Pro-Choice and Pro-life. How it's possible.

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

Not wanting to threadjack the "Political Blindness" thread, I'm explaining my views on abortion and explaining how I can be both Pro-life and Pro-choice at the same time without being a "fence-straddling" wishy-washy moron.

I am pro-choice. I do believe in a woman's right to choose and accept that as I'm not a woman (more to the point, the woman making the choice), I have no real frame of reference to the decision making process behind the action.

I am pro-life since I dislike abortions as they're commonly used today.

Complete opposites right? Mutually exclusive right? Not really.

I dislike abortions since they are the only option for many people. I am pro-choice, but what choices are out there? If I had my druthers, I'd like to see abortion numbers dwindle. Not because it's outlawed, but because there are other options. A start towards this is the "Safe Haven" laws where a woman may give up her child, no questions asked if they are dropped off at a place of reasonable safety for the child such as a Hospital, Police, Ambulance Station, Fire Station...hell even some churches qualify.

It's not the best solution, but at least it is a start. It's at least another option. If more and better options are developed, then abortion will naturally dwindle to the point where medical reasons and reasons of sexual violence or molestation becomes the primary reasons as opposed to "Post-Coital birth control"

So this is how I can be both sides of the issue, since I've put some thought behind it and came up with a plan on how I want to vote. I vote for people and laws that go down the path of what I want to see, and vote against those that do not.

[Lady_Foxfire]

I agree, and I don't think it's a really uncommon viewpoint in pro-choice circles. I've seen a fair few posts on various feminist blogs pushing for better sex education in schools, increasing access to and awareness of contraceptives, and better social support programs for low-income parents.

The problem with implementing these ideas is that a lot of right-wingers who are against abortion are also pro-abstinence only education, anti-contraceptive, and anti-welfare, and the Democrats seem completely incapable of standing up to them and passing laws that their party platform says they want.

[HYHYBT]

It would help if the whole issue didn't, for so many people, depend on the unanswerable (well...) question of when life (or, more to the point, personhood) begins.

I know people do have answers. But it's *inherently* unknowable, and, I think, undefinable as well. I like the cake analogy, though I got it from someone trying to make the opposite point:

A bag of flour, some eggs, sugar, oil, etc., raw and in the pantry, are not a cake. Man and woman have not even undressed yet. But when does it become one? When you mix them all together? Well, that's cake *batter* (conception), but is batter really a cake, or just something that hopefully will become one? If you forget to put it in the oven (implantation) it never will become anything that could properly be called a cake: it remains batter, and will quickly spoil without ever being more. What about while it's in the oven? It goes in batter and comes out cake, but what is it during the time between? Do bakers even have a name for that? It's like "Halfway Down The Stairs": "It isn't really anywhere. It's somewhere else instead."

I, too, consider myself both "pro-life" and "pro-choice," though I despise both terms. (can't really come up with better ones, though.) I'm definitely of the opinion that batter in the oven is not cake, at least not until the point it won't fall if you take it out, but that, since it will *become* cake if left alone, and cake is good, it ought to be left alone in as many cases as possible.

I also believe that once the "cake" can survive outside the oven, it ought under *no circumstances at all* to be destroyed. Take it out early if necessary, but only in a non-destructive way, and if the baker doesn't want it she can give it to someone who does.

(and sorry, I didn't mean to keep the metaphor up that long, but it does have the advantage of avoiding terms that have become charged on both sides, such as whether to call the "cake" in the "oven" a baby or a fetus. Either that or I *really* should have gone to bed hours ago.)

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

It would help if the whole issue didn't, for so many people, depend on the unanswerable (well...) question of when life (or, more to the point, personhood) begins.

A funny aside. I went to pick up a friend from the Planned Parenthood clinic where she worked. Some group was protesting the clinic (since it does prescribe the "morning after pill") and was using biblical verses to make their point. I got a little snarky and said...

"But the bible states "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11 KJV)", which essentially says that life is dependent on the flow of blood. That would indicate that an embryo isn't biblically alive until approximately the 22nd day when the heart fires up for the first time and starts pumping blood."

I got me some hateful glares that day. Fundies really dislike it when you throw their own bible into their faces for some reason.

And actually I do like the cake analogy. It fits on so many levels. Especially the level where we jokingly refer to pregnancy as "having a bun in the oven".

[Lace Neil Singer]

The problem with adoption, which a lot of pro-lifers use as an alternative to abortion, is that it still means that the woman has to go thru nine months of pregnancy and endure childbirth. I personally do not want to go thru that torture, and ruin my body and mind; therefore, if, despite everything I am doing to prevent it, I got pregnant, I'd have an abortion.

The only solution to the problem is for someone to come up with a machine to keep a fetus alive once it is taken from a woman's womb and to allow it to develop in a natural way til it's ready to be born. However, that still doesn't solve the whole population overcrowding thing, which would still be a problem if every fetus is saved.

[infinitemonkies]

First of all, like any hotly contended issue, there are shades of gray; it isn't black and white, though that's the impression given when the two opposing vocal majorities both take the 'with-us-or-against-us' stance.

Personally, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd say I'm pro choice, but my views are a little more complex than that. I'll come back to that point.

To everyone who preaches pro-life, particularly those who protest publicly and scream insults at anyone who disagrees, my question is: "How many children with fetal alcohol syndrome have you personally adopted? How many crackbabies? If you have adopted a child with a severe physical and mental handicaps, who will require constant 24-hour attention, and monthly hospitalization for their entire 5 year life expectancy, you can take the moral highground against me. Otherwise, don't spout hypocrisy and call it superiority.

I believe we NEED way, way better sex education. Pretty much every study done in the last 40 years shows that abstinence-only sex-ed has little to no effect on the rates of teenage sexual activity, teen pregnancy, and stds. Those same studies show that comprehensive sex-ed courses also have the same near-zero effect on teen sexual activity, but have an huge impact on lowering teen pregnancy and stds. Furthermore, contraception needs to be readily available, and people need to be aware of it. Damn near everywhere I've ever been has at least one place in town you can go to get free condoms.

Every single one of us has seen an example of terrible parenting, and we've all thought at some point "that person shouldn't be allowed to have kids."
I strongly believe that no one should be having kids without being emotionally and financially ready to take on the responsibility. For that matter, I think would-be parents should have to prove their capability to be good parents before being allowed to reproduce. How do we go about that? That a topic for another thread. For now, I'll get back to abortion.

Like Mongo, I believe a woman has the right to choose, and I also believe abortions should be less common than they are now. Abortion should not be thought of as retroactive contraception, but the fact of the matter is that I'd rather see it used that way than no contraception at all.

In the words of Bill Maher "I'm pro choice, I'm pro death penalty, I'm pro assisted suicide, I'm pro regular suicide, I'm in favor of anything that gets the freeway moving just a little faster."

[joe hx]

I got me some hateful glares that day. Fundies really dislike it when you throw their own bible into their faces for some reason.

Probably because they've never read the book themselves and have only heard the verses their leaders let them.

The only solution to the problem is for someone to come up with a machine to keep a fetus alive once it is taken from a woman's womb and to allow it to develop in a natural way til it's ready to be born. However, that still doesn't solve the whole population overcrowding thing, which would still be a problem if every fetus is saved.

This is what I think the radical pro-lifers should do instead of throwing all their money into protests, lobbying, and bombing abortion clinics. It'd be great for all the parents of premature babies, too.

As far as aborting to help prevent overpopulation (is that what the last sentence meant?) it'd be no different, in the eyes of pro-lifers at least, then just rounding up people at random and executing then to lower the population.

[infinitemonkies]

The only solution to the problem is for someone to come up with a machine to keep a fetus alive once it is taken from a woman's womb and to allow it to develop in a natural way til it's ready to be born.

AHA! That's the solution!
Such a machine exists. It's called a mother. Here's how to make everyone happy on the subject of abortion:

Pro-life groups privately provide 100% of the funding to operate clinics where an embryo is removed from a women who would otherwise seek abortion, and implanted into a healthy pro-life woman, who will then carry the child to term, birth the baby, and raise it as their own.

Everybody wins.

[Ghel]

The cake is a lie.



Now, seriously, I could never raise a child. I haven't got the patience. I can completely understand if a woman doesn't want to give birth.

I don't think we'll ever completely get rid of abortions, but I think we can reduce the number of abortions by educating people about the proper use of birth control and making birth control easily available.

[jackfaire]

The cake is a lie.

Is not it's just surrounded by the glowing red eyes of Glados

[blas87]

I feel the same as the OP. I'd probably never get an abortion unless I was raped.

But I don't feel it's anyone else's right to judge or tell a woman what to do with her body. That's why it's pro-choice. It's a choice. It may be right, it may be wrong. But it's a choice. It's good to have a choice.

[Kimmik]

My take is this ... I think abortion is the biggest sin a person can do... hence why I wont have one... however, I believe that it is a personal choice that everyone must make for themselves and I have no right to judge them or tell them what they can do with their bodies.

Same reason I can be chistianish and not think that being gay is the omg evil and why i am not against gay marriage... I may not think it is right, I could think that it is the most satanic black mass inducing thing (not that I do) but I aint marrying one so who am I to judge.

[fireheart17]

The problem with adoption, which a lot of pro-lifers use as an alternative to abortion, is that it still means that the woman has to go thru nine months of pregnancy and endure childbirth. I personally do not want to go thru that torture, and ruin my body and mind; therefore, if, despite everything I am doing to prevent it, I got pregnant, I'd have an abortion.

There was a humungous joke around the time of the current state elections with a guy running for the Upper House (Australia's political system runs slightly similar to the UK system, basically you vote for the party you want in your electorate and the person with the most votes gets that seat, the upper house votes are for the whole of Australia) who is VERY much pro-life (I posted up stuff on him before around election time). The joke went along the lines of the fact that if Trevor Grace wanted to save the unborn, he'd have to open an entirely new hospital for the purposes of saving them.

Probably because they've never read the book themselves and have only heard the verses their leaders let them.

The best case of selective hearing, EVER.

This is what I think the radical pro-lifers should do instead of throwing all their money into protests, lobbying, and bombing abortion clinics. It'd be great for all the parents of premature babies, too.

As far as aborting to help prevent overpopulation (is that what the last sentence meant?) it'd be no different, in the eyes of pro-lifers at least, then just rounding up people at random and executing then to lower the population.

I'm willing to bet that if they DID go down the route of rounding up "random" people, it'd be all the undesirables...

My take is this ... I think abortion is the biggest sin a person can do... hence why I wont have one... however, I believe that it is a personal choice that everyone must make for themselves and I have no right to judge them or tell them what they can do with their bodies.

Same reason I can be chistianish and not think that being gay is the omg evil and why i am not against gay marriage... I may not think it is right, I could think that it is the most satanic black mass inducing thing (not that I do) but I aint marrying one so who am I to judge.

Very well said. I also very much agree with you on the idea...

[tabbyblack13]

I am also on the fence as well. I hate the idea of abortion but I cannot force my morals on someone else.

There is the need to improve sex education in school and in the home. I know for a fact that teenagers will have sex and the more you tell them "No don't do that" the more they will do it. Education will make them understand the risks and how to minimize it.

There also needs to be free birth control for people who cannot afford it. Another idea is a "pill" made for guys. Putting reproductive control back into the guys hand will also reduce the need for abortions too.

[Lace Neil Singer]

There also needs to be free birth control for people who cannot afford it. Another idea is a "pill" made for guys. Putting reproductive control back into the guys hand will also reduce the need for abortions too.

I personally don't see it. Seeing as I'm the one who'll be royally screwed if my fiance forgets to take his pill, I don't see a male pill as being an improvement. Whereas if I take a pill, I know that it's my responsibility, but then it's also my body that's going to suffer. I also play safe by having my fiance wear a condom.

I'd love to be sterlised, I really would, but as a childfree female of thirty one, I can't. I "might change my mind". If, even after all I'm doing to prevent pregnancy, I ended up getting pregnant, I'd get an abortion and my fiance would pay for it. I don't care to be put in the same group as some slutty teenager, or some careless woman who refuses to use contreception.