact moment after conception that they can specifically point to where it, for lack of a better word, graduates from being a fetus to a human.
I don't believe that declaring this exact moment when human life begins is something that any of us can have the power to do. Though I don't believe it, I can take a page out of the pro-choicers' book and argue that a living breathing one year old baby is not a human: They can't talk. They can't walk. They can't think intelligently. There's almost nothing there yet that distinguishes them from the animals. And without the aid of the mother and father it would die, so how can it be human?
But OF COURSE a one year old baby is human. OF COURSE a third trimester fetus is human. And while I can understand their point of view that a clump of cells is not human, the idea of declaring when human life begins is something that I absolutely detest. So I won't do it. And I can't see how anyone else could do it. That's why I believe that the vast majority of abortions are immoral.
Let me start off by saying that I would classify myself as an agnostic leaning towards atheist so my argument against abortion doesn't come from religion but rather the right to "life" as espoused by the Declaration of Independence. It seems to me that the whole abortion debate hinges upon when human life actually begins. If a clump of cells is not human life, then the woman has every right to do what she wants with her body (I don't think anyone on here will disagree). But if the clump of cells IS human life, then that's a totally different story.
So pro-lifers will claim it is and pro-choicers will claim that it's ridiculous to think of a clump of cells as human life. And I would agree with the pro-choicers except for one thing: if it's not human, then when exactly does it become human? Their whole argument depends on there being some exact moment after conception that they can specifically point to where it, for lack of a better word, graduates from being a fetus to a human.
I don't believe that declaring this exact moment when human life begins is something that any of us can have the power to do. Though I don't believe it, I can take a page out of the pro-choicers' book and argue that a living breathing one year old baby is not a human: They can't talk. They can't walk. They can't think intelligently. There's almost nothing there yet that distinguishes them from the animals. And without the aid of the mother and father it would die, so how can it be human?
But OF COURSE a one year old baby is human. OF COURSE a third trimester fetus is human. And while I can understand their point of view that a clump of cells is not human, the idea of declaring when human life begins is something that I absolutely detest. So I won't do it. And I can't see how anyone else could do it. That's why I believe that the vast majority of abortions are immoral.
Last edited:
RonPaulFTFW
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,868
I'm very pro-choice.
As a civilized nation abortion should always be an option.
If not we will have barbarism and self-inflicted abortions. I also see the banning of abortion as the ultimate state control over a womans body, almost as disgusting as the death penalty.
Being A male I feel that all women should have options about what to do.
I respect Paul for being the only Republican who is against the waste of life in War and in abortion, and that he brings about his ideas from a clear legal and logical stand on the issue. He truly is pro-life in a non hypocritical way.
As a civilized nation abortion should always be an option.
If not we will have barbarism and self-inflicted abortions. I also see the banning of abortion as the ultimate state control over a womans body, almost as disgusting as the death penalty.
Being A male I feel that all women should have options about what to do.
I respect Paul for being the only Republican who is against the waste of life in War and in abortion, and that he brings about his ideas from a clear legal and logical stand on the issue. He truly is pro-life in a non hypocritical way.
Last edited:
Kade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 5,953
Very pro-choice. I've clarified this position on other threads, to the chagrin and ranting and raving of other members. I do not believe that tax money should go to support abortions, a point I only recently conceded. I'm thankful to the RPF for that much in the quest to understand and gain knowledge. Their are people who really believe blastocysts are human beings. I think those people should not have to support the procedure with their money.
EvilEngineer
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,639
Yeah... at this point, I say... abort the parents.
allyinoh
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,097
If I can here, please do some research on "back alley" abortions. You'll find that this is a severe over exaggeration.
I think you are either pro-life or pro-choice, I don't think there's middle ground. It's how the government deals with it that is different, IMO.
I am pro-life but I think it should be decided on a state level.
allyinoh
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,097
What ever happened to personal responsibility? The thing Ron Paul talks about all the time? With freedom comes responsibility. You have the freedom to have intercourse, but you should accept the responsibility that comes along with it, among other things.
It's about prevention. People know how to prevent pregnancies, but they don't.
It's about prevention. People know how to prevent pregnancies, but they don't.
vote4ronpauleeze
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 177
1. Forcing a pregnancy on someone who doesn't want a child is an absolutely terrible idea and for many reasons. One being that the pregnant woman, who will probably give up the child, has no incentive to take care of her body while pregnant. Another being, if the mother doesn't give up the child (due to pressure), the child will probably have a very poor growing up environment.
2. There will be a huge market for back-alley abortions. **Hint: How has the war on drugs worked? How effective was prohibition?*** These blackmarket abortions will be very dangerous and could cause severe harm to the pregnant woman.
3. A cluster of cells, in my opinion, doesn't equal life. It could be life, it might be a miscarriage...or maybe someone just got a little too excited after watching some videos on the internet.
4. Pregnancy should never be forced and should never be treated as a "punishment". Let's face it, every time someone has sex, they're not saying, "Wow, I'd really like to have a child." Our species has survived due to sexual urges. It is completely normal to have them. But let's also let the parents decide when they're emotionally and financially ready to handle another member to their family. You're not "evil" for having sex, and foreplay is not "preparing for the future"...
That was a long enough response... Peace
2. There will be a huge market for back-alley abortions. **Hint: How has the war on drugs worked? How effective was prohibition?*** These blackmarket abortions will be very dangerous and could cause severe harm to the pregnant woman.
3. A cluster of cells, in my opinion, doesn't equal life. It could be life, it might be a miscarriage...or maybe someone just got a little too excited after watching some videos on the internet.
4. Pregnancy should never be forced and should never be treated as a "punishment". Let's face it, every time someone has sex, they're not saying, "Wow, I'd really like to have a child." Our species has survived due to sexual urges. It is completely normal to have them. But let's also let the parents decide when they're emotionally and financially ready to handle another member to their family. You're not "evil" for having sex, and foreplay is not "preparing for the future"...
That was a long enough response... Peace
Yes..... please, let's don't consider a new human zygote life... That might cause us to actually be responsible for our actions.
Give me a break.
There is no way you can scientifically prove that a "cluster of cells" (as you put it) is not a human baby.
Two sets of DNA, a mother's and a child's. Two different identities, both deserving of protection.
Grow up irresponsible America. If you sleep around, there may be a baby as a result. If you can't provide for it, put it up for adoption. Please don't KILL it.
Give me a break.
There is no way you can scientifically prove that a "cluster of cells" (as you put it) is not a human baby.
Two sets of DNA, a mother's and a child's. Two different identities, both deserving of protection.
Grow up irresponsible America. If you sleep around, there may be a baby as a result. If you can't provide for it, put it up for adoption. Please don't KILL it.
vote4ronpauleeze
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 177
Yep, having sex (human nature) is wrong and we all should suffer the "consequences" of bringing another life into this world when we're not ready.
Let's have a child be a punishment, good idea. I bet that kid will be a winner.
I don't have strong feelings on the issue either way. I wouldn't personally want a child of mine aborted. But if a welfare receiving crack-whore with four kids gets pregnant for the fifth time, it might not be a bad option to have on the table.
I'm not pro choice on the belief that it is not a woman's right to kill a baby inside of her. I think the baby should be guaranteed protection. I realize the baby is living within the woman, but so what? It has to live somewhere and grow. I never understood the logic here that it is a woman's body for her to choose what to do. And that is not even true in the basic ways; she can't legally put heroin into her body, she can't legally kill herself, etc.
To me it's just pandering to the woman's vote to say it is her right.
To me it's just pandering to the woman's vote to say it is her right.
I'm pretty much pro-choice by default. Living in Sweden and being pro-life is just not feasible. That being said, I do feel that it shouldn't just be up to the woman. It takes two to tango and I think the would-be father should have some say in the matter.
Expatriate
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2007
- Messages
- 2,242
Pro-Life male who would like the states to decide on this issue.
I think both sides need to consider the other's standpoint a little more and make compromises. Realize how much the issue means to the person that you disagree with. One side sees it as a mother's Constitutional right to privacy, and the other side sees it as murder. Wouldn't it be better not to force the whole country to choose a side here?
I think both sides need to consider the other's standpoint a little more and make compromises. Realize how much the issue means to the person that you disagree with. One side sees it as a mother's Constitutional right to privacy, and the other side sees it as murder. Wouldn't it be better not to force the whole country to choose a side here?
those would be the neocons and their christian right allies. catholics are for neither, and was appalled when saddam was killed.
Similar threads
