Are you pro life or pro choice? (1 Viewer)

[coolcat6778]

Poll

 

[Sorghum Sneedley]

why is there only variations for pro life, pro choice got no choice

 

[coolcat6778]

why is there only variations for pro life, pro choice got no choice

the middle two options can also be part of pro choice

 

[gammahydroxybutyrate]

Poll

this thread seems intentionally inflammatory, but i'll bite.

i'm not a female, so i have less of a personal perspective and stake on this topic, but my thoughts are this: there is a point prior to which the classification of the zygote/embryo/foetus is not considered human, which is bound to be medically and legally disputed because of the difficulty in drawing the line of 'humanity'. wherever the prevailing scientific or legal line falls based on the evidence, is the point prior to which abortions should be legal regardless of medical necessity.

prior to this point, any 'pro-life' considerations are based in mostly religious views. we are a secular state, the separation of church and state is one of the fundamental principles of our system of law and government, and religious principles should not influence policy decisions affecting every citizen. it is a matter of bodily autonomy and should be left to the woman to decide.

from a social perspective, it is insanely counter-intuitive to force an unwanted pregnancy to be carried to term, and to the benefit of just about nobody notwithstanding fringe views about the benefit of an unborn person. with obvious caveats, children born as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy live with the psychological burden of such. children born to parents who are unable to demonstrate parenting capacity for any number of reasons, such as poverty, substance abuse, or mental health issues, are particularly susceptible to abuse and neglect, and are likely going to end up in contact with DCJ or taken into the foster system. people seem to vastly underestimate the effects of these upon children in terms of life outcomes, and i invite them to spend some time working in the system - it doesn't take very long to understand the detriments.

past whatever point and whatever classification is given to the prospectively and hypothetically unborn child, abortions should be available in circumstances of medical necessity upon election and consent. whilst no life is explicitly worth more than another, wilfully choosing, from a policy maker's perspective, to bring a child into the world missing one of their primary attachment figures and caregivers where the alternative is available appears quite detrimental. the prevailing legal view in this jurisdiction from a medical law perspective seems to be the prioritisation of the mother's life, were a situation to arise where both were at risk.

i think the classifications of 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' call for polarisation of the matter through the rhetoric of both characterising supporting abortion as being against 'life' and being against it as being unsupportive of any facet of agency in respect of women's bodily autonomy or reproductive health. whilst i would fall under the umbrella of 'pro-choice', i can understand 'pro-life' perspectives to the extent that they aim to prohibit terminating pregnancies at an extremely late stage with no indication of medical necessity, not that i personally agree. i strongly disagree with the seemingly conventional view that early terminations constitute anything resembling murder or are somehow wrong as a whole.

 

[SylviaB]

prior to this point, any 'pro-life' considerations are based in mostly religious views. we are a secular state, the separation of church and state is one of the fundamental principles of our system of law and government, and religious principles should not influence policy decisions affecting every citizen.

This is complete nonsense

Separation of church and state means the church, as in formal religious institutions, don't get to dictate public policy

That's not what is happening. In a democracy, people can vote for whoever they want for whatever reason. If a politician says that they will ban abortion and people vote for them to enact that policy, that's democracy. This is not a violation of separation of church and state. And further more, beliefs about when life begins are fundamentally philosophical in nature, not scientific. You cannot "prove" life begins at any given stage of pregnancy.

it is a matter of bodily autonomy and should be left to the woman to decide.

Pro-life supporters believe that life starts at conception, and that therefore the thing being terminated is a human life and it is therefore not the woman's body. You can disagree, but the entire debate IS precisely over whether or not a fetus is part of a woman's body in the first place. But you're just begging the question by saying it is.

from a social perspective, it is insanely counter-intuitive to force an unwanted pregnancy to be carried to term, and to the benefit of just about nobody notwithstanding fringe views about the benefit of an unborn person. with obvious caveats, children born as a consequence of unwanted pregnancy live with the psychological burden of such.

Agreed - if anyone who's going to have a crappy life should just be killed.

children born to parents who are unable to demonstrate parenting capacity for any number of reasons, such as poverty, substance abuse, or mental health issues, are particularly susceptible to abuse and neglect, and are likely going to end up in contact with DCJ or taken into the foster system. people seem to vastly underestimate the effects of these upon children in terms of life outcomes, and i invite them to spend some time working in the system - it doesn't take very long to understand the detriments.

Again, people are against abortion because they literally think it is murder. You can disagree, but saying that these kids will have crappy lives doesn't just magically make murder okay for these people.

 

[loveliw]

personally I say, if you consented to the deed lmao you are responsible for whatever happens comes next (both parties) as you understood the risks and circumstances that come with it. Under the condition that a mother doesn't want to keep a baby simply because she doesn't want 2 is irresponsible and I don't believe abortion should be available to that. It should be available to valid reasons such as ra**, endangerments of the mother etc. But with not being afford to raise a child, as i said before you consented and went through with it, just means certain sacrifices will be made and that maybe we need more government facilities to help support people going through hard times like that ( pretty sure we already do) so idk what i am just be smart and responsible