Why Are People Pro-Choice?

[AlaunaBlackwood]

What do they believe and why?

[Ellipsis]

> Why Are People Pro-Choice?
> What do they believe and why?

People's opinions vary about where life begins. E.g. at conception, at heartbeat, at viability, at birth.

To some people, aborting a foetus because you didn't want it is equivalent to killing a newborn baby because you didn't want it. Others don't see it like that at all. Most people agree that post-viable abortion is not right.

[MallyJ]

Why do people think that they can impose their values on the rest of us? Assuming that you are talking about abortion then all sorts of circumstances may make a woman exercise her right to make decisions about issues that affect mainly her......

[Ellipsis]

> Why do people think that they can impose their values on the rest of us?

Because that's what living in a society entails. E.g. there are laws about paying taxes that you may not agree with, but you still have to follow them or you may find yourself in trouble.

[spathiphyllum]

The fetus that is being aborted may itself be a woman. Where are its rights as a woman?

[Mozz71]

Maybe a counter question would be why are some people pro-life?

While I agree that abortion shouldn't be repeatedly used as an emergency contraception, why should a third party choose what's best for an individual.

Should an underage girls or a rape victim be forced to carry a child to term because of someone else's moral compass?

[spathiphyllum]

Abortion is no way a contraception.

[Mozz71]

//Abortion is no way a contraception//

Of course it isn't, but I bet there are some women out there who have used it as a "Get out of jail free" card in the past.

[ummmm]

Doubt it, Mozz, not on the NHS anyway.

[KARL]

So we have a consensus among some: Women should use both types of pill and if these fail to ensure they do not bear children (or "it didn't work") then they should have the freedom/right to have an abortion. If men find themselves not wanting to father a child, for the sake of complete certainty they should abstain (? because women can't be trusted to respect their wishes and/or never ask/want to know ?).

Half a century ago and as far back from that as you care to go abstention was women's only option until they were married, at which point it became their duty to bear children. Nobody who wants to live in peace now suggests women should still abstain, at any point. Today men are required to stick to that medieval standard ? This is not exactly a picture of equality is it ? It is of course also a complete denial of certain facts of life regarding what drives both men and women toward each other. Heads in the sand.

Perhaps we should be advocating the option I forgot to mention earlier: Hormone suppressing/reducing methods - this would solve two problems at once. Men would not unwillingly become fathers and also they would completely stop foisting unwanted sexual attention on women (#metoo could disband) due to thorough loss of interest. Please don't tell me this is exactly what women want, because I am convinced it is not, far from it.

[KARL]

Mozz71, I think you are correct. Moreover, I think it is way past "finger numbers".

[Mozz71]

Condoms are 98% effective. Of course, nothing is perfect, but if a condom splits, the couple are likely to know immediately, and a morning after pill can be purchased if the unlikely does happen.

No need for Karl's panic options. Just be careful and be sensible.

[bednobs]

i think that men have a say in whether omen have an abortion or not: however, if they are opposed in their views, the woman should have the final say. i am pro choice because i have had to have a very very unwanted abortion

[KARL]

In these matters let's call for equality between men and women as soon as possible by whatever means possible, at the moment things are seriously skewed. Some women (quite a few actually), for reasons they know but do not acknowledge, do not like the idea that men should be able to switch off their fertility (the condom does not, there are reasons why it is not universally used, not to mention when it simply is not to hand). Getting things evened out is long overdue.

[Mozz71]

//In these matters let's call for equality between men and women as soon as possible by whatever means possible//

When men are able to care the child and give birth, then we can talk about equality. A woman needs support from a guy, whatever her decision is. The best way a man can help cut down on abortions, is to offer support for the woman. Be there for her.

[Mozz71]

Sorry, typo. "carry the child and give birth"

[pixie374]

Karl, nothing is equal with pregnancy, childbirth or responsibilities. Women have to make the choice once and for all... and stick with it. Men can go away and change their minds 17 years later. It is just not the same. Because men have such a small part in it, that is their choice of whether to risk a pregnancy or not.

[woofgang]

Karl, "Some women (quite a few actually), for reasons they know but do not acknowledge, do not like the idea that men should be able to switch off their fertility"

Can I ask what your evidence is for this statement?

[vetuste_ennemi]

The nearest thing to a correct formulation of the abortion issue is Ellipsis' post.

This is a moral issue: at some stage of pregnancy what is in the woman's womb is not a collection of cells, or some physical blemish like a wart which a woman who cares for her appearance or personal convenienceshould be able to "choose" to remove by a knife, knitting needle, mincer or whatever..

At some stage of pregnancy a real human being is being incubated in her womb. Unless, of course, you choose to deny that a premature baby is a human being. Many feminist harridans (which appears to be a set which includes some people on AB) do deny this.

The correct formulation of the issue is "Does a woman have the right to kill a seven month child in or womb?". And the answer is the same as that to the question "does she have the right to kill a one day old infant outside the womb?".

[KARL]

We, at least I, were talking about conception, avoidance of it - once it has taken place the "project" is under way and then whatever the man wanted/wants becomes largely academic. Also, there are two "states": Committed long-term pairing (including marriage) and casual pairing (including going together many months, even years on the understanding that commitment is yet to be stated). Assuming a sole/contrary right to decide is far more damaging in the latter and in such cases it is presumptuous of the woman to expect the man to "be there" - she carried out a hijack and has no automatic right to expect him to wholeheartedly support her project. While, say in marriage, the circumstances are different, no woman should take any risk regarding falling pregnant if/when she knows he is reluctant to father a child. Before contemplating getting pregnant she should establish his aims in this. If the relationship means anything to her then she should either tell him he should have a vasectomy, have her own procedure done or else fastidiously take the Pill. The Pill is free on the NHS, no excuse.

To say he must guard himself against her is an admission that she is a risk to him. That said, the matter must be discussed and responsibilities fixed, there should be open honesty and no question of possible unilateral drift into romantic dreams of an offspring. Until men can switch off their fertility they are at a disadvantage with poor options by comparison. Yes, they are at risk but only if things are unclear/fudged and/or one or both proceeds/proceed unwisely.

[pixie374]

I don't think that is the case, ve.... I haven't heard of anyone that thinks that way.
The point is more.... should a line drawn... where... and who by. That seems to be the biggest disagreement. But each to their own.... if you personally are not willing (male or female) to be forcibly implanted with an embryo, carry and give birth to it and look after it for the rest of your life... you have no right to expect anyone else to.