Why are you pro-choice?

[Dreknar20]

Cause I don't consider human life as some sort of sacred/messianic thing

[Anastacy]

My mom was pro-choice. She only wanted 2 kids. She aborted the first two because she wasn't ready. I am here because I was #3. I wouldn't be here if she was ready to have kids the first two times she was preggers.

And I likely wouldn't be here had pro-choice been a much more prominent stance when my mother was pregnant.

[Total Crica]

And I likely wouldn't be here had pro-choice been a much more prominent stance when my mother was pregnant.

My point was that "what ifs" can be any scenario. Helping the "what is" is more conducive to a better "what if".

We are both "what is", lets trying helping us so we are happy with our "what if".

[Anastacy]

My point was that "what ifs" can be any scenario.

As was mine.

[Templar 331]

I'm not really pro choice and I don't like the idea of abortions, but I don't agree with the usual arguments against it. I also don't like the laws that tend to get pushed that restrict it. Laws like the "8 week ban" where you almost don't have enough time to know you're pregnant. Or the constant defunding of Planned Parenthood to stop abortions even though those funds aren't used for abortions. I see people who are against it do stupid things and that makes me think there might be reasons to not be against it.

But mostly, I'm a man and won't ever have one. It really has nothing to do with me.

[belleflop]

I'm pro-choice and pro-life. *mind blown*

Pro-choice: I accept the scientific literature as to what is a person. Once viable outside the womb is the critical turning point for me. BUT, even after that the decision should ONLY be made by the mother/doctors. No one else has the right to make any decision but them.

Pro-life: After birth I absolutely accept the scientific literature on why social safety nets are vital to our overall well being. The more access all families have to free or low cost healthcare and newborn services, social programs such as SNAP, etc, the best we will be as a society.

The arguements generally made in the mainstream are emotional and religion based, which completely turns me off to either argument. Use data and scientific facts.

[Zomis]

You know what guys, I've changed my mind. These pro-life arguments are so compelling that I think we should give women a good, Biblical punishment for daring to seek an abortion.

They must pay a fine of three shekels.

It's awesome that you enjoy joking about murdering babies, you must be a swell guy!

[Poopymonster]

Yes, I agree. But there are also the cases where such loss of life in unacceptable. And an innocent human being is one such case. You can justify killing a criminal, killing in vendetta, in war, even as a political means. But you can never justify killing of an innocent.



From the very start you set yourself for fail, and then blame the world. I guarantee you, that if you give them a choice, people will choose life, even if it's full of pain, misery, and suffering. Nobody in their right mind who can avoid death would embrace it.

Suicide begs to differ.

[SL1200]

I'm pro choice because i'm generally against anything being Illegal.

[Super Kami Dende]

Except hate for GMO is very common among people who are for abortions as well. In many cases more so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kEJ...ature=youtu.be

Maher is left, and certainly pro-abortion (or pro-choice), but he's also against vaccines, he's pro-alternative medicine and he is against GMO.

People on the left and right are both just as likely to deny science, as long as it fits their prefered politics. Heck, most social democratic countries in the EU (like Sanders) are scared pantless of GMO, why do you think they're all banning it (and yes, I feel ashamed of my own country).

I didn't say that ONLY people who are against abortion are for the other retarded shit. Just that many who are Anti-Abortion tend to be idiotic enough to follow the other idiotic things as well.

Maher is a fuckwit.

[Caolela]

Nope. As a tax-payer you are funding this. If on the other hand, it was paid from their own insurance or pocket.



You're right. So pay for your own choices.

All this talk of choices but no one talks about responsibilities, no one even seem to consider that other people are funding your actions.

Taxpayers are funding a lot of things against their wills - like unconstitutional, aggressive wars based on lies, NSA/CIA/FBI/police illegal spying on citizens, corporate welfare to corporations that don't need it ("subsidies"), and a thousand other things. All of which costs trillions of dollars more than abortions and all social programs put together, not to mention millions of lives lost and injuries, and numerous other problems.

Right-wing moonbats don't talk about their responsibilities, they don't seem to consider that other people are funding their actions.

[-aiko-]

I'm pro-choice because I think the alternative is worse. I don't really support abortion and think it's a damn shame that it can be used so irresponsibly, but it's a procedure that is necessary. There are legitimate cases where abortion must remain open, but even without them outlawing abortion will only force young women to use unsafe home abortion measures to do it anyway. We need to make it safe and accessible, but should not actively encourage it.

That and I'm not particularly keen on someone attempting to tell me what I can or can't do with my body.

[derpkitteh]

It always devolves into this, regrettably. -how can we let gay people marry, what's next bestiality?- is an equally broken argument. Bodily Autonomy is the answer to your question.

"if killing at the stage it becomes a person should not be illegal, then why should it be illegal to kill any child you want to?"

Can be re-envisioned as -"why does it become illegal to kill a human child just because they are finally born?"-

With the simple answer: Bodily Autonomy.


I don't feel like re-spelling out what bodily autonomy is, if you need a refresher it can be found on every single one of these genres of threads.

personhood is what grants bodily autonomy. children have limited bodily autonomy, as they can't consent to anything related to their body without parent approval(vaccines, medicines, etc.). when the fetus becomes a person, it of course would have limited bodily autonomy as well, it needs the mother to live.

its bodily autonomy for the most part should be equal to that of a child's, since it is a person, and therefore should not be able to be killed wantonly.

like i said. up to the point it is a person, that's fine, i see no problem with abortion. but once it's in there all shaped like a little person, it's no different from any other child. needing care to survive. in fact, it requires less care than an actual child, you just have to exist and it lives.

i don't see why there can't be a common sense on this. it's basic knowledge, either you're ok with killing people or you're not. i am not, in most cases. when there are extreme circumstances, sometimes people have to die. but when there isn't it should be entirely illegal to kill anyone.

[Powerogue]

I feel like I can be pro-choice while still disapproving of abortion. Too many people take that ending of a potential human lightly instead of as a last resort, and I view it as irresponsible in the same way the guy running off and abandoning his role as a father is.

[sheggaro]

I'm not.

*ducks*

[Nihilist74]

Bodily autonomy.

[Deleted]

having a child is a major life changing event that you should not be locked into if it happened unplanned, by accident, at a bad time in your life or any other myriad of other reasons, it will just be bad for everybody involved including the child. some people might be callous about it but nobody has abortions for fun.

[kyoloco]

freedom is nice and stuff

[Malkiah]

because "abortion on demand without apology" is the only morally acceptable view to have on the issue.

less snarky however is that at the end of the day i do not possess the delusion that humans are somehow fundamentally sacred, and deny that "life, at any cost, in any circumstance" is a valid position to hold to.

while i certainly agree with the points about bodily autonomy and the fact that zygotes aren't people, none of that particularly matters to me because whether or not a woman has a right to her own body or not and whether a fetus is a fully formed person or not is irrelevant since every society has collectively agreed that it's OK to let certain people die either implicitly or explicitly, and whatever you want to classify a uterus squatter as in that spectrum doesn't matter because we've agreed it's OK to terminate their existence.

[Mormolyce]

In a welfare state it does.

100% disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

I am curious to know your opinion (and everyone who gave the same reason), if a 5 month pregnant woman willingly and knowingly takes thalidomide, would that be considered a crime?

Well there's no law against pregnant women smoking or drinking or eating soft cheese or indulging in extreme sports or any of the other things that to one extent or another affect the health of the fetus.

I hardly recommend it but I don't think the state has any right to tell her what she can and can't do with her own body.