Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? - Comments

@LAjunkie:

I agree... but to be honest, I can say that my parents were not fit to have a child. They had two. They abused both me and my sister and I didn't get taken out of the home until I was about 9 years old. Yes, a child is a child. But I don't think any child deserves to go through something like that. I honestly still wish to this day that my mother had gotten an abortion on both me and my sister rather than putting us into an abusive situation.

Beyond that, my father raped me as part of the abuse. Had I still been in the house at this age and gotten pregnant, I would have wanted an abortion.

Killjoy - Just because it's bad, doesn't mean it won't happen. People do "gross", stupid, selfish, hurtful, devastating things all the time. That's why "based on the circumstances" is hard to legislate.

There's a difference between morally wrong, and illegal. We all have different views on what is morally acceptable, and I'm not here to dispute with anyone on that--the question in case is the legal side of things, and it's not up to the government to legislate morality.

Pro-life. A child is a child. Despite what circumstances the child was conceived under.

AmorarEsDeVivir
Don't know, don't care, personally.
I didn't say it was an intelligent opinion. I just typed in my thoughts. If a woman lies about being raped, than that's just gross. That's all.

WinterStarsAlive
I know, but this has been discussed over a million times. And each entry is the exact thing but with a different choice (same opinions, but the choice isn't the same) That's all.

v The thing about "based on the situation" is:

1. How many women would falsely accuse a man of rape, just so that she can get an abortion when she doesn't want to be pregnant?

2.It's hard to legislate something like that. Do you have to go through court and prove you were raped? How long will trials take? What if the person really raped the woman and he gets off without punishment? She then still has to bear the child. Who would be responsible for deciding whether a woman's circumstances allow for an abortion? How can you guarantee they wouldn't be biased? And how long will that decision take? What if it's not until past the first trimester?

Also, like I said earlier: One, a baby is a baby, not a punishment; and two, if you think a person got pregnant because she was irresponsible, why would you WANT that irresponsible person having a baby? Just as a punishment? Who are you punishing here?

Besides, birth control methods fail. It isn't always a matter of irresponsibility.

If a woman is raped, than she can get an abortion if she wants.
If a stupid b*tch has sex with her boyfriend, is ignoring the warnings of having sex in the first place (isn't giving a flying f*ck in sex ed.) than she should live with the consequences and not be able to get an abortion.

That's what I think.

Pro-Choice.
It's the woman's body, she should be able to do what ever she wants with it. It's not anyone else's responsibility or right to step in and tell her what to do.

@Killjoy:
Yes. Yes I am. The issue hasn't gone away, and is still heavily debated. The vote to abolish it can come up at any time.

@AmoraEsDeVivir:
Thank you for those fabulous points :) I actually didn't really see the hypocritcal view of the pro-life argument, but now I do.

@Sin Synclayre:

I agree with that completely. But unfortunately, you can't create laws like that. 'Based on the situation' would in fact be a beautiful thing in which case I believe many more people would be pro- choice.

I'm pro-life.

Unless there's a chance you die...or the kid dies.

In which case, I'm pro-choice.

It just depends on the situation, in my opinion.

Well, abortion didn't stop. @killjoy

---

About protection, the majority of women who have an abortion used protection the month they got pregnant. Just sayin'.

Just to add to your point:

Even if you DO use protection, pregnancies happen. Condoms break. The pill fails. My aunt had THREE KIDS on the pill. My boyfriend's mother had a daughter while on the pill, too. IT HAPPENS. It's not a sign of irresponsibility.

On that note:

1. Stop treating a child like a punishment instead of a human being--"Oh, if you're going to be irresponsible, you should have to live with the consequences!" doesn't mesh with "It's a living thing and it has rights!" It's either a human being with rights, or it's the consequence of stupidity. You can't have it both ways.

and 2. If you truly believe these people are having babies because they're irresponsible, WHY DO YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE THE BABY ANYWAY? You think irresponsibility is a GOOD quality in a mother?

No, that was not directed at you. The "you" is directed at hardcore pro-lifers who use that argument. Just felt I'd clarify because otherwise I don't know how much sense that made.

Beyond that, while I do believe an unborn child is a living thing, I also believe that as long as it depends on the mother's body entirely to live, the mother has the right to choose. That child is, TECHNICALLY, by the textbook definition of the word, a parasite, and it's one which will have lifelong effects on the woman's body. It's not as easy as, "Have the baby anyway, and if you can't handle raising it, put it up for adoption." Like you said, there are so many children waiting to be adopted as it is--why just add to the number of unwanted children in the world? Beyond that, carrying a child to full-term has lifelong repercussions--especially in TEENAGE mothers, whose bodies may not be completely developed enough to carry a child to full term yet, and it could cause damage.

...I think I ranted about this longer than you did. Sorry. In short, I agree with you.

-_______-

No offense but, are we still talking about abortion?