• secretlife said on Sep 06, 2008....

  yeah, it's been debated here more than once silver-
  but just for the record, i'm pro-choice.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 06, 2008....

  Prochoice
  Again this has been done ad nasuem.

• beyondtheveil said on Sep 06, 2008....

  phoenix- I never like to say pro-abortion. The act of abortion stinks any way you cut it.
  
  But I am pro-choice. I have to be. No group of men (court or religious) should have that kind of power over women - ever.
  
  I'd tell you to carefully consider all options including how you might feel about it later and decide. My support would be with you and your decision, as it should be.
  

• lfbno7 said on Sep 06, 2008....

  I'm pro choice to a point, and then I switch to pro life. It depends how far along the pregnancy is. If the baby's head is about to make its appearance, I'm most definitely pro life. I wouldn't want the baby's head to be lopped off. So it's all about how far along in the pregnancy things have gotten. At some point you have to move from pro choice to pro life.

• killingme4u said on Sep 06, 2008....

  i'm really niether.i figure ppl just make thier own choice on what they feel is best for themself.i pretty much stay out of it.but there will always be debating going on.i just try to avoid it AND politics.politics make me crazy.literaly.i refuse to talk politics with anyone.hope your catching up on sleep...   :)))

• WriterCarlDobbs said on Sep 07, 2008....

  Read my posts under the tag "Dobbs."  Read my story "Numan."  It is a full book I devoted to the subject.  It is about what happens when a nation describes a human being as "nonhuman" and makes it legal to kill upon choice.
  This isn't a rare phenominon.  We killed the African American slaves without feeling of guilt when they were considered to be property.  We "prochoiced" the American Indian to near extinction as one tribe after another was slaughtered.  We place a label on anyone we don't want and make it all right to kill them without pretense of why we do it.  Being "unwanted" seems to be enough.
      Right now human beings have no human rights unless they are labeled as "human" or "person" so it becomes a right that is afforded, rather than someting inalianable.  This has always caused mass killings in the past.  It is nothing new, just a repeat of history.
      My book, Numan (for "non-human") shows the logical extent of this reasoning.  In the future, all children up to the age of 12 are treated like embryos and can be aborted at will.  Then other "unwanted" groups are included as society makes it easy to call them "numan" also.
       Remember it was the patient in hospitals, 70,000 in all, that were the first that Hitler killed.  They were the "useless eaters" who drained the resources of Germany.  They were "unwanted" so he killed the adults in gas chambers and the children with lethal injection.  The retarded, the sick, the maimed soldiers of WW I, the insane, the malformed: All were killed because no one wanted to pay for their care or recovery.
     So it is today.  Nothing has changed.  Unwanted people are labeled for destruction.  Any reason is acceptible.  "I don't want the baby," a woman says so the baby's limbs are broken then pulled off.  The pain is unbearable.  But it is 'Nonhuman' so it is not murder.
      Read my blog.  WriterCarlDobbs, and read Numan.  It will chill you to the bone.
      Evil things always happen when a human being has his humanity denied him.  Where will it stop.  The genie is already out of the bottle.

• WriterCarlDobbs said on Sep 07, 2008....

  50,000,000 kids slaugtered since 1972 alone.  Millions more before that.  Each one was an innocent victim.  How many landfills would their tiny carcasses fill?  When will we realize that it is the greatest slaughter since Hitler's death camps?
  
  The easiest thing to do is to label someone.  It makes it all right to kill them without mercy.  any excuse will do.
   
  They called me "Savage."  Our tribes were slaughtered.
  We were the "slaves." We were sold, bought and bartered.
  I was the "crass infidel." 
  The "Catholic," the "Jew," foredoomed all to hell.
  They said I was "Irish." We died by the masses.
  I was "Nonaryan."  They killed us with gasses.
  Now I am "embryo" and "prochoice" they sing.
  They must be stopped for it's all the same thing.
   
   

• rain4u said on Sep 07, 2008....

  definitely, I am not convinced with the idea of abortion. We are talking about life here. Who are we to just end up the life of the innocent ones. The child is a blessing....it's a gift from God.....
  
  

• gingersoul said on Sep 07, 2008....

  Pro-choice

• uniquely-ironic said on Sep 07, 2008....

  I was asked this question by a coworker this week.  I have mixed views on this subject.  Most of all, I want women to be able to have abortions safely, so a law against them terrifies me.  I do want women to consider their decision not based on convenience but on integrity and being responsible.

• evil_twin said on Sep 07, 2008....

  I am pro-choice. There are valid reasons why some women feel this is a necessary solution and it's not up to me to judge them. Although it does get upsetting when you know someone who has had multiple abortions, because then it feels like they're using it as birth control which is pretty sickening. But I still don't feel that it's my place to get involved with what people wish to do with their own bodies and their lives. They're the ones who have to live with the decision, not me.
  
  -evil_twin LA
  

• lfbno7 said on Sep 07, 2008....

  McCain is pro choice and pro life. You just have to decide which of his quotes you want. He's a slimy fucken weasel. In other words, a typical politician, of America or any other country. A slimy fucken weasel. And I expect the same from Obama. Shock me. Be decent. I'd be amazed if Obama turned out to be any good at all. I think the biggest criterion for running for any office in the world is to be a slimy fucken weasel. The shit rises to the top. That's because only the extremely ambitious and well connected get there. Not the principled people.

• stopmediabias said on Sep 07, 2008....

  I am against all forms of abortion.  I would like to pose this to the pro-choice people:  the title of this post is abortion....PRO or ANTI??  not choice pro or anti??

  In other words-personally, if you are a woman would you get an abortion and if you are a man would you be ok if your wife or daugther got an abortion?  I think is a better way to pose this queston because I think pro-choice allows people to hide.

  My primary reason is because I believe it is bad for woman, secondary being the moral aspects of terminating human life.

• RollingC said on Sep 07, 2008....

  Right to life here.....

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 07, 2008....

  Yes I would be ok if my wife, daughter or mother had an abortion.  I've never heard a pro-choicer hide from that.  In fact that is why they are for it, so if they or a loved one made a mistake or got unlucky (even combined BC pills and condoms aren't 100%) it shouldn't mean they are completely forced to have the baby and change their entire life for it.
   
  Even if it is bad for women I don't see how that is any of your bussiness any more than it's any of your bussiness if they want to drink, shoot up with heroine, have unprocted orgy sex, eat nothing but McDonalds for a month, and then hang themselves.  Their body, their mind, their soul, their choice.  Period.  As long as they aren't hurting OTHERS people should be allowed.
   
  Now your second point while I disagree with it's validity is at least ratioinal.  I think the right would have a better leg to stand on if they weren't so adamantly abstinance only and would start joiing the left in trying to take the problem at the root and prevent teen pregnancies.

• Dazlak said on Sep 07, 2008....

  Pro choice until 12 week... after that it is not a question. If the baby is more then 12 weeks then it should be born.
  
  
  Like we do it :) after 12 weeks is forbidden to abort a child where I live.
  
  
  There is no such thing as black and white in this matter.. do´s or don´t. People make there own choice. We should never condemn them for it. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  .

• silver_phoenix said on Sep 07, 2008....

  lfbno7 & Dazlak- i was expecting someone to bring up the point of viability. if i understand you correctly Dazlak, you disagree with abortion if the fetus is at least 3 months. and lfbno7, would that be around the same time for you too? obviously you disagree with abortion at 9 months or date of birth.

• silver_phoenix said on Sep 07, 2008....

  Dobbs- are you comparing abortion to genocide? you make a valid point about labelling. we are always quick to label things.

  rain- so you see the issue from a religious standpoint. what if God were taken out of the argument? i don't mean to offend your view, i'm just throwing that out there.

• silver_phoenix said on Sep 07, 2008....

  everyone- thank you for your comments. the way i posed the question "abortion: PRO or ANTI" elicited a reaction that i did expect to a certain degree. i got some people telling me they are pro-choice, which from the question's standpoint would be an incomplete answer because pro-choice could be either going to get the abortion for whatever reason or pro-choice could be choosing not to get the abortion for whatever reason.

  i'm glad that viability was mentioned because that seems to be the main thing that comes up when people are talking abortion, especially within a court of law.

  u-i~ i'm all for safety. coat-hanger abortions are definitely an awful thing. i have an interesting side-story to go with that. maybe another post.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 07, 2008....

  Well nobody is pro-abortion in the way that they don't want women to have the ability not to get an abortion.  The Viability argument is a dangerous one because we are probably between ten and twenty years away from a world where a woman doesn't need to carry a child at all.  Where we can grow a child from sperm and eggs, or even probably two of each in what would similar to cloning completely outside of a woman's body.  So at that point you have outlawed abortion because we've advanced science to such a degree that a haircut is viable if we want it bad enough.

• silver_phoenix said on Sep 07, 2008....

  evil_twin LA- abortion as birth control. interesting point to bring up. would you argue that from a legal standpoint some sort of measure should be implemented to prevent that from occurring or not?

  Sean- you are pro-choice. you say "Their body, their mind, their soul, their choice. Period. As long as they aren't hurting OTHERS people should be allowed." so could you elaborate what you mean by OTHERS please? thanks.

• silver_phoenix said on Sep 07, 2008....

  lfbno7- politicians are slimy fuckin weasels. thanks for bringing that into the argument. you got my laughs :-D

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 07, 2008....

  I mean people other than themselves.  If a person wants to drink themselves stupid.  Fine.  If they want to smoke cigarettes.  Fine.  They want to do PCP or steroids?  Fine.  If they want to hang themselves for whatever reason fine.  They want an abortion?  Fine.  None of these things hurt anybody but the person doing it and thus it's none of our bussiness. 
   
  Now drinking AND driving hurts me (potentially) and thus should be illegal.  Getting fucked up on PCP and beating your wife, well that hurt your wife and thus should be illegal.  Jumping off an overpass into traffic that hurts others and should be illegal.  Smoking in public buildings. . .jury is out. 
   
   

• silver_phoenix said on Sep 07, 2008....

  Sean- I see what you mean about the viability argument. I didn't know that we are getting closer to a time where sexual reproduction doesn't need to be done via mind-blowing sex.

• silver_phoenix said on Sep 07, 2008....

  Sean-ok, your explanation makes sense. Others excludes the being growing inside the mother's womb. I don't mention this to make you think I'm against abortion, but just to point out how you seem to be defining the label. thanks.

• gingersoul said on Sep 07, 2008....

  Ok, you want a more complete answer?
  Pro abortion.
  
  No laws and no one else should dictate what a woman want to do with her body. She is not a mere container for a future baby, only because she got pregnant.
  She has right to decide if she wants this potentiality of life to keep growing or not.
  Naturally, the sooner the abortion the better. But this is just plain simple to understand.
  
   

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 07, 2008....

  I don't consider the child a separate being until the moment of birth.  Until that moment it is part of the woman's body.  You can quote Scott Peterson and why is murdering a pregnant woman double homocide and the answer is two fold.  One is emotional bullshit and the other is CHOICE.  If it was truly a second person then a woman who does drugs or drinks should be considered at the least guilty of assault if not attempted murder. 
   
  I would us viability but as I've stated we aren't far removed for a world where actual in uterine growth is a tradition not a necessity.  I would stick to the traditional first trimester save for two things.  One is that once it becomes illegal you must put the baby before the mother.   Otherwise women who want an abortion will just find a doctor that will claim it's for the mother's life.  Also in my opinion if two people have equal claim to something it is first come first serve.  A mother and a baby have equal claim to their lives (not really, as cold as it is a mother can not only survive without a child she can make another.  A child on the other hand cannot survive without help.)  Even if that weren't the fact the mother is already a person and in my opinion it makes her claim more valid.  The other is that the vast majority of people who get late term abortions have them for one of two reasons.  The first is that they are getting them for various health reasons, the second is that they lived in a red state and were unable to get one earlier due to lack of availability and or peer(parental) pressure. 

• beyondtheveil said on Sep 07, 2008....

  phoenix- Viability isn't much of an issue. Actual viability changes with technology,  access to quality of health care, and sometimes just luck. Place a date on that.
  
  'When life begins' isn't much of an issue either. Life begins at conception, where else can it begin? But that doesn't mean its a human being.
  
  Someone once said "the only thing that will ever be decided about abortion is who decides", and that should be the woman, first and above all. The only remaining question is when and I'm ok with first trimester.
  

• SARAH_PALIN said on Sep 08, 2008....

  Forget this pro choice crap! Black parents....MYBE!
  We have to many poor BLACKISH, BROWNISH  people already
  We want white elected people!
  

• stopmediabias said on Sep 08, 2008....

  If we go by the logic that a child is not a separate being until it is born then abortion should be legal at all stages. 

  A woman has a right to do with here body what she pleases, but once a living human being starts growing, especially since there are a number of ways to prevent it from growing in the first place, once it starts growing it becomes a different issue, it is not just a woman's body it is woman's and a babies body.

  Where we have to walk the moral tightrope is the fact that the baby is underdeveloped to the point people are numb.

  The Lacy Peterson law opened a can of worms because most abortion people claim (regardless of choice) it isn't even human.  The Lacy Peterson law contradicts that.  We as a society cannot claim something is human on one side then for convenience say it not human on the other.

   There is also the fact that if a man disagrees with his girlfriend getting an abortion he has no say, but if she keeps it she can hound him for 18 years for child support, yet another contradiction.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 08, 2008....

  I do believe that abortion should be legal at all stages (and it currently is.  DX/partial birth abortions aren't illegal, they just aren't done with any sort of frequency and when they are it is almost always to save the life of the mother)
   
  The Lacy Peterson law is what happens when emotion and law are allowed to mix.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Like I said why isn't a mother who does drinks, does drugs and generally abuses her body during her pregnancy guilty of assault or attempted murder or at the least neglect?
   
  I believe that a man SHOULD have the right for at least the first trimester (the amount of time that is generally accepted as "ok" to get an abortion) to say I don't want this baby and be legally absolved.  Particularly since the opposite isn't true.  A man cannot for example say I want this baby and force the woman to have it.  The most he can do is beg her to find a surrogate but he has no legal recourse if she chooses not to.  I'm not saying a man should have a say, beyond an opinion she takes on as advice it's not his body, (or even another woman's unless she's volunteering to surrogate) and it's not his choice.  But just like women have the option to not have their lives changed by the event men should have a similar ability at the least to say I'm not ready.

• uniquely-ironic said on Sep 08, 2008....

  By that same piece of logic "But just like women have the option to not have their lives changed by the event men should have a similar ability at the least to say I'm not ready." you should conclude that men too would want abortion legalized.  If a man and woman make the decision to abort, no harm no foul on either side.  If the man wants the child but the woman chooses abortion then he loses.  If she wants the child and he doesnt, then he should be legally able to absolve himself of responsibility so that the harm does not involve him.  If he wants the child but she doesn't and abortion is outlawed than she loses.
   
  Not a simple matter.

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 08, 2008....

  I agree that men should want abortion legalized (it is legal, an important distinction)  It's about keeping choices open.  You've mostly got it right.  They agree to an abortion no harm on either side.  If she wants an abortion and he doesn't, well he's shit out of luck it's not his body.  If she wants the baby and he doesn't he should (especially in a world where abortion is legal) be able to legally say that I don't want a child and walk away.

• tonibell said on Sep 12, 2008....

  "yes" - silver phoenix, "I am pro choice."  It is a womans decision what to do with her own life and body.

Comment on "abortion...PRO or ANTI??"

Currently tagged	abortion pro con soulcast pro-choice Aboriton Right to Life debate choice (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment