For #7; perhaps you could replace that argument with the point about the negative effects abortions can have on the women. I mean, I'm not trying to intentionally tell you what to do with your forum. It's your choice.
But honestly (despite my being a Christian), when is an argument involving God that is stated in any controversial problem ever taken seriously? -_-'


As for my opinion; I've think I told you this before. But in case I hadn't, I am Pro-Life. Only under two circumstances do I find abortion to be acceptable; if the mother's life was in critical danger or if the unborn child had a medical condition that prevented survival outside the womb or to the final month of pregnancy.
But outside that, I'm strictly against it.


Also,

"7. If a woman is not fit to be a mother (eg has drug problem, is abusive, too poor to be a mother) but wants to keep the baby, well, that would be a problem......"

Okay. I noticed this argument just now. Perhaps I have grasped the wrong concept of this point, but according to what you've written; If a mother is pregnant and wants to keep her child, but in others' opinions she will be an unfit mother, she has to have abortion?

Where...exactly is the pro-choice in that?

How is that different from the Pro-Life people who Pro-Choicers say will "force" the woman to have the baby?

Don't worry, suggestions are fine. You see, i didn't add that point, as i wanted there to be a equal amount to each side of the argument, so it appeals to both pro-life + pro-choice.

I used the most "famous" arguments as a example of each opinion for those who were still making there minds up.

However, i am aware that abortion can go wrong, and often leaves the women feeling just as empty as before, if not more.

I used to be 100 percent pro-choice, but after researching it all and seeing both sides of the story, I'm not too sure.....if it was me, i would probably suck it up and keep the baby. but, i know there's a lot of people who wouldn't, so it's a pretty complex debate. Then again, it's not that hard to use contraception, as stated in the forum......

-Pandawinx.

No 1 pro-choice argument is flawed as we are not talking or what is involved is not just 1 body but 2 bodies...the body of the future mother and the body of the baby...the woman may and have the right to decide for her body regarding maintenance of life but she cannot and do not have the right to do so for another party, viz the body of the fetus.

the fifth pro-choice argument is wrong...at 6th week of embryonic stage neural activities have been shown to take place in the fetus and more so when you consider that bodily movement is even noticeable at this particular stage.

On a general note......a fetus is only the initial developmental stage of a human, the second stage is baby, third is infant, fourth is toddler, fifth is adolescent, sixth is adulthood. Is a baby not human until he/she reaches adulthood? This would be ridiculous....so same thing a fetus is a human at his/her earliest sentient stage...he/she has awareness....since there are empirical evidence that fetuses learned things like songs, etc from their siblings and mother while still in the womb and when they are born and are crying the same songs would calm them down. Therefore if they can recognise their siblings' voice and soothing words and feel the emotional states of their mother i am bound to think that they can feel pain and sadness as well. Basically their awareness will start and coincide with the start of their neural activities...so we are talking about 6-8 weeks of embryonic stage.

well not haveing a biaed veiw in this when some people think of abortain they think of murdering a child but since its not teckly a child i really dont have a clue i think until it is born it is not a organism any more its a child but while its inside you its a orgnism and you have the choice to get rid of it( i am really fucked up right now lolololololololol) ps sick guyemote if you look real fast looks like pipe

Honestly, I am neither 'pro-choice', nor 'pro-life'.

I'll explain why:

A. I don't believe human life is as special as we all make it out to be. You people forget how much of a problem population is. This goes hand-in-hand with this, because your argument is that we are killing an embryo. Honestly, many humans care little about animals, yet when it comes to human life, suddenly a stink occurs. Why is it so much worse for a human dying, than an endangered animal, or even just a pet?

B. Your country, for the Americans, has promoted wars many times, all because you have a larger army and believe that you can use your greater force - your so-called 'great' leader George Bush did this by saying that Iran had 'weapons of mass-destruction' in order to attack Iran. While I'm sure many Americans were disgusted by this, America still has soldiers in middle-eastern countries, and other countries like Afghanistan. You say it is wrong to kill an embryo, yet your government is willing to kill potentially innocent people, simply because it can't help but to get involved in other peoples's problems.

C. I believe that abortion should be used if necessary, I.e. if the mother will die having the baby; if the mother is young and doesn't want to have the baby, because they are afraid; if the baby would have a poor quality of life living. I don't think abortion should be used lightly, because it can be very important to people who truly need it. Being fully against abortion is simply a ridiculous rationalistion that your opinion on the issue is more important than everyone else's, or is simply delusional.

The scientific arguments are infinitely regressive, and honestly, I don't believe either side "wins" that argument.

Essentially, the argument boils down to two basic positions:

The first position is the pro-life one. Pro-life individuals believe the life of the unborn infant is tantamount. Some allow for certain cases of abortion, but in the end, these people would deny most people access to abortions. This may be for a number of reasons, but essentially, this perspective places the life of that infant over the choice of the mother. They do not, as many pro-choice individuals seem to believe, aim merely to reduce women's rights.

The second is the pro-choice perspective. Pro-choice individuals believe that the life and choice of the mother are tantamount. Some of the members of this group want to limit abortion, but they are a minority. The vast majority are fine with the situation as is in the U.S. Again, this may be for a number of reasons, but the essential fact is that pro-choice individuals value the option. They do not, as many pro-life individuals seem to believe, value abortion itself, but rather keeping it as an option.

I think a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand one side or the other. In the end, both have good arguments. One could easily agree with both sides and yet choose one based on the realities on the ground. I am one of those people, and I choose to be pro-choice.

I do this for several reasons:

1) We cannot ban abortions. The medical necessity for many abortions is readily apparent, many children die in the womb (and mothers shouldn't be forced to give birth to a dead child), and rape and incest shouldn't have to result in a child.

2) We cannot effectively limit abortions. A lot of pro-life individuals argue for this, and yet I'm always stumped. You would need someone to decide who gets an abortion and who doesn't. Who does the deciding? Most would say the physician, but then you run into a litany of other issues. What if the physician is against abortions? They say no, that no stands on the medical record, and the woman cannot get an abortion, no matter what the situation might be. What standards should they go by? Even if the physician is reasonable, figuring out medical necessity isn't always straightforward. What level of harm is necessary? How likely does the baby's death have to be? How can they be certain of cases of rape or incest? Should tests always be done? Who will pay for those tests? The reality is that limiting abortion in these ways is going to leave people out in the cold, and result in a return to back alley abortions. We should never encourage that.

3) I support the mother over the child. The infant, let's face it, has a good chance of never coming into the world alive. Even if they do, many of these children will die in early infancy. I'm not saying this because I feel that the infant's not important, just by comparison. The mother is a living, breathing human being, capable of having more children.

I also agree with you for those points, Whiteflame. I still believe what I said as well, though. Maybe it sounds callous, but I have a very small amount of sympathy for most people, unfortunately.

So, Dada, let me get this straight. In the instance where the mother would likely die from having the child, you would force her to have it? And, in the case of rape (which does cause a number of pregnancies, even if it is uncommon), you would rather force the mother to have the child than allow the possibility of an abortion?

I get the pro-life argument, and I know you're fed up with the number of women who simply make bad choices and use it as a form of birth control. The problem I have with it is that you would have their bad choices affect everyone. No one can get an abortion because a portion of those who get them do so flippantly. We obviously disagree on that perspective.

But for someone who so fervently defends their own viewpoint, you're very quick to assault the pro-choice perspective based on two things: one, that science shouldn't define our views, and two, that there's no reason to ever prefer the mother's life. I find both viewpoints shocking for a number of reasons, most notably because of your last line: "your faith truly defines everything." Apparently, your viewpoint is defined entirely by your faith, a faith that many of us don't share. Would you force everyone to agree with the views of your faith? On the other hand, scientific evidence is incredibly verifiable. Not everyone may agree with it, but it defines reality. Faith may define your world view, but science defines the world as it is. And yet you're saying we should shrug that aside, and instead side with your faith and those that agree with it.

But the second point is problematic as well. I can't help but wonder at the concept you've presented that mothers should always be willing to sacrifice their lives for the child growing in their womb. You've already resigned mothers to giving birth to a living, breathing reminder of their rape, to giving birth to children that are already dead (since that's abortion as well), but now you've told them that they should feel so protective of the child in their womb that they should sacrifice themselves. That seems incredibly callous to me, but from a logical point of view, it makes no sense. If the mother dies, there's a good chance the child will go with her. Beyond that, the mother can always have another child. I wonder what your perspective is on giving a chance to those unborn as well as the one that's threatening her life?

"6. Again, if the teen decides to not give up, even if it means having to build up her life all alone, she could do it. It would require more hard work than she has probably ever faced, but it is possible. We can become successful through our hard work. It helps to have supportive parents, but that does not define success."

Not everyone has the strength of character or willpower to do such a thing.
And they shouldn't be forced too, anyhow.

'Why risk her life? Because the woman has compassion in her heart and cares for her child more than herself.

You imply here that a woman who chooses herself does not have compassion in her heart.
I disagree. I think it is completely normal to think about yourself first, that there is nothing wrong with being selfish in these kind of situations.

^ Perhaps it isn't selfish at all.

If you abort the doomed feotus (sorry, couldnt muster a more appropriate word), then you lose one baby thats going to die anyway.

But if she aborts it, the women go on to have 5 healthy children, you know?

Although frankly, thats not my reason at all for being pro-choice.
But i suppose logically, a abortion in that case might result in more babies than keeping it.

I have one comment about number 6 on the pro-choice. It says she would be ether disowned or have an abortion. I think if I ever got pregnant at a teenage age that my parents would be disappointed whether I kept the baby or not just because I got pregnant in the first place. It's not having a baby that's bad, it's getting pregnant so young that parents would disagree with so I find that argument very wrong.

1. Women should have the right to choose, as it is there bodies and nobody Else's!
A:This what always gets me, yes its her body but she doesn't own what is growing in side her.

2. If a women is raped by a stranger, and she is single, who will help her care for the baby and help her during the pregnancy?
A:valid point but I believe some countries would provide some social care for these women

3. If it is dangerous for the women to give birth, then why risk a human life for once which isn't even developed yet?
A:I don't think because child birth is dangerous that abortion is a good reason not to have a child. You can always have a C-section done. Plus on the note of "developed" well its not just her whose life is at risk.

4. What if the embryo has a birth defect and will die anyway? What's the point of going through a pregnancy to watch your baby die?
A:Well unless the baby is actually dead, then I don't think an abortion is reasonable. I don't think because the child may die outside the womb that abortion is a good choice of action, people are born with all sorts of "defects" but we don't say that they aren't expected to live long and kill them off.

5. There is no scientific evidence embryo's can feel pain, sorrow, or any physical or emotional thing.
A: fair nothing is really conclusive on that

6. If a teenager is forced to either be disowned by her parents or have a abortion: would it be better for her to have no home or have one?
A:I don't have a comment on that

7. If a woman is not fit to be a mother (eg has drug problem, is abusive, too poor to be a mother) but wants to keep the baby, well, that would be a problem......
A:Well you can't say someone else is better off dead then alive because no one can really see into the future. No one really knows what they are capable of until the situation is there, you have children born in the ghettos and slums of third world countries but the children are still loved and cared for. Even a mother with a "drug" problem they may clean up or the state and take the child and give him/her to a family that would treat them right.


I like this forum by the way, very informative

@BlackPanther666:

BlackPanther666, you stated the following:

A. I don't believe human life is as special as we all make it out to be. You people forget how much of a problem population is. This goes hand-in-hand with this, because your argument is that we are killing an embryo. Honestly, many humans care little about animals, yet when it comes to human life, suddenly a stink occurs. Why is it so much worse for a human dying, than an endangered animal, or even just a pet?
_________________________________________­___­_

I find the opposite to be true.

Many people in Western society care more for their PETS then they would, say, a homeless man begging for change on the #2 line . Living amongst a densely populated area has desensitized many New Yorkers from the suffering of others. I can honestly say that I would step over a homeless man lying on the street to get to work on time. Mind you, I'd take a second to see if the man was taking an afternoon siesta but I'd do what I'd have to do to survive.

With that being said, I do agree that human beings do not value each other's lives as much as this "pro-life" argument would lead readers to believe. I mean come on, let's call a spade a spade. It's not in our nature to care for those outside of our community. The notion that every life deserves a chance is an illusion. It's a romantic concept based on an individual's ideals (and those ideals could come from a mother with six children or a bible-thumping church marm, or what have you). Idealism, such as the one metted out by "pro-lifers", won't be enough to, for example, pay for a newborn's hospital bill, vaccines, babysitting care, diapers, room and board, bottled milk, baby clothes, car seat, stroller, teething bottle, early childhood education...and later on, food, school tuition and so on and so forth. Idealism won't be enough to pay for all these babies who'll need the state to care for them when the parents refuse to do so. It won't be enough for foster children who age out of foster care or for children who are born with handicaps that the guardians are ill-equipped to handle, or to feed the millions of homeless children living in shelters, or abandon buildings, etc.

Idealism isn't going to pay for any of this or help the parents find suitable jobs so that they can take care of themselves and their family properly. All it does is feed into the advocates sense of worth, so that at the end of the day, he/she could feel better about saving, what they deem as, a life.