Jump to content

Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?


saarad_

Talking about Abortion: Are you PRO-CHOICE or PRO-LIFE?  

101 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?



Recommended Posts

Talking about Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice

The conversation surrounding abortion has always been controversial. Even in the 21st century, the thought of discussing abortions in some communities has been tabooed. Unfortunately, this so called 'taboo' has been the reality of some women - whether it be the result of unprotected sex, sexual assault or fear of keeping the child, millions of women have had to choose between life or choice. Some factors that may affect the final decision include, but are not limited to, gender, religion and society.  Dialogue of abortion and the pro-life and pro-choice stances have normally taken place between 'adults'. However, I think that as the future of the world, we should be having discussions about this right now. We should be communicating and expressing our opinions at a young age and we should be given the opportunity to dialogue about such issues.

When people do not dialogue, they do not understand. Humans are scared of what they do not understand - we disrespect, degrade and in some cases, turn to violence in order to make someone else understand that we are right. It's important to talk about issues such as abortion and to share opinions in order to be aware. When we have conversations such as political issues, social issues and religion issues,  we are fulfilling the criteria of being IB World Learners.  

I think that this forum and thread allows for IB students from all around the world, people of different colours, religions and communities to express their opinions. So, I invite all of you to voice what your sentiments are. Are you pro-choice or pro-life? Why? What factors affect your stance? I think it'll be interesting to see what IB students around the world think of this. 

Thank you!! 

Please, respect the opinions of everyone when replying! If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I can't vote in support of either 'yes' or 'no' of this survey. There are fair arguments on both sides of the coin.. That being said, I would be 100% on board (and assume most people would) with pro choice if the fetus was properly conserved and its stem cells where used for either research  or to save lives. 

If anyone is against this view, I would be more than happy to debate and hopefully further explain what I mean 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe in pro-choice, and that's simply because I believe that women should be allowed to make their own choice as to whether or not to keep a baby. While pro-life makes sense, I believe that if a woman is in any kind of danger, or simply does not want a child, she should be allowed to make the choice to abort. Often, in places where abortion is illegal, women will often take things into their own hands, and that is usually much worse for both the mother and the fetus.

I've noticed that a majority of arguments that I've heard (in my experience, anyway) usually involve the fact that the woman is committing what is essentially murder, or infanticide, but as the Criminal Code of Canada dictates:

Quote

A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child...

Of course, there are some areas where I draw the line, but for the most part, I consider myself pro-choice. Just my thoughts :P

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just putting it out there first, I am quite on the fence for this topic. But hey, I still believe that there is some worth in discussing this topic. So, I will just take a pro-life stance for today!

On 1/19/2018 at 9:02 AM, kaynary said:

While pro-life makes sense, I believe that if a woman is in any kind of danger, or simply does not want a child, she should be allowed to make the choice to abort.

When I first read this statement, I found it to be profoundly ironic and self-contradicting. The writer believes in pro-choice whereby humans are given the freedom to make an independent decision, yet he believes the child, who lacks the ability to voice out his opinions, should be robbed of this privilege in which the writer strongly advocates in his post.

On 1/19/2018 at 9:02 AM, kaynary said:

.... or simply does not want a child, she should be allowed to make the choice to abort.

Also, doesn't anyone else find it slightly disturbing that we, as humans, have degraded to such a repulsive state where we do not take any form of responsibility for our very own actions? A baby is not an inanimate object, like a worn-down toy, that should be carelessly disposed of. Rather, the child should be treated with the same respect that we show towards our fellow human beings. Essentially, the point that I am bringing up is that we should take full responsibility for the consequences of our actions, for it is simply unforgivable to take the life of another human being because she "simply does not want a child".

Just my two cents on the matter.. :) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I am unable to classify my stance as either "pro-life" or "pro-choice" simply because I believe both of them are too extreme. Some pro-life positions involve abortion being illegal under all circumstances (including rape) which I do not agree with. Some pro-choice positions on the other hand involve abortion being legal under any circumstances and at any time including third trimester and partial birth abortions - which I also do not agree with. 

I do think that majority of people would disagree with the extreme views from both pro-life and pro-choice. I also think that many people who have very similar / same views would not necessarily both call themselves either pro life or pro choice. What do you guys think? 

As for my personal views, I would agree with the idea of a time limit being placed for legal abortions with the only exception being threat to life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really torn between the two. 

There are mouth breathers like MP Jacob Rees-Mogg who think abortion is always morally indefensible, even in the case of rape or incest. I wholehearted disagree with that kind of cynical, blame-the-victim definition of morality. 

But there are always people who are pro choice and think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with abortion. They say it is not killing because it is not a baby. Well have you seen an aborted fetus? Stare into it and tell me how it is not a baby. 

We have to face facts. Abortion has to be legal. There are no alternatives. We cannot imprison women because it is still their body. It is their own decision. The fetus is still inside the mother's body (in fact it is a part of the mother's body) and the mother should have the right to do what she wants with her body. But we also need to admit that abortion is not a very nice thing to do. Ultimately, it is still killing a baby (or a fetus if you will). 

So whether abortion is moral or not really depends on the situation. In the case of rape or incest, I hope we can all agree that it would be wrong to force the victim to give birth to the child of her own rapist. But when dealing with people who have had multiple abortions, despite the availability of contraception, I do think they are being incredible selfish and unreasonable. 

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello all. This is a seemingly complicated issue. As a result of this I would highly suggest that you all make your arguments and evidence very exact and very clear. This post is in response to the last post I see from "LoveMyLife." I am not trying to be offensive, but simply point out some lapses I see in the argument made in just one post.

Quote

We have to face facts. Abortion has to be legal. There are no alternatives.

To respond to these three statements, Yes. No. No.

Yes, it is very valuable as students of academia and worldwide citizen to face the facts and attempt to logically come to a conclusion on this issue.

No, abortion does not have to be legal—there are still places in the world where it is illegal, and it has been illegal in many nations, the United States for example, and the nation still survived. Using the words "has to" is unclear and an oversimplification. You may say "Abortion has to be legal... in order to have a morally just country, in order to keep the people satisfied, in order to help protect the rights of women, etc." Abortion is not something needed for subsistence so it is not a direct "has to."

No, there are alternatives to abortion being legal. Alternative 1. Abortion is illegal. Alternative 2. Limitations are placed on abortion. This goes back to the second point, you may say "There are no morally reasonable alternatives" but not "there are no alternatives." Inside of these alternatives there could be more nuance. For example, in the future abortion could be illegal but women could have babies medically extracted and put into growing chambers if they would like. I am not saying this is morally correct or even viable, but simply pointing out the simplification in your statements.

Now on to your other points.

Quote

We cannot imprison women because it is still their body. It is their own decision.

Why can we not imprison women? In many nations we imprison murderers and we limit how they are able to use their bodies. We actually put many people who try to do or do bad things in jails or put restrictions on their 'freedoms.' I am not suggesting that we literally put women who want to abort their baby in jail, but we could place restrictions on them. You are suggesting in all cases it is "their decision." If a women willingly chose to have a relationship with a man and can sustain a baby, what prevents us from attempting to prevent that women from killing the fetus? I think you need to clarify your arguments.

 

But then you seem to then almost change your viewpoint as you say,

Quote

So whether abortion is moral or not really depends on the situation.

This statement along with your previous ideas seem to suggest your viewpoint is that "Abortion has to be legal and the morality of abortion depends on the situation." This does not appear to be a very clear or logical conclusion with the evidence you gave. It would seemingly need to be something more similar to, "abortion should be legal and it is morally acceptable" or "Abortion should be illegal and is morally wrong." Or it could also be something totally different, but with a more developed explanation. Overall I think your argument needs to be a bit more clearly stated and defined so that there can be a proper discussion on this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/03/2018 at 3:50 AM, JustAJuy said:

Hello all. This is a seemingly complicated issue. As a result of this I would highly suggest that you all make your arguments and evidence very exact and very clear. This post is in response to the last post I see from "LoveMyLife." I am not trying to be offensive, but simply point out some lapses I see in the argument made in just one post.

To respond to these three statements, Yes. No. No.

Yes, it is very valuable as students of academia and worldwide citizen to face the facts and attempt to logically come to a conclusion on this issue.

No, abortion does not have to be legal—there are still places in the world where it is illegal, and it has been illegal in many nations, the United States for example, and the nation still survived. Using the words "has to" is unclear and an oversimplification. You may say "Abortion has to be legal... in order to have a morally just country, in order to keep the people satisfied, in order to help protect the rights of women, etc." Abortion is not something needed for subsistence so it is not a direct "has to."

No, there are alternatives to abortion being legal. Alternative 1. Abortion is illegal. Alternative 2. Limitations are placed on abortion. This goes back to the second point, you may say "There are no morally reasonable alternatives" but not "there are no alternatives." Inside of these alternatives there could be more nuance. For example, in the future abortion could be illegal but women could have babies medically extracted and put into growing chambers if they would like. I am not saying this is morally correct or even viable, but simply pointing out the simplification in your statements.

Now on to your other points.

 we not imprison women? In many nations we imprison murderers and we limit how they are able to use their bodies. We actually put many people who try to do or do bad things in jails or put restrictions on their 'freedoms.' I am not suggesting that we literally put women who want to abort their baby in jail, but we could place restrictions on them. You are suggesting in all cases it is "their decision." If a women willingly chose to have a relationship with a man and can sustain a baby, what prevents us from attempting to prevent that women from killing the fetus? I think you need to clarify your arguments.

 

But then you seem to then almost change your viewpoint as you say,

This statement along with your previous ideas seem to suggest your viewpoint is that "Abortion has to be legal and the morality of abortion depends on the situation." This does not appear to be a very clear or logical conclusion with the evidence you gave. It would seemingly need to be something more similar to, "abortion should be legal and it is morally acceptable" or "Abortion should be illegal and is morally wrong." Or it could also be something totally different, but with a more developed explanation. Overall I think your argument needs to be a bit more clearly stated and defined so that there can be a proper discussion on this matter.

 

Hi. I think it would be great if you could try to understand the matter before commenting on it. Not trying to be offensive but with your previous comment, you might get some marks for your combative style, but none for content. :) 

Quote: "Abortion is not something needed for subsistence so it is not a direct "has to.":

I recommend that you understand what "have to" actually means before you say that. Here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/have to . Check out definition 3:

—used to say that something is desired or should be done 

  • You have to read this book. It's fantastic!
  • You have to come visit us soon.
  • You really have to see the doctor about that cough.
  • You have got to come visit us soon.

Look at the first sentence. I wouldn't consider reading a book needed for subsistence either. If your best argument is nothing more than asserting that I shouldn't have chosen the word "has to" because it can only be used when we need something to survive, then I recommend that you buy yourself a dictionary.  :) 

Quote: " You are suggesting in all cases it is "their decision. If a women willingly chose to have a relationship with a man and can sustain a baby, what prevents us from attempting to prevent that women from killing the fetus?" 

There are some mistakes in your sentence here. And I think you are very confused. It is still their choice. Just because a woman can support a baby doesn't mean we can coerce her into doing so.  And there are so many factors that we need to consider here. What if the baby had a medical condition? Or what if the woman used contraception and never wanted to have a baby in the first place? It is incredibly arbitrary and naive to say a woman shouldn't be able to decide her future just because she is financially stable and is in a relationship. 

It might surprise you. But women have moral rights too. Sometimes the right to ownership of their bodies and the right to decide their own future can override the fetus's right to live because the fetus that is still inside and is part of the woman's body. If abortion was illegal, it would mean that no matter what happened, whether your pregnancy was the result of rape or sexual assault, you still won't be able to abort the fetus. That is why I said abortion has to be legal. There is no alternative. (The "viable" part is implied by the way. Just don't want you to waste your time nitpicking again) :)  The legal system has a moral obligation to ensure that women are given the choice to make their own decisions, especially when the pregnancy was the result of a tragic event over which the woman had no control. 

Finally, you also need to understand that your second suggestion " Limitations are placed on abortion" implies that abortion is legal!!! It means legal but with some restrictions. I have always believed that some limitations can be placed on abortion. It is hard to discuss whether abortion should be legal with you when you don't even know what the word "legal" means.

Feel free to message me privately. You also seem to be very confused about the difference between morality and legality. So maybe google these keywords before talking about them. They are not the same. Some acts are immoral yet legally permissible, like cheating. And maybe you should read the examples that I gave more carefully. Whether abortion is legal or not highly depends on the situation. The examples that I gave demonstrate exactly that. Aborting babies in the case of rape or incest is not the same as using abortion as a birth control measure. You seem to think the world is binary and abortion is either always right or always wrong. That is actually really cute haha. :rolleyes:

Would be nice to continue this discussion. But I would hate to reply to a comment that is distinguished by a paucity of argument, again.  So sorry in advance if I can't be bothered to reply haha. 

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Decisions about women's bodies shouldn't be made by men, but that's unfortunately what happens when you let a government that is currently majority male create legislation about the issue of abortion. I live in Texas. It's a huge state, but there are only 6 abortion clinics. Texas has made it very difficult to get an abortion- it's legal, but many women have to drive hundreds of miles and endure a 72-hour wait after being given pamphlets of medically inaccurate information. I think abortion is moral, but even if you believe it isn't, the legality of abortion doesn't really affect the number of abortions that happen. It just affects how safe it is. This question is a no-brainer: pro-choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Personally, I am pro choice because I see the alternative as an even greater moral crime against the unborn child. 

Abortion - especially when safe, legal, and destigmatised - lets women who become pregnant as result of rape, assault and forced marriage to return to their chosen path in life, allowing them freedom and a chance at happiness.

In addition, I am a great believer in the value of human life, so I do not think that the creation of a new person should be taken lightly. Therefore, I see the abortion of an "unwanted" child as mercy on the parent's part. Anyone who has seen the lifelong psychological damage that broken or unhealthy homes does to people, will understand that terminating the pregnancy can be the more favourable alternative, as opposed to a life of abuse and sorrow. 

When safe, legal abortion, is not an option, many turn to unsafe, illegal alternatives. If they fail, the child and mother are both condemned to a life of misery,  and if they both die in the process, two lives have been thrown away. If they succeed, the woman may end up with a distrust of the system that failed to provide her with this service, thus developing less respect for the law in other areas, and becoming more likely to seek extralegal alternatives to her problems.

However, I understand that some may be worried that widely available abortion will encourage sleeping around and diminish use of contraceptives. The best way to combat this is full and comprehensive sexual education that will not only impress upon adolescents the necessity of contraceptives and the gravity of unwanted pregnancy and ensuing abortions, but also provide services for these young people.  

 

This is just my hastily written two pennies' worth :)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

In my humble opinion abortion should be legal with restrictions. 

The problem is to define when a mass of cells becomes a human. I would draw the line when the fetus develops a functioning nervous system (around 12 weeks which is already the limit in most countries).

Of course sex ed and condoms (or the pill) would also be necessary to avoid most unwanted pregnancies (thus reducing abortions). Weirdly the same who oppose abortion mostly oppose the above as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Personally I think that 'pro-life' is a misleading term for being anti-abortion, because it makes the assumption that a fertilised egg at any level is life. You can fertilise an egg in a petri dish (which is done routinely for IVF, a procedure that seems to go largely un-opposed by anti-abortionists), but that is not the same as creating a viable life. That requires a mother to carry the pregnancy to either full term or until such a time for the foetus to become independently viable and capable of sustaining life. The earliest we're able to keep foetuses alive is really 23/24 weeks (with a very few exceptions), and many of those pre-term babies will survive but be significantly affected by health problems - inadequately developed lungs, retinopathy, neurological sequelae of the tendency towards intracerebral haemorrhage, developmental delay.

So to get a fertilised embryo to the point where it becomes 'life' requires the mother to carry it. It doesn't really have its own ability for 'life' until some way down the line - its potential for at some point in the future having 'life' is entirely contingent on the mother continuing to carry it until such a point as it is viable. The only one who has 'life' at that time in any real and meaningful sense is the mother. 

To demand that women place their own right to life as secondary, by law, to the right of a being which:
A) Presently has no sustainable life of its own
B) Is dependent on the mother to get to the point where it might viably have a life
C) Presents health risks to the only presently alive being - the mother - including the risk of maternal death
Seems to me to be nothing to do with being pro-life.

If you are pro-life then the only currently alive person is the mother - and you are choosing to put her life at risk and denying her the right to self-determination, neither of which are consistent with promoting life. You do this on the basis that the egg has the potential to one day become a life - and even that is uncertain, maybe it will, maybe it won't! Many pregnancies result in miscarriage. The only actual definite life in the equation (the mother's) is being subjugated - you are effectively saying it is less important than a life which does not yet exist in any real form.

So I guess I find calling the anti-abortionist position 'pro-life' really the ultimate irony. It's dressing up making value judgements about how you feel people should live their lives in language that makes it sound like a positive thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK it really isn't as black and white as that. In the case where you the life of the mother is at risk, the mother's life is more important and should be protected. I agree with this! I can still be pro-life and agree to that. 

The pro-life argument isn't as simple as extreme you make it to be. If I was pro-choice I wouldn't want to be called pro baby killer either.

My argument goes more towards the aspect that there's nothing right about how you get to choose an individual human's right to live for the sake of your own convenience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well any mother's life is at risk in the pregnant versus the non-pregnant state. It's actually how most abortion law works - in the UK, it is only legal to have an abortion before 24 weeks if there is risk to a woman's mental or physical health. Being pregnant is inherently physiologically risky (blood clots, eclampsia, intra-partum haemorrhage, the long-term ramifications on urinary and faecal continence, post-partum depression/psychosis, risk of sepsis, exposure to anaesthetics, the risk of a huge number of potentially life threatening things attends every pregnancy), and so effectively all abortions before 24 weeks are permitted. The position of being pregnant is not a simple issue of 'convenience' - being pregnant has huge ramifications for that person's life during the pregnancy and also afterwards. Whilst taking those risks may be what the mother prefers if they want a baby - if it is an unwanted child then it will nevertheless change the whole of the rest of your life to have to provide for a child and be a parent, or if a decision is taken that the child should be taken into care and put up for adoption, it has a huge impact on the mother to carry the guilt of having done that.

This is why in the past, before access to abortion, women would attempt to have backstreet abortions, which carried with them a burden of morbidity and mortality. It's a massive life changing event to have a baby, labelling it as simply an inconvenience is I think to really fail to understand the depth of what it means to the people who are actually having to go through it. I don't think any of us would look at our parents and say that our coming into the world didn't change their entire lives slightly beyond the level of an inconvenience.

Being called pro-baby-killer, much like being called pro-life, would of course be another example of inappropriate choice of inaccurate but emotive language to try and provoke a particular response. The whole point is that what is being aborted is not yet a baby in any viable sense - such labels are unhelpful and obscure the actual issues faced by the people who will ultimately be affected. If any position on this issue could be found to be convenient, I think that is would be pro-life groups who can conveniently take a position whereby they feel they can enforce what happens in other people's lives, without ever having to take a single iota of the consequences. To feel that you can dictate the lives of others, including by forcing them to take decisions which will damage them, without having to take any burden on oneself, is convenience in a nutshell. 

I say all of this not to specifically argue with you, but because I think people need to think about the individuals who ultimately are forced to bear the responsibility for what is potentially your (or somebody else's) decision. Fortunately abortion remains something, in the UK at least (barring Northern Ireland), where people can make their own choice as to where they stand on abortion and either have one or not.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I know many will argue that life starts after conception and if they have that opinion it is ok but in some situations, people either feel they have no choice or have considered all the other options and decided this is the best one not only for themselves but for the baby too. I think people should decide for themselves when it comes to that situation if to abort or not but they should have the option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

I personally believe in pro-choice, and that's simply because I believe that women should be allowed to make their own choice as to whether or not to keep a baby. While pro-life makes sense, I believe that if a woman is in any kind of danger, or simply does not want a child, she should be allowed to make the choice to abort. Often, in places where abortion is illegal, women will often take things into their own hands, and that is usually much worse for both the mother and the fetus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...