pro-life or pro-choice?

pro-life or pro-choice? Topic: pro-life or pro-choice?
June 24, 2019 / By Alannah
Question: a very touchy subject, i want to see what Y! answers thinks. make sure to say why you are of your opinion, otherwise it's not very helpful. my thoughts: i like to say i'm both. From what i've ascertained, people who would get an abortion honestly don't feel like they have a choice (feel free to correct me if you've actually had an abortion and find me intensely wrong), and had they more information (say, an ultrasound) they would choose pro-life.
Best Answer

Best Answers: pro-life or pro-choice?

Trenton Trenton | 5 days ago
I'm pro-choice because: 1) A woman's body is her own. Nobody, no government, no court, can force a woman to gestate a pregnancy to viability if she does not also agree to do so. It is unfortunate that human reproduction happens inside women, but because that is the truth, anything less than a pro-choice stance means invading her personal privacy, bodily autonomy, and forcing her to risk her emotional and psychological well-being, her physical health, both during pregnancy and post-birth (in some cases, even her lifelong health), and possibly even her life. 2) Neither pregnancy nor a child should be a punishment. Sex is a good thing, and nobody should be punished for having it. Mistakes happen- let he who is without a mistake step forward and cast the first stone!- and we should not criminalize them. I firmly believe that forced pregnancy of unwanted children can lead to parental resentment (which may take the form of abuse and poorer care) and floods our adoption and foster care systems even fuller than they already are. As the pro-choice slogan goes: "Every Mother A Willing Mother, Every Child A Wanted Child", and I truly believe that reaching this goal is good for women, good for men, good for children, good for society, and the compassionate choice. 3) Criminalizing abortion (which is typically what the pro-life movement advocates) does not reduce rates of abortion. Study after study confirms that the abortion rate stays fairly static whether or not abortion is legal, and in fact, the countries with the lowest rates of abortion are those where it is legal. 4) Criminalizing abortion raises infant and maternal mortality rates. Without access to safe, legal abortion, women die, either in attempts to self-induce abortion, or at the hands of unscrupulous or untrained abortionists. Similarly, attempts to curb access to abortion have been shown to have negative consequences; for example, mandatory waiting periods lead to an increase in more second-term abortions (which are more risky and expensive) rather than to decrease abortion. 5) The logical conclusions of criminalizing abortion is absurd. If a fertilized egg that has yet to implant is considered to legally be a person, then every miscarriage will need to be investigated to ensure no foul play. How will we know if a woman who fell down the stairs truly had an accident, or if she was attempting to induce a miscarriage? Women who commit suicide when pregnant may face criminal charges instead of the mental healthcare they require. Who determines whether or not a high-risk pregnancy is worth aborting, if there's a 50/50 chance both mother and child will survive- even if the mother doesn't want to risk her life? One need only look to Romania under the rule of Nicolae Ceau┼čescu, where a total abortion ban (and ban on contraception) lead to "a kind of pronatalist police state, where women were subject to random gynecological exams and all miscarriages were investigated" (Michelle Goldman in "The Means of Reproduction", pg. 80). 6) Societies thrive when women control their reproduction (particularly when combined with gender equality- something that *can* be present in pro-life circles, but overall is much more closely aligned with the pro-choice side). Not only does being able to have the number of children you want, when you want and are ready for them, reduce poverty (as Hitchens so beautifully says: "The cure for poverty has a name. It's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you throw in a handful of seeds, the floor of everything, in that village, not just poverty, but health and education, will increase."), but we have also observed that countries that have higher infant and maternal mortality rates are those which are more politically unstable as well. Some have even gone so far as to link abortion access to crime reduction. Happy, healthy, wealthy, peaceful societies are those where the citizens are well-educated about a vast array of reproductive choices and have access to an arsenal of tools- abortion included- to help them ensure whatever choice they make. Also, I would like to address your statement that if women had "more information (say, an ultrasound) they would choose pro-life". Studies have been done showing that this simply isn't the case. Two abortion clinics in British Columbia found that 73 percent of patients wanted to see an image if offered the chance. Eighty-four percent of the 254 women who viewed sonograms said it did not make the experience more difficult, and none reversed her decision: Hope that helps ya!
👍 138 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? pro-life or pro-choice? Share with your friends
Trenton Originally Answered: Who Thinks This Is The Difference Between Pro-Life & Pro-Choice?
Given that "pro-choice/pro-abortion" people favor abortion that would carve out the baby in pieces, I don't believe they are more concerned about caring for the baby than pro-lifers. I'm anti-abortion. When I was in my teens up till my late 20's, I was the opposite, very pro-choice. My attitude back then was that there are many people in the world who are too poor to raise children, and an unexpected pregnancy prevents them from pursuing education and improving themselves. I also felt that the world was too populated, and that we should use abortion as a last-option when birth-control fails, to contain excessive growth. I felt back then that abortion creates less unwanted children, less poor, and less crime, and eliminates the non-achievers in our society. What I discovered on further reading is that those most likely to have an abortion are white middle-class women --those most financially able to have and raise a child! I've also met a number of guys who grew up in an orphanage, and who, far from turning out losers, were among the most disciplined, educated and accomplished individuals I've known. Finally, while Europe and North America have practiced birth control since the 1960s, the rest of the world has continued at the same exponential rate of population growth for 40 years, and have immigrated in mass numbers to European nations, to the point that Europeans will soon be minorities in nations where they have lived exclusively for centuries, or in Europe itself, for millenia. Where Europeans were 25% of the world's population in 1960, because of low birth rates they are now 15%, and will be 10% by 2040. The reason for these migrations is because Europe and North America would already be experiencing population decline and economic problems, if not for massive immigration of young foreigners to fill the labor void. We've admitted about 36 million immigrants to the U.S. since 1965, mostly from the third world. And the number of abortions within the same 4 decades is about equal to the immigrants admitted. If we were not killing our own, we would not need such massive waves of immigrants. A turning point for me was about 15 years ago, when I read a one-page interview of Mother Teresa in TIME magazine, where she said on the subject of abortion: "What greater measure is there of a society's evil, than when they choose to murder their own children?" I'm not a catholic, nor am I particularly religious. But those words really struck me and got me to thinking. I've also met many, many couples over the years who want children, and are not able to have them, and hunger greatly to adopt children. One of my closest friends adopted a girl from China about 5 years ago. And I've seen families that have adopted children from every corner of the world: China, central asia, Thailand, Africa... It's not, in most cases, that an unwanted child usually ends up in an orphanage. People like to adopt children as babies, and raise them as if they gave birth to them. They're less eager to adopt children grown beyond infancy. I feel that if a woman screws up and gets pregnant (with a man's help of course) then it's a small price for her to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption. And more often then not, there are couples standing in line to adopt these babies. A woman doesn't usually show obvious signs of being pregnant until her fifth or sixth month. So there isn't a long time she has to be visibly pregnant. It's a small price to pay, and far preferable to abortion. There are also new studies that show women who have abortions are at higher risk of cancer. A woman's body goes through a powerful cycle as she moves through the stages of pregnancy and birth, and then returns to its equilibrium. When that pregnancy cycle is unnaturally interrupted, it causes disruptions that frequently hurt the body. Because the media is overwhelmingly liberal/pro-choice, it's not a story you hear about often. But reported or not, the studies are there, just the same. Looking at these facts collectively, the evidence indicates to me that it is pro-lifers, not pro-choicers, that care most about the pregnant woman and the baby at every stage. Finally, this article I first read online close to 10 years ago, that snaps into perspective the cumulative effect of several decades of abortion, that now rise to about 1 million abortions per year: "Abortion: World War Three" No doubt among those millions could be lost innovators and leaders such as Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, Andrew Carnegie, Isaac Newton, Jonas Salk, and so on, that the world desperately needs. Just offering the counter-perspective. (population numbers: ) DEATH OF THE WEST, by Pat Buchanan

Reg Reg
I'm a mom, but am pro-choice simply because a woman (anyone) has the right to choose. People always go to "Oh well it was unplanned she's just gonna nip it in the bud" but what about rape? Some women could have a hard time bringing a baby into this world knowing its a product of rape. Or medical reasons that would/could harm mother/child. For me it all comes down to pro-women's choice.
👍 50 | 👎 -2

Maynerd Maynerd
I agree with both, people have their own reasons to abort a fetus, i respect that and will not try and change their mind, I'm for life just because God gives life and can take it away. Perhaps if one was to see an ultra-sound it would curb their decision to keep the baby
👍 46 | 👎 -9

Joey Joey
I would personally never have an abortion but that is my choice. I think everyone woman has a right to choose.
👍 42 | 👎 -16

Joey Originally Answered: i have to write an essay about life is like something give me some examples of how life is life please like 3?
rollercoster, ups n downs oldersibling, unfair christmas, suprises retirement fund, u get what u put in of course its like a box of chocolates, u never know what ur gona get

If you have your own answer to the question pro-life or pro-choice?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.