|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:45 pm
Libertarians are overwhelmingly pro-choice. But the Libertarian Party makes no official stance on it, other than, as their website puts it, allowing states to decide.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:31 am
i dont see how you can be for personal freedom, if you dont believe in a right to live. if you injure a baby before its born in any way other than an abortion its considered a criminal offense...please tell me how that works. there are alternatives to abortion that are less harmful to the mother and allows the child to live. but what do i know. not like i was a baby at any point of time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:00 am
There seems to be an Either/Or attitude with this whole conversation. Has anyone considered the possibility of alternatives? For example, the unwanted baby could be transplanted into the womb of a woman who does want one, rather than being killed. Or we could take it one step further, and develop artificial wombs that would nurture the baby to fruition from when its just a few cells. Also, this whole argument has ignored the possibilities of preventive surgury, I.E, a vasectomy, or whatever it is women get. ((I really don't know what its called, other than having your tubes tied.)) Seems to me if its the mothers body, she should be able to choose to not be able to have a baby, which precludes an abortion in the first place. True, these are all risky surgeries, but is abortion any less risky? And none of the above bring up the issue of killing the fetus, since it either allows it to live somewhere else, or doesn't allow it to form in the first place.
I believe these are the avenues we should be exploring, not just arguing whether abortion is ok or not. Since we are dealing with 2 sets of rights that are in conflict with one another, a middle ground should be sought, one that allows a woman to control her body AND allows the baby to live. With todays technoledgy, we can probably do it, even if we haven't yet.
I have to agree that prevention is not murder, since it only prevents a baby from forming. But once it's begun to develop, other options should at least be considered before an abortion. If the baby is unwanted, cannot be transplanted to either a natural or artificial womb, poses a significant risk to the mother, and cannot survive on its own outside the womb, then yes, abortion should be legal. But unless alternatives have at least been considered, I can't endorse it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:19 pm
I'm very pro-choice. I believe that a woman has the right to choose to have sex... but after she conceives, it's not just her body anymore, and she has a responsibility and a parental obligation to look out for the fetus' best interest (i.e. no drugs, alcohol, eat healthy food, etc).
People who are pro-choice tend to call the developing fetus a parasite, but I don't think that's really accurate. Or rather, if it is accurate for a fetus, it would still be accurate for a baby. And a toddler. And probably small children too. They aren't exactly self-sufficient. Babies aren't capable of rational thought, only instinctual reactions. Since killing babies and toddlers is generally frowned upon, I think abortions should be viewed in much the same way. But with the obvious exceptions like rape, incest, and extreme health problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:20 am
Kira84 I'm very pro-choice. I believe that a woman has the right to choose to have sex... but after she conceives, it's not just her body anymore, and she has a responsibility and a parental obligation to look out for the fetus' best interest (i.e. no drugs, alcohol, eat healthy food, etc). People who are pro-choice tend to call the developing fetus a parasite, but I don't think that's really accurate. Or rather, if it is accurate for a fetus, it would still be accurate for a baby. And a toddler. And probably small children too. They aren't exactly self-sufficient. Babies aren't capable of rational thought, only instinctual reactions. Since killing babies and toddlers is generally frowned upon, I think abortions should be viewed in much the same way. But with the obvious exceptions like rape, incest, and extreme health problems. Pretty much true. I didn't adress things like rape, but I do put them on the list of things that would make abortion acceptable. I'm not sure exactly what incest is, so I can't say whether its an acceptable reason or not. Other than that, I stand by my previous post, that a third option should be sought, instead of focusing only on abortion or birth. And yes, I do recognize that belonging to a third party is a part of my stance on this issue, and many others as well. "My stance" being that very few things are either/or, because there is usually a third option that one hasn't considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:26 pm
Priestess_Kelina Kira84 I'm very pro-choice. I believe that a woman has the right to choose to have sex... but after she conceives, it's not just her body anymore, and she has a responsibility and a parental obligation to look out for the fetus' best interest (i.e. no drugs, alcohol, eat healthy food, etc). People who are pro-choice tend to call the developing fetus a parasite, but I don't think that's really accurate. Or rather, if it is accurate for a fetus, it would still be accurate for a baby. And a toddler. And probably small children too. They aren't exactly self-sufficient. Babies aren't capable of rational thought, only instinctual reactions. Since killing babies and toddlers is generally frowned upon, I think abortions should be viewed in much the same way. But with the obvious exceptions like rape, incest, and extreme health problems. Pretty much true. I didn't adress things like rape, but I do put them on the list of things that would make abortion acceptable. I'm not sure exactly what incest is, so I can't say whether its an acceptable reason or not. Other than that, I stand by my previous post, that a third option should be sought, instead of focusing only on abortion or birth. And yes, I do recognize that belonging to a third party is a part of my stance on this issue, and many others as well. "My stance" being that very few things are either/or, because there is usually a third option that one hasn't considered. I'm sort of on the fence even about rape. Surgery as a third option does sound good in theory, but I don't think it would be an option for many people because it would be far too expensive. Birth control drugs could work... I'm not sure about the cost there, and they may be covered by insurance. And, I always say that the most effective form of birth control is healthy and all-natural--abstinence. Too many people that I've talked to seem to regard pregnancy as an inconvenience that happens randomly to women, through no fault of their own. Also, I think men should have rights concerning abortion too. I mean, it's not just the biological mother's fetus. The father might be willing to take care of the child himself, rather than having it killed. Although I realize a single father is considerably more rare than a single mother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
