Jump to content

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

43 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


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 LoveMyLife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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 LoveMyLife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The federal government has already placed a price on this. They refuse charitable dollars to organizations that breathe a word about abortion as a choice even in the poorest of countries for any reason. Money. 
Adoptions are available at the end of a pregnancy so a price is placed on the services and wages from the initial discussion through the completion of the contract. 
 
Questions of concern with these pro birthers who only provide partial information: who keeps track of those purchased for adoption for I am sure you have fees for service? Are you making sure these homes are safe? Do they reside in "homes"? What do you say about the background? Full medical history? DNA? Who aids the woman with every day events? Child support from dad? What if dad finds out and wants - legally your responsibilty to aid which party? 
 
Tell the full truth from the onset or be culpable in lies to further your own belief not help someone who is in need of guidance. The decision is not based on a whim rather it is a struggle and all options should be presented objectively for you may walk away but any decision made by the only active participant will remain for the rest of their life. Very unchristian to make their decision when you are not walking in their shoes at that moment. Their life has been turned upside down not yours. 
 
If you are not medical licensed professionals who have an obligation to their viable patient first then stop practicing medicine without a license. It is illegal. Even an ob-gyn knows and can do suturing and basic med for colds and flu so if you cannot do not for you are then a fraud. 
 
Want to stop abortion: as the free essay writer i think male abstinence and self control, birth control medication, access to condoms, sex ed discussions, anti ed meds, etc as preventative measures would be more objective in scope.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.