Welcome to Gaia! ::

I've realized something, while comparing pro-choice and pro-life arguments.

Let's look at the "choice" side.

Pro-choice Arguments include:
- The function of sex is determined by the person who has sex.
- Everyone should be able to abort their child, if they just don't want it.
- People shouldn't be burdened with an unwanted child.
- Every child should be a loved/wanted child.
- Quality of life is more important than life in general.

Now, while I, in a sense, agree with the first argument, I don't think that just because you didn't intend to get pregnant while having vaginal sex, that does not mean you couldn't. You could almost say that having sex, with the intent to abort any child you may have, is recklessness, and endangering another life. At least, that's how I would see it.

As for the second one, well, I can't even touch that one. Killing your child is bad. Any six year old will tell you that. However, these lovely pro-choicers have justified killing their kids with the argument that "Oh, they're not viable, therefore, they're not aware if they die or not. That makes it fine and dandy."

I agree that people shouldn't be burdened in their life. If they have an unwanted child, then, well, adopt it away. Your unwanted child is somebody else's wanted child.

As for every child being a wanted child, well, that's not realistic in the full scheme of things. Otherwise, people wouldn't be putting their children in the adoption system, and children wouldn't be getting hit, or have bad things happen in their lives. The point is, is that we all at some time in our lives have maybe felt like we would be better off dead. But would you choose that? Most likely, no. If so, well, that's suicide. But you have no right to decide, your child or not, if someone is better off dead, than alive, and being given an opportunity to be wanted to someone else.

As for Quality of life, well, I agree that it does have importance. People need their basic necessities, people deserve to have the things in life that they need to make it comfortable for them. However. Just because you think that someone's not going to have their own bedroom, and a laptop, does that mean that you have a right to say "Well, you won't have the Special edition DVD of 'Edward Scissorhands', you're life's gonna suck. I'm going to kill you, now."

Again, The life of another person trumps all those facile little arguments you can make for having your way. Pout in the corner all you like, stomp off and slam your door, and go to bed without eating, if you want.

To me, and to a lot of people, I would think, abortion is the exact equivalent of shirking your responsibilities. You have a responsibility to this life, and to kill it, is saying "I don't wanna do this. So I just won't."

It's the easy way out. The way for people to live their lives without thinking of the fact that they had a chance when they were given someone else's life to take care of. And they decided to destroy it, by disregarding this person's value, and deciding that they would live better, being dead. Except they can't live now, because you took that away from them.

Abortion is something that I just find extremely selfish, and I can't reconcile that anymore. I feel so guilty that, even for a short period of time, I thought that it was justifiable to kill another human being (I used to be pro-choice), that I feel like I have even more of a responsibility to show people that abortion is not okay. You can't think that, just because something is legal, that automatically removes any pesky moral complications that go along with it.

Anyway, any responses to what I'm saying?

- function of sex argument - I agree with it.

- Everyone should be able to abort if they want it - Too vague. I agree to some extent, and I disagree to another.

- People shouldn't be burdened with an unwanted child - I agree with this statement, but this isn't really an abortion argument now is it? If a family has a born child they do not want they should be able to put it up for adoption and that's not wrong. I think the argument you meant was "if someone has an unwanted pregnancy she should not be forced to undergo the burden of pregnancy that is not wanted." And like the second argument that would be too vague. I would agree and disagree based on the clarification.

- Every child should be a loved/wanted child - sure why not? Every child should be loved and wanted. Is that an argument for the right to abort... not really, it's an argument for the betterment of children and the conditions of children world wide. The pro-choice argument would be "every child should be born only if wanted" which is not one I would agree with.

- Quality of Life is more important than life in general - misrepresentation of the argument. Quality over quantity is what they argue. I agree with it to an extent. I wish I could remember the argument I heard once before about it... it was years ago... something like the "what does it hurt to add one more?" The scenario was that if you started with, say, 10 people who had perfect lives and you could add one more and it would minimally decrease the quality for all, but it would give another the oportunity to live, then sure, why not add one more? Repeat adnauseum until you have billions of people living in complete squalor where none have any sort of comforts in their lives beyond enough food to eat to stay alive... that sort of world one SHOULD say would be preferrable to one with half as many people where quality of life was significantly better because "what does it hurt to add one more?" I fall into the quality over quantity camp, but quality over quantity of life in no way justifies the unjustly killing of a person in order to obtain a better quality of life.

Arguments I think are far better than those, at least where meaningfull discussion is concerned would be:

- Where do rights come from/what are rights/how do we determine who or what gets them?
- What does "the right to life" entail?

To me the "pro-choice" arguments you picked aren't really pro-choice in the sense they actually support the right to abortion (ie all children should be loved doesn't make it ok to have an abortion, it is a statement of how things should be, but in no way argues that a woman is entitled to a right to an abortion. Quality over quantity also doesn't justify abortion anymore than it would justify killing the elderly, it is just a belief about how things "ought" to be, but does not explain anything about abortion's permissability)... They are things pro-choicers say, and it's fine to disagree with them, but I wouldn't really consider them arguments for justifying abortion.

Talon-Chan... I really disagree. You can nit-pick all you want about the "proper wording," but the end result is that the Pro-Choice side says that it is better to never be born then to be born into poverty. Or born to parents who don't actively want you; As if all parents who were not trying to get pregnant would be abusive, or something.

And you can say, "Bodily integrity, bodily integrity," but that is the -only- Pro-Choice argument I have come up against that has any merit, and I -have- heard all the arguments McPhee showed all the time. They -are- used to justify abortion.

This made me realize something: Since it is better to be dead then live in poverty, the solution to Africa's poverty problem is simple: Nuke them off the face of the planet!

Quality of life is a bit subjective, isn't it? One person raised in an abusive home feels miserable. Another one is happy despite the circumstances. I had someone tell me he'd have killed himself if he was me and it's too bad my parents were prolife personal. I think that's absolutely crazy, I have a wonderful life, and I don't see what the big deal is about a few lousy needles. If I'd been aborted, I would have missed out on so much that makes me happy. I shudder to think what would have happened had he been my father and had known what was going to happen later in my life.

I agree completely, a person should be able to live, their life can't be all bad, I think there would be moments that make them happy to be alive no matter how bad their life sucks.

I just read a quote from someone in the choicer's guild who said "General life begins when cells start developing. You know, like body parts, plants, and fetuses."

And then she talked about another group she called "Valuable life beginning when viablility starts."

I didn't know life was scientifically classified in that manner.

And here I am, simply trying to help "general" life. Stupid, silly, me.

Ebony: <3 Thanks.

Hey, I thought I was the one saying, "Sieg Heil!"

In all seriousness, this makes me giggle. The scientific basis for valuable life and general life must be a very interesting thing. Oh wait, it's based on philosophy and not science, as opposed to that anti-choice movement that has all that damned science behind it? Well okay then. Let's start deciding who counts as valuable and who doesn't. I'd like to start by classifying my ex as general life, since nothing with a brain (or other parts...) that small can possibly be a valuable life.

You're just upset because I own you.