Well, I should've seen how this was going to come up in the Modern Feminism thread. So, I decided I'd make a nice little place for people to discuss this. Whether you're pro-life, pro-choice, or perhaps a middle ground (I don't know exactly what that would like, but it's there).

Discuss why you're pro-choice, or pro-life, or whatever individual specific opinion you have on the topic. Personally, I am pro-choice. I also believe abortion to be a women's issue. If you agree or disagree, explain.

Be nice to each other everyone. :)

I'm both.

I believe preeeetttty sincerely that every human life has intrinsic value, and I guess what you call 'natural rights.' One of those rights is "being alive." A baby whose only crime is the naturally-occurring human life cycle, doesn't deserve to be destroyed. I mean.... period, really, I can't think of any human-rights-type justification.

BUT.

I also believe preeeettty sincerely that it's none of my business to force other people to do (what I think is) the right thing. So to that end, from a legal standpoint, I'm very much pro-choice. From a moral standpoint, it's not my place to judge and a woman in that situation has enough going on -- it's not a 'ooh, you bad person' sort of thing for me, it's 'wow, that's tragically unfortunate that this happened.' From a personal/interpersonal standpoint, ie, insofar as it's actually my business, then I'm putting my foot down firm (but that hasn't happened yet).

Hope that makes sense.

Oh boy! Oh boy! Oh boy!
I knew this was going to happen once me and Jorick hit the Abortion topic! :P *Sarcasm*

In all seriousness though, I'm Pro-Life.
Have been for basically my whole life, but that stance has current had some shaking alterations and re-evaluations done to it which I will describe below.

Mainly, I was always Pro-Life for one reason. I see the child into the mother to be a human life.
I do not care if it cannot live on it's own yet, if it is not yet sentient. It is still growing, and developing.
I love at it's stages of development in the womb the same way I look at someones stages of development once outside the womb.

You wouldn't for example look at a newborn or a 2 year told and call their life less important or valuable than an adult's because they couldn't walk properly, share well, or talk well yet. They're still learning, they're still growing. You value them for being a human being and what they will be once they are fully grown. So with that in mind, I really cannot imagine/comprehend the act of Abortion as anything less than outright murder.

Clarification: I do not see the mother who did it as a murderer though. I understand the rationale others have behind it. I know they aren't going in and thinking "I'm going to kill an innocent life cause it's inconvenient to me". But I personally can really see the act itself as anything but that, even if that's not what's going on in the other persons head.

Now... for such a stance you're probably wondering "What are these shaking alterations? How did you re-evaluate?".

Well. That's when people approached it from angles I have never considered before, made comparisons I never even dreamed of.
Angle's and comparison's such as:

-We don't force people to donate organs to save lives after death. Why do we force women to give birth so a child may live?
-Parent's are not legally obligated to run into a burning building to save their child, why do we expect them to give their life at times so a child is born?
-If a human being in some odd situation became attached to another, and needed that other to live. They would would be allowed to disconnect the person, having that person connected is a violation of bodily rights.

etc.

So if anything, you could say I'm Pro-Life atm. But Pro-Life in a period of doubt and re-evaluating.
Now, anyone here who knows me would know I enter these serious debate topics all the time simply out of enjoyment, interest and expanding ones mind.
But lately abortion topics specifically I have also been going into just to gain more insight from the other side so I have more information to evaluate and hopefully come to a new and better conclusion with.
I wouldn't even say it's that far off to predict I become Pro-Choice within a few months. I can't say for sure yet.

Long story short, the thing keeping me on the side of Pro-Life is seeing that unborn child as a human life.
I know there are scientific definitions people use for life such as ______ month, gains ability to do X etc.

But I don't think life is something you can just define by how old it is or abilities it has at the moment.
But rather than that specific individual will end up growing into.

In other words, it's a pure moral stance/opinion.
Not a stance/opinion that should be used in a legal case or anything of the like.

I personally believe an entity within a womb does not constitute the same rights as a person until it is capable of surviving outside of its host. Akin to a parasite.

That being said, the person choosing to have an abortion should be educated on the ramifications of that decision before going through with it.

Pro-choice.

I really don't want to waste a lot of words on this, but forcing people who aren't ready to be parents to be parents is a bad childhood recipe. Also, congratulations you are now a single teen mom. Abortion isn't an easy choice or procedure for that matter; it involves a lot of emotions and guilt. Having a child is a big decision (not to mention responsibility) you should make consciously because it will turn your entire life upside down. If you're not up to that task, who will be?

Hah, figured this would be a new thread after the last couple rounds of posts in the feminism thread. I'll try to keep this post short [post-completion note: four paragraphs is short for me, shut up] because I've been in tl;dr post mode the past couple days, and it looks like it's about that time again the the aforementioned feminism thread, so onward with this detour. The short and sweet of it is that I'm pro-choice. I've arrived at this stance through consideration of human rights issues and scientific metrics for what constitutes life and what makes humans different from other animals, which I'll explain with a paragraph a piece (hopefully).

Anyone who has read my recent posts in the feminism thread knows my human rights angle. People have a right to bodily autonomy, which means they cannot be forced to do things they don't want to do, their body is theirs to do with as they choose. This is why you cannot be forced to donate blood/organs/bone marrow even if you're the only convenient match, this is why hospitals can't take your organs for transplant unless you gave consent whilst alive, and it's also a core reason for the illegality of rape (unauthorized use of your body is a breach of bodily autonomy). Telling a woman she must carry a fetus is basically saying she doesn't have the right to choose what happens to her body, that the rights of this still in development pre-human entity trumps her rights. This gives a fetus superior rights to all actually birthed and living humans, because there is no circumstance in first world nations other than pregnancy which deny the rights of bodily autonomy from another person; at the same time this is taking away the rights of pregnant women, making them have less rights than a corpse in fact, because even a corpse's bodily autonomy is seen as inviolate where a pregnant woman's is not. If the circumstance were that someone had to stay hooked up to a slow blood transfusion machine to another person to allow them to live, say another adult, they could not be forced to do so even if not doing so means the death of that other person. There is no good reason why the rights of a fetus should supersede the rights of a pregnant woman, so disallowing abortion is just ridiculous from a human rights point of view.

For the science side of things, the one clear item that makes humans significantly different from other animals is our brains. Other animals can walk upright, other animals have thumbs, other animals share the various other traits we try to define as purely human. The only thing that sets us apart is our brain and what it allows us to do. Now, given that society in general has no problem with killing non-human lifeforms (just take a look at the veritable genocide of livestock animals that we then consume for proof of that), it seems to me that if something is not clearly and definitively a human then it should fall under the same general "okay to kill" tag that is applied to livestock and pests and pretty much everything not on the endangered species list. Before the brain of a fetus is formed to the point that it can actually operate as a human brain, the fetus is functionally not human yet. It lacks the characteristic that defines humanity, so by definition it's not yet a human in the same way that an egg is not a chicken. There's the potential for it to get to that stage, but it isn't there yet. From all the various research I've done on the matter, the scientific understanding of fetal brain development is that it really gets to the point of actually being a human brain somewhere in the 24-27 week area. Before then the fetal brain doesn't do much of anything, it's still forming and only has a passing resemblance to a real human brain. Thus from the scientific side of things, abortion is basically fine before the 24 week marker; even if you're more generous about it and say that once it can respond to stimulus in an instinctual fashion it's functionally human, that only bumps it back to 20 weeks. Even if you step back from the consideration of what makes a human a human, there's a strong argument to be made that if the fetus could not survive outside the womb then it hasn't reached the point of being considered viable life and thus it's fine to terminate it, and currently that cutoff is also at 20 weeks; it gets pushed way back if you take a naturalist perspective and say it has to be able to survive without mechanical assistance, though that's not a very reasonable scientific stance since you're basically saying you can't use science and medicine to keep someone alive. Whichever way you look at it, whether from the human life or viable life perspective, there's a very large window of "nope, not there yet" in which from a scientific perspective abortion is totally fine.

For a bit of further clarification, the bodily autonomy thing is my main reason for being pro-choice. The science side of things was something I first pieced together as a sort of test/experiment when someone challenged me to give a pro-choice argument that wasn't based in morals or rights (because they dismissed the rights side of things without any real reason), so I went looking for an answer in science. I see it as a wholly valid argument for why abortion is fine before that cutoff date, but it's less solid than the bodily autonomy one due to some points that are opinion based and thus open to easy disagreement. I have found no such problems with the bodily autonomy argument though, and it also constitutes a full argument for why abortion should be allowed without the need for supplemental points, so that's my anchor for abortion discussions.

If somebody wasn't responsible enough to use protection, practice safe sex, then they need to deal with the consequences, one way or another. If somebody was raped, then they should have a choice. There also needs to be a hell of a lot more education on the repercussions of having sex, especially when you're younger. Again, this is just my opinion and individual mileage will vary.

Pro-choice. Although I'm uncomfortable at the idea, I do think a woman should be allowed to do it if she wishes to.

I've never really thought about my personal view on Abortion. Hmm...

Lots of thoughts come to my mind. Women who find themselves pregnant by accident are idiots and most likely whores. It probably sounds crazy coming from a girl, but It's true. Although, I don't believe that them having to go through childbirth, and from then on, raise another human being is any type of "Punishment" for their sexual ways!

I think that Abortion "should" be allowed, but only under certain circumstances. If the mother is a drug user, homeless, self-harming or a rape victim, then by all means, they can have an abortion. If it's the case of a woman who got drunk and didn't bother with protection, then they should be given a month of guidance and talks on how to care for the child, taking away their choice to have an abortion until they hit the limit time for abortions.

Having un-protected sex is almost like playing Russian Roulette in a way. Nobody dies, but they're born to a life nobody wants. Couples can still pleasure each other without intercourse, so I don't think there's any excuse to get pregnant besides trying to have a baby, or being ridiculously stupid.

From a personal standpoint, I'm the sort to judge on a case-by-case basis for the most part, though I'm primarily pro-life. I'd like to note, I've never known anybody whom had made/had to make that choice, so prehaps my input is considered irrelevant by some, prehaps not. (Cue: LOL YOU'RE NOT EVER GOING TO GIVE BIRTH/BE A FATHER WHY DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION.)

We had a very interesting discussion on this matter when I studied Medical Science 2 years ago during a Psychology class, linked to another discussion regarding Assisted Suicide, which was based around shat people consider as having a "life". Another student asked "If a unborn child is to be born inacapable of talking, walking, feeding themselves and such, is abortion a better option then forcing them to live incapable of ever actually "living"?"

A couple of the posts I read here seemed to suggest that abortions and pregnancy come as a result of irresponsibility. That's basically where my perspective differs. Abortions are an option of birth control that many seem to feel is a little too literal. Honestly, we're overpopulating for our resources and land usage. We're going to need to come up with some systems to maintain what we have or we're going to suffer vast repercussions that effect thousands of children rather than one period of development America clearly finds debatable. So abortion? Sure, okay. But I also think we should be figuring out this whole 2.34 children per family thing when we've millions homeless and starving. Maybe bringing in so many children in a country increasingly strapped for resources is more irresponsible.

I recognize that pregnancy can come from merely being irresponsible, as that's how I had my daughter in high school. However, in many cases unexpected or unwanted pregnancies often come due to a lack of education, poverty, access to birth control, and religious beliefs, all creating external forces that can lead to these situations. The simple fact is that areas in poverty experience higher numbers of accidental pregnancies than otherwise. There's probably a ton of reasons for this, but without going into any of it, it's clear that we're not just talking about people with good sense. We all know there are plenty of middle and upper class people out there who can't manage simple problem solving, empathy, or step by step directions. It's not a matter of knowing better, it's a lot to do with access and education.

And education isn't just about the skeletal high school basics. We're talking about stacking birth control so that protection is used by both partners. About choosing partners less apt to slip off or tamper with condoms, learning tricks to avoid this sort of foul-play and to see if a product has been modified in any way. We're talking about not slut-shaming and making anyone who is sexually active a pariah or target so you can buy forms of birth control without shame. Humans are sexual creatures. It's an instinct meant to help us survive and labelling people for being sexually active is like calling someone strange for eating. There may be personal, moral associations in your head, but these are separate from the reality of humanity. When we are hungry we eat. Thirsty we drink. There are healthy ways to do these as there are healthy ways with sating your sexual appetites as well. Labelling someone a slut for getting pregnant is more having the lack of vision to realize it's all different shades of physical, and potentially psychological hunger.

TLDR: Accidental pregnancies happen for a variety reasons. Stop shaming what your body does naturally. The Accidental part is the problem, so let's make solutions more accessible and user-friendly. Slut-shaming is clearly not working!

TheNewGirl said Lots of thoughts come to my mind. Women who find themselves pregnant by accident are idiots and most likely whores. It probably sounds crazy coming from a girl, but It's true.

Doesn't sound crazy at all, just extremely judgemental. Most likely whores? Does this account for many who experience faulty systems of birth control or are tricked into using tampered forms? How about the restriction of birth control to youth without parent consent, an issue still prevalent throughout the US. Maybe the stigma put on simply buying birth control, that being safe somehow makes you a whore. Actually, what about that whore part? Is that supposed to be some sort of insult to those who are sexually active? Who are you, or any of us to judge those who choose to have sex or not to have sex? Is someone who drinks alcohol occasionally then suffers liver damage or cancer suddenly a lush? Someone who drives and experiences an accident a horrid driver? See, things aren't black-and-white. In high school I had a GPA of 3.78 and was earning college credit as a Junior (attending college full-time as a Senior). I graduated with honours from college boasting an Associates by 19 and a Bachelors at 21. I represented both high schools I attended to represent my student body when meeting our governor. Oh right, and my daughter was born when I was 16. Her mother has experienced much of the same success too, not an 'idiot' or a 'whore' by any stretch of the imagination. So hold up, what exactly are you basing all this hate on?

TheNewGirl said
I've never really thought about my personal view on Abortion. Hmm...Lots of thoughts come to my mind. Women who find themselves pregnant by accident are idiots and most likely whores. It probably sounds crazy coming from a girl, but It's true. Although, I don't believe that them having to go through childbirth, and from then on, raise another human being is any type of "Punishment" for their sexual ways!I think that Abortion be allowed, but only under certain circumstances. If the mother is a drug user, homeless, self-harming or a rape victim, then by all means, they can have an abortion. If it's the case of a woman who got drunk and didn't bother with protection, then they should be given a month of guidance and talks on how to care for the child, taking away their choice to have an abortion until they hit the limit time for abortions. Having un-protected sex is almost like playing Russian Roulette in a way. Nobody dies, but they're born to a life nobody wants. Couples can still pleasure each other without intercourse, so I don't think there's any excuse to get pregnant besides trying to have a baby, or being ridiculously stupid.

As ShonHarris noted, there are a lot of false claims and judgment within this post. Accidental pregnancies happen for multiple reasons, so, it isn't anyone's place to judge or decide what a woman can or can't do with her body. Given, you're free to judge, but I feel it is the woman who is pregnant that has the choice to do what she feels is right.

Here's one of my favorite quotes from the film Mean Girls:

“You all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores. It just makes it okay for guys to call you sluts and whores.”

Commander said
If somebody wasn't responsible enough to use protection, practice safe sex, then they need to deal with the consequences, one way or another. If somebody was raped, then they should have a choice. There also needs to be a hell of a lot more education on the repercussions of having sex, especially when you're younger. Again, this is just my opinion and individual mileage will vary.

I don't know why a woman should have to be forced to "deal with the consequences". It's her choice to do what she wants with her body, in my view. There are various reasons for accidental pregnancies. And in all honesty, the reasons a woman wants an abortion are hers. It's not up to me or anyone else to tell her she can't, or force her into a situation where she can't.

Shon Harris said what I was about to tell the people who were slut shaming perfectly.

People should not be shamed for having sex, we're sexual creatures.
I think both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice people can agree that more sex education, better protection and awareness to prevent accidental pregnancies works far better than simply telling girls not to get an abortion, and/or shaming women for having sex.

It's ultimately up to the mother. No exceptions.

I started pro-life, then re-evaluated for a while, then I looked up what aborted fetuses look like.

Been pro-life ever since.

Abortions are often used as convenient "whoops" last resort birth control without a trivial thought--at least that was the case with the females in my town.

Cannot fathom why some people find safe sex so difficult to practice.

However, one of my best friends was on the pill and became pregnant anyway--the obgyn said her boyfriend had extremely potent sperm.

-teehee-

and also that she still should have used a condom.

She kept the baby though and loves him to pieces, doesn't regret a thing.

Then there are cases like this girl I went to high school with. She had so many abortions by freshman year the doctor stated it would be a miracle if she could ever become pregnant again...

-shrugs-

I am, for the most part, pro-life. It's quite hard to put it all in one neat paragraph so I'll discuss my views from point-to-point, starting with why I believe in pro-life:

A popular argument is that in some cases (such as teen pregnancy or where substance misuse is involved) the parent(s) are simply not ready or suitable to take on the responsibility. However many people are ready and suitable, and may be looking to adopt. Surely it is better to let the child live and give it away? You might argue that they may end up in a home or in a bad family, but surely its still better than having never lived at all? I think that its worth me also pointing out that I consider myself to be fairly liberal and social orientated, and I believe that there should also be welfare and social services in place to help parents and their children, and to ensure that in certain cases that everything is done to protect the child including removing them from their parents (albeit as a last resort).

Some also argue that the circumstances surrounding the conception are rightful causes to have an abortion. The biggest example being rape. Some feminists arguments tie in here, for example the argument that humans have a right to control their own body, and that being forced to have a child is unethical and inhumane (much in the same way as rape). Whilst I am sympathetic to this point of view, preventing such breach of rights should be done through proactive measures (ie. stopping the rape in the first place) whereas an abortion is a reactive measure which does nothing to stop the breach from occurring. Again, I have the stance that it's better to give the baby away if the mother does not want the baby herself. It also attributes a level of blame and culpability onto the unborn child, which I believe is ethically wrong. There are some exceptions to this view however! For example if the baby was conceived through incest, and there would be potential physical and psychological problems for the child or parent; in these cases it might be more humane to have an abortion (this is more tied into the health point that I'll make in a moment).

To quickly break the seriousness of the topic there's also this point. I'm not religious myself, but Cyanide and Happiness illustrate an interesting point.

Whilst I appreciate that in terms of rights, abortion affects the mother's far more. It's her body. It's her pain. It's her life. I think that it is wrong to completely ignore the parental rights of the father. I think that in cases where the mother and father both consented, especially where there exists a strong relationship, that the father should have some right to argue against abortion. This is especially true of cases where a late-abortion is sought (20+ weeks), as the father may have already developed a loving attachment and because at this point there is a chance the baby could survive outside of the mother. Admittedly in some cases, like in rape cases, they morally loose any legitimate rights to parenthood.

And lastly because, especially in teenage cases, the mother might not be aware of the psychological issues that come with having an abortion. The feelings of guilt, depression and regret may be quite powerful, and may have very detrimental effects. In some cases would-be mothers might wish that someone had convinced them to keep the child, or that they had been more experienced/wiser/mature to make a better decision themselves.

Now! Other things I consider, including exceptions:

I do believe that in cases where the mother's health (physically) and/or the child's health (mentally or physically) is at high risk that an abortion should be an option.

I am not religious, and I do not believe that every sperm is sacred. However like I mentioned earlier I believe that whilst proactive measures are right (e.g. contraception), reactive measures are wrong. As an extension of this, I do believe that some people are clearly unsuitable to be parents and so proactive measures should be taken to avoid pregnancy in some cases. I'm not so austere or bigoted to say that certain people should be stopped entirely, just that their lives should ideally meet a certain standard. For example, if Mary and John were both drug users I would argue they shouldn't have children and should use contraception, however if Mary and John were to later be rehabilitated and live stable lives then they should have the right to have children.

Fat Boy Kyle said -snip-

Mostly agreeing with this point here.

But I feel the need to have clarified, what kind of mental and physical health issues are you referring to?
Cause I'd have to disagree with you depending on what you mean.

Magic Magnum said
Mostly agreeing with this point here.But I feel the need to have clarified, what kind of mental and physical health issues are you referring to?Cause I'd have to argue against that depending on what you mean.

Without giving another massive answer, and without listing tonnes of conditions:
Physical issues would obviously include ones where there is a moderate chance that the mother and/or child might die. I would include this to the point where there is also severe handicapping (e.g. one or both becoming handicapped). Something that's treatable or manageable (e.g. a loss of an arm, etc.) should not constitute an abortion.

Psychological issues would include where due to genetics (etc.) there is a moderate chance of the child developing a severe issue. I do not know much about this though, so my opinion is limited - if what I just said is bullshit then by all means point it out. Moreover, where there is a chance due to the circumstances surrounding the birth and possible upbringing (e.g. like in the Fritzle case) that the child or mother may suffer further psychological trauma; if from a young age you found out that your father was your rapist grandfather, you might become pretty fucked up.

By mental issues I mean the more severe ones, such as (in the most extreme case, and please forgive my wording,) vegetation. However things like autism I do not believe should constitute abortion in the majority of cases.