Are you pro-life or pro-choice as per abortion?

[F1fan]

I have certain discomfort in abortion like most everyone else. And I think the Roe decision was a good compromise as a national policy. I don't have a problem with an abortion bans in the third trimester UNLESS there are health or developmental issues, or mother's life at risk. That gives women plenty of time to make a decision for themselves.

What Roe says is:

Unlimited abortion rights in the first trimester.
Limited medical procedures to abort a pregnancy in the second trimester.
Abortion services in the third trimester is up to states to decide.

I think it acceptable to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus has medical and developmental problems.

I think it is up to women to ultimately decide what they want for themselves, and partners can offer input.

I think no government in the USA can apply a religious moral view as a basis for law, as the anti-abortion public servants are doing. I argue that their approach is unconstitutional including the SC justices who signed the Alito opinion. The pro-life movement is a religious movement. the moral argument it offers is based on religious beliefs and values. Any pro-life person who does not advocate for broad rights to life are frauds, to my mind. You have a weak moral claim if you demand children be carried to term but then oppose universal healthcare, especially for the poor and women as a whole.

If the government forces a women to carry a child to term then it MUST assume all costs for that child until 18 years of age if the mother can't afford care. That would include offering the child to adoption r foster care. This is especially true if fetuses with developmental problems are forced to term, and then the family can't care for the baby. The government will have to spend whatever is needed to care for such children, which may include 24 hour a day care and thousands in medical care per month. If Roe is reversed and the 23 states that have bans on abortion have not made plans to pay for, and care for, all these un wanted babies, then how moral are they? How is that pro-life?

 

[Fool]

Can you justify a ban on abortions? I doubt if you can..

I don't like the idea but honestly I don't disapprove of it. In the USA alone the orphaned and statistics for those aging out of the system are deplorable. Plus almost 18-20,000 children go missing per annum.


https://www.genjustice.org/post/dis...-foster-care-every-year-how-to-end-the-crisis


51 Useful Aging Out of Foster Care Statistics | Social Race Media | NFYI.

 

[metis]

I'm "neither". I am pro-choice by my belief but am unwilling to have my belief be binding on others in light of the fact that it is not my body that's involved and therefore deals with what's in another person's body.

 

[F1fan]

I don't like the idea but honestly I don't disapprove of it. In the USA alone the orphaned and statistics for those aging out of the system are deplorable. Plus almost 18-20,000 children go missing per annum.


https://www.genjustice.org/post/dis...-foster-care-every-year-how-to-end-the-crisis


51 Useful Aging Out of Foster Care Statistics | Social Race Media | NFYI.

This is a huge issue that the pro-life folks ignore. They often say there's a big demand for babies. There are Christian organizations in Ukraine trying to set up adoptions for their clients. There has been some illegal, immoral, and unethical aspects to what these people are doing.

Ukraine's kids and adoption: Will an ugly history repeat itself?

There's your child trafficking.

If abortion is banned in 23 states will there be enough people willing to adopt? Will they be willing to adopt babies with serious medical problems? If not, then what preparations have these states made to deal with all this high need influx of babies? These families want babies, not children. There is foster care but this is funded by states so these children have somewhere to live. How much more costs will the state spend to allow this Christian movement to become law in a secular nation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't like the idea but honestly I don't disapprove of it. In the USA alone the orphaned and statistics for those aging out of the system are deplorable. Plus almost 18-20,000 children go missing per annum.


https://www.genjustice.org/post/dis...-foster-care-every-year-how-to-end-the-crisis


51 Useful Aging Out of Foster Care Statistics | Social Race Media | NFYI.

Yes, the number still in the system for foster care is an argument against banning abortion.

I was watching a video last night where a person made some very good points. If someone else needed a person's body for any specific reason that did not kill the other person but merely discomforted him a good deal and that person was refused that no one calls it murder. Yet when the same conditions are applied a fetus, not even a person yet, in a uterus prolife people wrongly call that murder. I do not think that one can reason consistently and be against abortion at all. Why is a woman's uterus her business and no one else's?

 

[Sand Dancer]

I get the feeling that sometimes we end up in false dilemmas as a strong one or the other,
so I made 4 choices. And no, you don't have to vote as you can reject all 4 if you like.

I put a combination. I am for any abortion during the first trimester, no restrictions, coming back for a second visit, ultrasound, etc. During the second, with restrictions, and the third, I am not sure which scenarios would warrant one, so I can't say but I would say it would have to be for life threatening reasons. I would be a little more toward the "pro-life" spectrum if our country would be more amenable to helping the woman not to feel the need to abort, i.e., sex education, more access to birth control, helping the woman parent, making the father pay child support, welfare, etc..

 

[F1fan]

Yes, the number still in the system for foster care is an argument against banning abortion.

I was watching a video last night where a person made some very good points. If someone else needed a person's body for any specific reason that did not kill the other person but merely discomforted him a good deal and that person was refused that no one calls it murder. Yet when the same conditions are applied a fetus, not even a person yet, in a uterus prolife people wrongly call that murder. I do not think that one can reason consistently and be against abortion at all. Why is a woman's uterus her business and no one else's?

No doubt the republicans as a whole have adopted (no pun intended) the Christian right's moral view on abortion, and the two are now completely ingrained. There is no practical or secular reason to ban abortion. The reasons are purely religious, and to my mind these arguments are irrelevant and to be excluded in any judicial and legislative process. As we know the Christian right and GOP have conspired to get their Christian moral views imposed on America, and the GOP gets power. This is a conspiracy against the USA and its citizens, yet few see it this way. The GOP may have gone too far with this alliance and we will see what the majority of citizens have to say in November 2022.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

As a male I don't feel that qualified to make any kind of judgment, so I voted Other.

I have not really understood this line of reasoning. We do not use it for any other issue we have. Males do have a stake in the abortion issue. Like it or not the potential child has a father as well. Should a woman not have any say in laws that force men to support their children because they are not men?

I also have a wife, two daughters, a sister, female friends and family members that I love, so it is not like the abortion issued does not affect me in some way. I understand that I do not have to carry the potential child and I am sympathetic to that and understand that I do not know what that is like but males should have a voice in the issue and not abdicate that responsibility.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No doubt the republicans as a whole have adopted (no pun intended) the Christian right's moral view on abortion, and the two are now completely ingrained. There is no practical or secular reason to ban abortion. The reasons are purely religious, and to my mind these arguments are irrelevant and to be excluded in any judicial and legislative process. As we know the Christian right and GOP have conspired to get their Christian moral views imposed on America, and the GOP gets power. This is a conspiracy against the USA and its citizens, yet few see it this way. The GOP may have gone too far with this alliance and we will see what the majority of citizens have to say in November 2022.

You are wrong. There are secular moral reasons to be prolife. There and prolife atheists out there like myself that have reasoned that stance based on our morals.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think I’ve said my piece and then some.
But I voted for pro choice, because I think my views align with affirming life but with an understanding of allowing choice.
That it differs drastically between circumstances is merely a reflection of how complicated human life can be

 

[Stevicus]

I'm a rank amateur and never had any thoughts about turning pro.

 

[Father Heathen]

I’m pro-law.

Regardless of how arbitrary, irrational, unjust, and nonsensical they are or could be? Even if it meant that you yourself could become the target of persecution? I prefer that civilization evolve and move forward.

 

[Sand Dancer]

No doubt the republicans as a whole have adopted (no pun intended) the Christian right's moral view on abortion, and the two are now completely ingrained. There is no practical or secular reason to ban abortion. The reasons are purely religious, and to my mind these arguments are irrelevant and to be excluded in any judicial and legislative process. As we know the Christian right and GOP have conspired to get their Christian moral views imposed on America, and the GOP gets power. This is a conspiracy against the USA and its citizens, yet few see it this way. The GOP may have gone too far with this alliance and we will see what the majority of citizens have to say in November 2022.

I wouldn't put the reasons squarely due to religious values, especially since some gods, like the Hebrew god, are not pro-life. Abortion was historically frowned upon after "quickening." Scientifically there has to be a reason not to abort as the pregnancy progresses. The fetus feeling pain, IMO, must account for something, because we generally don't like hurting animals or the environment, so humans need at least that much consideration, if not more.

 

[sun rise]

Pro-life vs pro-choice is a false dichotomy. Pro-choice vs anti-choice is the correct comparison.

I'm pro-life because I'm in favor of universal health care, helping the poor and disabled, teaching about sex in schools (age appropriate of course) and so forth.

I'm pro-choice because to me it's a woman's choice pre-viability

 

[Nakosis]

I get the feeling that sometimes we end up in false dilemmas as a strong one or the other,
so I made 4 choices. And no, you don't have to vote as you can reject all 4 if you like.

I'm pro-life, anti-government.
I'm just slightly more anti-government than pro-life.
Though it is almost a toss-up.

So I'll let the democratic process decide.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I have not really understood this line of reasoning. We do not use it for any other issue we have. Males do have a stake in the abortion issue. Like it or not the potential child has a father as well. Should a woman not have any say in laws that force men to support their children because they are not men?

I also have a wife, two daughters, a sister, female friends and family members that I love, so it is not like the abortion issued does not affect me in some way. I understand that I do not have to carry the potential child and I am sympathetic to that and understand that I do not know what that is like but males should have a voice in the issue and not abdicate that responsibility.

Perhaps, but I was just being somewhat cautious, given that as a male I can't say as to how any female might feel and react to being pregnant, and I would tend to give them more rights as to such over males. So I wasn't excluding males - just this particular single male.

 

[Fool]

Yes, the number still in the system for foster care is an argument against banning abortion.

I was watching a video last night where a person made some very good points. If someone else needed a person's body for any specific reason that did not kill the other person but merely discomforted him a good deal and that person was refused that no one calls it murder. Yet when the same conditions are applied a fetus, not even a person yet, in a uterus prolife people wrongly call that murder. I do not think that one can reason consistently and be against abortion at all. Why is a woman's uterus her business and no one else's?

it is the extreme christian fundamentalist that believes a fetus is a person but their bible doesn't even follow that line of thinking.

case in point, a fetus isn't counted until it is born

exodus 13:13

exodus 34:19

numbers 18:15

it has to come from the womb before it is counted.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Perhaps, but I was just being somewhat cautious, given that as a male I can't say as to how any female might feel and react to being pregnant, and I would tend to give them more rights as to such over males. So I wasn't excluding males - just this particular single male.

I got it. After seeing three people being born in my life I think that if males gave birth there would be like 1000 people in the world today.

 

[Fool]

Pro-life vs pro-choice is a false dichotomy. Pro-choice vs anti-choice is the correct comparison.

I'm pro-life because I'm in favor of universal health care, helping the poor and disabled, teaching about sex in schools (age appropriate of course) and so forth.

I'm pro-choice because to me it's a woman's choice pre-viability

never thought of it in that way but it makes sense; especially if the woman is at risk.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it is the extreme christian fundamentalist that believes a fetus is a person but their bible doesn't even follow that line of thinking.

case in point, a fetus isn't counted until it is born

exodus 13:13


numbers 18:15

it has to come from the womb before it is counted.

Don't forget Exodus 21 22. The translation of that verse was changed in many Bibles after Roe v Wade since the "harm" mentioned was clearly the harm of the pregnant wife, not that of the fetus that was lost. It was an economic fine to lose a fetus, not a deadly crime. And there is also the test of an unfaithful wife in numbers where if a women has cheated on her husband and is pregnant the result is a chemical abortion.