• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Pro Choice Opinions?

Karinmo

☜(ˆ▽ˆ)
  • 206
    Posts
    10
    Years
    Hello, im Karinmo-
    And i was wondering what the community's opinion on Pro Choice (right for women to have abortions)
    Was? Personaly, i think that if a fetus is younge enough, and other circumstances (rape-sex trafficing etc.) that women should have the right to a abortion, because, its a womans body, and a womans life.
    What is your opinions?
    (No flame wars- respect opinions :))
     

    Sopheria

    響け〜 響け!
  • 4,904
    Posts
    10
    Years
    I have mixed feelings on this (like most things). It's clearly an ethical gray area, because it's hard to say exactly when life begins. Trying to answer that opens up a whole can of worms like "what is life"? "What separates life from non-life?" "Sure it's just a lump of cells, but isn't that what we all are?" It's clearly not a simple question, and there's a lot of vastly differing opinions about it. So that being the case, who's in a better place to make the decision? The mother, or some politicians? I'm pro-choice because I think the decision of whether or not to keep the child is up to the mother. I'm of the firm belief that when you have something that lies in an ethical gray area (which abortion clearly is), leave the choice to the individuals.

    Personally, I wouldn't get an abortion, myself. But that's my choice, and I respect that my choice doesn't have to be everyone else's choice.
     
  • 4,684
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Age 29
    • Seen Jun 1, 2024
    Ah, these discussions are never pretty. :P Definitely not a simple question, as Cathy puts it, since we all have differing views on where life begins.

    Personally, I think the existing human life is always more important than the potential for human life, because the woman is a thinking, feeling being and the embryo is not, therefore it should be her choice and no one else's as to whether or not she wants to continue with the pregnancy.
     

    Cerberus87

    Mega Houndoom, baby!
  • 1,639
    Posts
    11
    Years
    I'm fully pro-choice, because I value the life of the woman more than the possibility of life of the embryo. Plus, there's an interesting theory that life starts when the nervous system begins to form, because legal deathg is when the brain ceases to function. Usually this happens 12 weeks into the pregnancy (please someone correct me if I'm wrong).
     

    LoudSilence

    more like uncommon sense
  • 590
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • US
    • Seen Aug 7, 2016
    How's it going, Karinmo? :)

    Like the people above have pointed out already, the definition of life is a controversial subject and has been the crux of the debate for awhile. Having said that, I'm of the opinion that up until the moment it's "too late" for an abortion (is there a time limit?), the foetus is part of the woman's body and thus it is her right to decide what to do with it. A potential mother should be able to have a child how and when she wants on her own terms.

    I think as far as religion goes, people should only be worrying about their own actions. Any God-conscious person would agree that what they do is between them and their Creator, so why is abortion the exception to this?

    If it makes you that mad, make sure you/your wife doesn't do it. Your say should really stop there.
     
  • 10,769
    Posts
    15
    Years
    I think as far as religion goes, people should only be worrying about their own actions. Any God-conscious person would agree that what they do is between them and their Creator, so why is abortion the exception to this?
    Evangelical religions feel that part of their religion and their religious duties is to spread it to others so not getting involved in others' business could be seen as failing in that respect. Of course you don't always see these same people helping the poor and sick and homeless and doing other things that would seem to be as important so there's definitely some cherry-picking of issues and so on.

    I agree with your sentiment though.
     

    The Mighty Kamina

    Paragon of Masculinity
  • 53
    Posts
    10
    Years
    I'm of the opinion that as a male, I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Pregnancy is something I will never experience, much less an unplanned pregnancy. It's a debate I stay away from for precisely that reason. Now, if I were the father of an unwanted pregnancy, then things may be different, but as it stands now, I simply cannot force a decision on someone else.
     
  • 5,983
    Posts
    15
    Years
    I think as far as religion goes, people should only be worrying about their own actions. Any God-conscious person would agree that what they do is between them and their Creator, so why is abortion the exception to this?

    I'm not religious myself, but I doubt that many religious people subscribe to such an individualist conception of the god relationship. Certain religious folk describe America as a "God-fearing country" so it's clear to me that they tend to project an interpretation of society through religious lens.
     

    Sopheria

    響け〜 響け!
  • 4,904
    Posts
    10
    Years
    I'm not religious myself, but I doubt that many religious people subscribe to such an individualist conception of the god relationship. Certain religious folk describe America as a "God-fearing country" so it's clear to me that they tend to project an interpretation of society through religious lens.

    Agreed, which is where I draw the line on the difference between good religion and bad religion. (Note that when I say good religion and bad religion I'm not referring to any particular religion, but how it's practiced). Good religion tells you how you should live your life. Bad religion tells you how other people need to live their lives. That's why I think that from a religious perspective, abortion should be between you and whatever god it is you believe in.
     

    Silais

    That useless reptile
  • 297
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Jul 17, 2016
    I believe a woman should have the choice whether or not they have children or when they have children. Women who have abortions make the choices they make after many hours, days, or even weeks of stress and emotional turmoil. It is not an easy decision to make. Abortions are physically invasive and stressful as well, and the cost is not easily manageable for many. Despite all of this, women who have abortions do so because it is the best choice they can make for themselves, and possibly their families. The life of an adult woman is, to me, worth more than the potential life of a child who may be unwanted or unable to be taken care of properly.
     

    LoudSilence

    more like uncommon sense
  • 590
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • US
    • Seen Aug 7, 2016
    Evangelical religions feel that part of their religion and their religious duties is to spread it to others so not getting involved in others' business could be seen as failing in that respect. Of course you don't always see these same people helping the poor and sick and homeless and doing other things that would seem to be as important so there's definitely some cherry-picking of issues and so on.

    You're on the mark about selective implementation. It confuses me, though: why would a religious person want to impose on people who may not even believe in their religion? What's the point of pushing a "divine rule" on someone who doesn't have conviction in its necessity?

    I thought belief was just that: belief, not force-fed rules.

    I'm of the opinion that as a male, I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

    It's funny that you mention that...I used to think that way too but now I wonder if it should be that straightforward all the time. What say, for example, does a man have when he unintentionally impregnates a crazy poke-a-hole-in-the-condom woman? I get that there's no way to "make" the woman abort or not but doesn't it strike you as a bit unfair that the man must now have to support a child he never wanted because she "wanted to have his baby so badly"?

    Kind of a tangent, though.

    I'm not religious myself, but I doubt that many religious people subscribe to such an individualist conception of the god relationship. Certain religious folk describe America as a "God-fearing country" so it's clear to me that they tend to project an interpretation of society through religious lens.

    Even so, America has not, as a nation, subscribed to any particular religion, let alone a denomination which would call abortions sinful.

    If/when the US comes out as a Christian nation rather than the secular one it is now, then maybe the evangelicals have some ground to argue. As it stands now, though, whatever remnants of Church there are in State today are obviously relics kept for the sake of tradition rather than having any sort of religious value (swearing on the Bible in court, "In God We Trust" on money, God in Pledge of Allegiance, etc.).

    Pro-Choice for literally EVERYTHING!!!

    ^ That's my opinion.

    The concept exists for other issues? :P
     
  • 10,674
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen May 19, 2024
    There's many reasons why I support Pro Choice. Laws against abortion do not stop abortion in most cases; they simply make it less safe. The number of women who get abortions, does not change when it goes from legal to illegal, or vice versa. The only thing that changes is that more women die. Every year, 78,000 women die from unsafe abortions, how many lives are really being saved by imploring a law against it I might ask? If people really want to stop abortions happening, then they should turn to methods that do work. The kind of methods that would lower the rate of abortions would be comprehensive sex education, and affordable contraceptives. Unfortunately, most people who do not support abortion, are often against these preventative measures, as illogical as that is. If they truly wanted to reduce the number of abortions that occur, they would embrace these methods.

    The politicians who "pro-life" activists so ardently support are only after one thing: self-interest. It's politics, ethics won't come into many of their opinions if it gets them up-votes. The majority of these politicians are not "pro-life" because they agree with you; they are because you know that you will continue to vote for them if they are. As well as people who turn to politicians for guidance, there's always those who follow religion also. While the main religions on this planet have a good foundation for some ethics, religious ideology is no foundation for any law. Freedom of religion is guaranteed to any citizen in the United States; so there's no reason as to why should the beliefs and values of one religion mandate laws for all citizens? There's reasons we don't follow everything sacred texts say and use them as law for how we live, as a Secularist I have no issue with religion, but I believe that church and state should be separate. We do not have a law against eating fish, nor do we declare it legal to sell one's daughter, or keep a person as a slave - each of which are things promoted in religious text. I believe that the laws against abortion are something to be decided by state, not religion. But that is part of my creed, as well as my logic.

    The opinion that reproductive restrictions end with abortion are also false. Many people also argue that contraception itself is wrong -again this is mainly a religious philosophy- and will deny women the protection they need based on this belief. These are legislative acts that allow actual pharmacists to deny women birth control because of their beliefs, surely this violates the Hippocratic Oath, especially if thousands of woman are on birth control because their lives depend on it (I will explain this). Reproductive choice can be the only thing stands between a woman and death. Woman who face deadly consequences of a pregnancy deserve the choice to live. Teenage girls whose bodies are not yet ready for childbirth, are five times more likely to die. Not only do 70,000 girls ages between 15-19 die each year from pregnancy and childbirth, but the children they give birth to have a 60% higher chance of dying as well. On top of this, preeclampsia affects 10-15% if women, there are hundreds of other complications outside of preeclamsia that can, and will, result in death as well.

    Bottom line is this, doctors should always be the ones making the medical recommendations and opinions, not governments. I wouldn't let the government tell me whether or not I could have a kidney transplant or blood transfusion, I'd go to a doctor. The fact that any government regulates a medical procedure is both illogical, and dangerous.
     
  • 10,769
    Posts
    15
    Years
    You're on the mark about selective implementation. It confuses me, though: why would a religious person want to impose on people who may not even believe in their religion? What's the point of pushing a "divine rule" on someone who doesn't have conviction in its necessity?

    I thought belief was just that: belief, not force-fed rules.
    Well, not being a religious person myself I can only speculate, but in so many things there are lots of choices and options and opinions. I might feel that x is the best thing ever and that people who don't agree are wrong and need help seeing things how I do because I'm right and they're wrong. I'm sure everyone has been there with something (whether it's Harry Potter or religion or anything else). So then a person with that kind of view on their religion is convinced that other people should share their view, and since religion addresses a lot of the big questions regarding life and death religion can feel like a life-and-death matter and therefore important enough to impose it on people for their own good. I suppose some people think that if you're made to go through the motions you'll eventually find conviction. Maybe they don't care. I don't know.

    Of course I'm not against forcing people to do things for their own good. I just want to see it demonstrated that there is good and enough good to justify what you're forcing people to do.
     
  • 319
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Jun 19, 2022
    The concept exists for other issues? :P

    Choice to die (as one desires), choice to speak freely AND without consequence, choice to attain things for free if one cannot afford them, choice to get revenge if you have been scorned or avenge someone that asks you to avenge them, choice to NOT need references when getting a job (this is more personal, but still), choice to leave and enter the country without being scanned or needing permission, choice to...

    Tons of things. As an individualist and anarchist (as you all know), I believe that all ethics are situational - so I disagree with punishment for "crimes" while I DO support vengeance as given by those "wronged". Things like that...choice everywhere.
     

    T The Manager

    RealTalkRealFlow
  • 186
    Posts
    10
    Years
    Tbh, I don't really know if I'm pro life or pro choice it's kinda hard to say. I'm against taking a life but then again it's her body. I don't approve of a woman killing a fetus unless she was raped or if the birth defect is so severe that they may need to consider abortion. I mean there's so many more options than abortion and adoption is one of them. I believe killing a fetus is still killing a person, your taking the life away from a human that never got to see the world. I'm not adopted, but ask anyone that's adopted how they feel about this. I can guarantee you it's a very touchy subject for them.
     
  • 36
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Jul 23, 2015
    How's it going, Karinmo? :)

    ...

    I think as far as religion goes, people should only be worrying about their own actions. Any God-conscious person would agree that what they do is between them and their Creator, so why is abortion the exception to this?

    If it makes you that mad, make sure you/your wife doesn't do it. Your say should really stop there.

    As a Christian myself and as far as I'm reading, probably the only pro-life person here? let me respond to this, at least, to clarify a few misconceptions.

    While I do agree that our actions is between us and God, from a Christian, biblical perspective, at least (can't speak for other religions), what you and any other non Christian do is between them and the God of the Bible as well. Anybody's actions whether "good" or "bad" God sees and judges all of us based on that regardless of who we are, whether we believe in Him or believe that He exists or not. If it is sin (ie. we see abortion as murder, and murder of the innocent at that), then there will be consequences, even eternal consequences if not dealt with. We, as the human race, whoever we are, are responsible for our own actions before a Holy God.

    As Christians we are to hate sin according to the Word of God, The Bible. Not just our own sin, but any sin. If we are to wink away sin aka tolerate it, then it's disobeying God who commanded us to hate sin. And that is why so many of us are so adamant about issues like abortion.

    Point is, abortion was never an exception. Hope that clarifies some things.


    For those interested on a more thorough explanation on the Christians' view on abortion, I think the following article states things very clearly, and it addresses things like rape:

    https://www.gotquestions.org/abortion-Bible.html
     

    Star-Lord

    withdrawl .
  • 715
    Posts
    15
    Years
    I've said this before and I've said it again. There are no other legal statutes (that I'm aware of) that requires people to surrender the use of their body to another person, and I do not understand why abortion should be the magical exception to this.
     

    LilyAnn

    All your base are belong to us
  • 351
    Posts
    10
    Years
    I believe that if a woman wants to have an abortion, she should have the right to. It's her body, not the babies. There are many cases where if the pregnancy is not aborted, the mothers life is in danger. And I see the mothers life to be more important then a baby who is yet to be unborn. If she dies and the baby lives, who knows if it'll have a home? So many people may support the fetus, but as soon as it's born, they don't want to have anything to do with it. So for all we know, it may end up as an orphan.

    There's also the case of rape/incest/birth defects. In these cases, it may be better for the woman to abort it. If it were me, I wouldn't want to keep a baby in any of these circumstances. It would be unbearable. But that's just me.

    I can understand if people are opposed to it. That's their opinion on it. But they shouldn't go and make it illegal. It's not going to get rid of it. Women will still go out and get it. It just won't be as safe. And a lot more complications will arise in this case.

    To me, a baby isn't living until it is actually born. Because it's never fully depended on itself to stay alive. Nor has it ever breathed by itself. So I guess that's my stance. To let a woman have the choice to if she wants it or not. The government isn't qualified to even tell us what medical procedures we can or can't have.
     

    Mark Kamill

    I like kitties
  • 2,743
    Posts
    11
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jun 13, 2023
    I'm for it, up to a certain point. What I mean is, after the 1st trimester it should be illegal, but anything before that is fair game. At that point the baby is too developed to stop its growth. I'm not some religious nut or anything, but on a moral ground you do have to see some of the detriments of aborting an embryo after the first 3 months.
     
    Back
    Top