Welcome to Gaia! ::

I am MOST DEFFINATELY pro-choice!

but I do not believe in using abortion as birth control like some people are doing these days.

OMG EXACTLY! high five for you.

Some guys make me angry in there view of abortion. I know this girl and her man told her that if he ever got her pregnant and she didn't get an abortion that he would leave her. What a scum bag right?

Abortion is definitely a last resort kind of thing. It's only there for extreme circumstances but it should still be the women's choice if she feels it is right.

I didn't contribute to the other subjects becuase I didn't think there was another subject I could bring up that would be of any assistance. Because this topic has so few posts, and I do have a somewhat different view on it, I chose to partake in this one. Enjoy LOLOL!

How typical of me, I am anti-abortion.

I seem to find more and more that, among this subforum, I am sharing the opposing point-of-view with no one. That is no problem, because it means I am able to thouroughly see the other side. The only thing I don't like about it is that is often seems like my point-of-view is ignored by most people. However, that is their problem. =D

Now then, as far as the baby being "part of the woman's body," I must disagree for this reason: Do you belong to your mother? Like, can she sell you for money? The question is not weather she would want to, but if she can. It's quite illegal nowadays. Back in the old days, a parent could sell their children to get themselves out of debt. Therefore, I think that saying a child belongs to a parent is very . . . middle-age-y.

Another question arises then, is it illegal for your mother to kill you? Why, of cource it is! Why then should it be perfectly alright for her to kill you if you were younger and more helpless? I argue that murdering an unborn child through abortion is merely age descrimination, but there are exceptions in which I would find it legit.

Consider: many people argue that a fetus is not alive. However, they argue perfectly well that a tree is alive.

What does a tree do? Does it feel pain? Maybe a little; it can't be determined for sure. Does it move? Not much, but very slowly towards the sun, which gives it life. Does it breathe? Not in the same process we do, but generally. Does it see or think? See, no, but maybe small doses of unsophisticated thought. Does it grow? Indefinitely.

And the fetus? Does it feel pain? Maybe a little; it can't be determined for sure. Does it move? Not much, but they ocasionally kick or sway within the mother, which gives it life. Does it breathe? Not in the same process we do, but generally. Does it see or think? See, no, but maybe small doses of unsophisticated thought. Does it grow? Indefinitely.

Similarities much? Methinks so. =D Why, then, would a fetus not be alive? Is not growing and thriving the very basis of life? Is that not what a fetus is doing? I don't think anyone has the right to say it is not a living thing. Most of them feel the abortion. An abortion is the process of slowly hacking away the fetis bit by bit. Lovely. Usually, an abortion is not much less dangerous than giving birth.

Now then, as this is not about wheather or not babies are alive, onto the actual subject, more or less. I believe it should be illegal. However, it should also be an option in the extreme case of "if you give birth, both you and the baby will die." If that be the case, it should be legit to have the choice. If just the mother will die and the baby will be fine, it could still be a choice, but it seems so twisted. In the animal world, mothers are supposed to give their life for their children. What we are seeing here is, "Holy crap! Kill my baby, and save me instead!" In the situation in which the mother has several chindren she must provide for, and they will be orphans, it is a moral decision.

In conclusion, the issue of abortion should, indeed, be very precarious, and I agree with much of what you have said.
Overall, the excuses for abortion are illegitimate, as most of them thrive around what an uneducated lumberman would say about cutting down a sapling tree, "It wasn't . . . really . . . alive . . . in the first place."

And that's all I have to say about that. =D

Being alive doesn't mean that it certain situations it would be better served to keep the child. If you were the child of a rape victim, how would you feel living out your life with that ignonimy over your head for the rest of your life? Besides, pro choice does not mean anti life. It just means you should let the individual case determine the decision.

And there is a limit to when the abortion can be performed. Of course there can be no abortions in the third trimester; if it is performed, what they do is basically cause a still birth. That is wrong. And usually it would not be done in the latter stages of the second trimester. So it is not like you're a killing a "baby," just the potential to become a baby. And for example, what if something happened to the child during birth that killed it? Would that be considered abortion, too, even though it was a completely unpredictable act?

To what point are you countering "part of the woman's body"? I see no one having claimed that the child is part of the mother, that the child belongs to the mother. Being part of an individual just means that the government shouldn't regulate whether that individual has a right to decide for all cases whether or not the so called "murder" can be performed, on her body. The woman is an individual; the mother can make her own decision, not a group of strangers.

Actually, that's not true. You know the prejudice against Deaf people? Well, up until recently, Deaf women were often sterilized without their consent, which was made possible by the language barrier. I'm pretty sure that, depending on how prejudiced the family was, if the women did get pregnant, they would give her an abortion, under the pretense of something else. Of course she would realize it afterwards but she would be powerless to stop it. I'm sure this has occurred in other prejudiced minorities, too.

Potential doesn't equal reality. We make ourselves, using what nature has given us. Our genes may code us, but our experiences shape how we manifest those traits.

Also, abortions aren't necessarily performed because the women thinks that the baby is worthless. For example, if, when an amnioscientisis was performed, she learned the baby would be born with a serious defect (retardation, celebral palsy, etc.) what should she do? Bear the ramifications of bringing forth a child who will only suffer needlessly and perhaps die anyway? Or have an abortion and save both her and the child pain? Seriously.

I'm confused. Are you pro choice, or....what, because I can't tell. I'm sorry.

I'm pretty sure this is how most Pro Choice people feel; as with the slogan "pro choice is not anti-life"