Who's pro-choice here?

Since all the Democratic candidates are. I've encountered a lot of people who would support Dems but are pro-life, so go figure. I'm firmly pro-choice, and dislike the idea of one ethical ideology stamping on another, with no real scientific proof. It's better to allow something and let people choose their own path, rather than trying to tell others what's right according to your compass. Abortion is not like murder or rape, it's very complex. Simple answers like trying to stamp it out does not fit in a complex issue.

When I type "pro-choice" in Yahoo!, it's mostly dominated by pro-life sites. It's somewhat difficult to read up on pro-choice arguments by non-partisan sites, it seems. I'd like some pro pro-choice arguments here so I can use them elsewhere.

:-)

.

and i am very pro-that decision....

I think at the age of puberty for the females should go a year and have their eggs harvested... so every girl has 12 eggs and all boys at the age of puberty should fill up a few viles of sperm and both then be sterilized and their reproductive additives stored someplace secure and then they can decide to have children after a 24 month application and screening process.

...and that way whites will become a minority in this country faster... i am a white male but realize that the day white males become a minority and out of power in this country, it will be a good day.

SIN.Hate,pride,arrogance,selfishness,and greed,which unfortunately afflicts all of us humans.How does replacing one set of humans with their failures and weaknesses with another set of humans with the same failures and weaknesses going to solve the problem?I'll never understand how people think that replacing a sinful Democrat with a sinful Republican and vice versa is actually gonna make that much of a difference.Unless your suggesting that white males are the only ones afflicted with a sinful nature.

the answer is simple: Don't like abortion, don't have one. That's what pro-choice means. Why some, nay most, on the right seem to miss the point of privacy and responsibility is beyond me.

and also feel the same way about homosexual marriage. If you don't like it, don't do it.

I have seen NOTHING that would force anyone to either have an abortion, or marry someone of his or her own gender.

Why is it that so many people feel the need to shove their own moral beliefs down everyone else's throats? Things like abortion and homosexuality aren't considered to be immoral to everyone, not even to all religious denominations.

Evidently, to people like the (p)resident and his crowd, "Freedom of religion" is an absolute right....as long as it is their religion.

What if I said If you don't want to own a slave don't own one? My guess would be that you would think that owning a slave is morally wrong and would want to impose that law on others.

Slavery involves another living person against their will. You can argue the RC position that a conceptus is 'another living person', but there's only religion behind that, not science.

I understand that a lot of people believe that life begins at conception, and, therefore, abortion is, for them, the taking of a life.

There are others, including a major religion, who belive lif begins when the baby's head leaves the mother's womb.

Still others believe in the viability theory of when life begins.

Should the first group have the ability to say either of the other two groups do not have the right to believe what they believe?

Many believe homosexuality is an abomiation, while others, including some Christian denominations, (I'm sorry, I don't know enough about the Jewish beliefs on this subject to comment on it here...my apologies)who believe it is natural and/or genetic.

If homosexual relationships consist in two consenting, committed people who love and respect each other, and no-one is being hurt, who is to say they are right or wrong?

Viability is the only legitimate concern of government. Other definitions depend on religious doctrine, metaphysical speculation, philosophical debate--all fine and dandy, but not things that would warrant violating another person's constitutional rights.

The "Viability theory" of when life begins isn't really like a well formed belief with steadfast dogmatic adherents. It's more like a useful measure of when the state may take an interest in the rights of a fetus.

That's part of the problem with nailing down "pro choice" as a belief system; it more resembles an attitude or rationale about the just limits of government power than it does a dogma about the meaning of life. It's hard to compare it to something like "pro-life," which represents a politically opposed viewpoint, but not an alternative solution to the meaning of life. Thus, the pro-choice side is left trying to reveal the pro-life position's approach to governance, in order to debate fairly. That often makes for weak and boring arguments, whereas the prolife camp makes emotional and symbolic appeals and gets people's panties in a bunch.

Hands off my body!
Abortion stops a beating heart!

That's hard to argue against, imo. It leaves politicians making arguments like, "While I deplore abortions...." It's not bloody fair. When we hear politicians being asked questions that are more suited to a rabbi or a priest, we, we pro-choice advocates and civil libertarians, we ought to call the media on that one. Like, What buisiness of yours is it to ask our politicians about these questions that don't pertain to government? Are you siding with radical religious extremists in calling for a theocratic overthrow of our constitutional form of government? Then get a clue, bucko, because that's exactly the implication of your asking politicians about things which only religious leaders provide answers for.

amen, hallelujah, and yes:
"When we hear politicians being asked questions that are more suited to a rabbi or a priest, we, we pro-choice advocates and civil libertarians, we ought to call the media on that one. Like, What buisiness of yours is it to ask our politicians about these questions that don't pertain to government? Are you siding with radical religious extremists in calling for a theocratic overthrow of our constitutional form of government? Then get a clue, bucko, because that's exactly the implication of your asking politicians about things which only religious leaders provide answers for."

We constantly fall into the trap of debating on THEIR terms, not ours.

on CNN a perfect example of where the debates about legality of abortion or homosexual rights belong.

The debate regarding the elevation of an openly gay priest to bishop in the Episcopalian Church was taking place just where it should...Within the church, among church members, discussing their own doctrine.

Individual religious denomintations have every right in the world to set down doctrine for their members. People who disagree with those laws can work to change them or change denomintations.

What religious organizations do NOT have the right to do is "order" politicians in this country to force that dogma on the rest of the people in this country.

Senator Kerry pointed that out about the pope's recent letter. The media carried the (p)resident's remarks about homosexuals being sinners, and codifying heterosexual marriage, but where have you seen Senator Kerry's response to his own religious leader?

Augustine & Thomas Aquinas both held that abortion was permitted proir to "quickening" -- around 5 or 6 months into pregnancy -- remarkably similar to Roe v. Wade.

http://www.cath4choice.org/conscience/archived/DissentingView.htm

I am Catholic. But they move like 400 years behind the times.

the thing is, I often have mixed feelings on the issue, but I think that you should have the right to choose.

The decision to have or not have an abortion should be between the woman and her conscience.

But I am for a womens right to choose for herself.

I don't care who the candidate is. If he or she isn't pro-choice, they don't get my vote.

...my opinion on the topic doesn't and shouldn't matter...

should be jailed and Doctors who perform them should sit on Death Row!

After that, for health of mother or baby, should be legal. Any man who demands a woman go through with a pregnancy under these formentioned conditions should be on death row.

I will make an exception in this case because I am not for the death penalty.

because taken at face value, your words would paint you as a real theocratic lunatic.

definitely pro-choice. Though personally I don't think I could or would ever have an abortion.

which is why I won't vote for Kucinich.

when you type "abortion" in yahoo - and not when you type "pro-choice" - that you get a lot of pro-life sites.

Words have meaning. And life does not end at birth.

And as the Bible says once the quickening occurs, we are dealing with something that at least has a chance outside the Womb (before that the Bible treats as a civil taking of property any action that causes the loss of the fetus against the wishes of the mother and father).

So yea, I am pro-life. I wish all fetuses were healthy and born alive and fed and raised to adulthood with education, housing and food and clothing guaranteed.

but if anyone wants the right to tell me and mine how to treat our bodies, we indeed do have a disagreement.

Call me a pessimist, but life sucks. Especially if you are an unwanted child that a woman is forced to give birth to. It sucks even more if you are killed by a wire hanger. Especially for the woman, who has a fair shot at never being able to have children at an appropriate time, and an off chance of dying a horrible, painful and slow death to avoid prison.

Making a personal choice on issues is called freedom of the individual.

Republicans desire to force us all into a police state that dictates our choices for us
is further evidence that Republicans are opposed to freedom.


Does a woman own her own body?

The decision in Roe vs Wade was not about abortion.
It was that a woman owns her own body and has a constitutional right to decide for herself which legal medical procedures to undergo.

Republicans believe in contrast that a woman's body belongs to the Republican party and the Catholic and Mormon churches.

Choose freedom of the individual over Republicans rightwing police state.

On one hand...I would never, ever, ever, deny a woman a clean, safe, legal abortion. I have seen the horrific damage done to a relative by a back-alley abortion practitioner, and she was one of the lucky ones. She survived.

I also support privacy and the right for every woman to choose whether or not to reproduce.

Then there is the other hand.

I believe in responsible choice. I guess because I'm an elementary school teacher, and I've worked with so many kids from every background...there are some people who just shouldn't have children. People who can't be loving, supportive, responsible parents shouldn't have kids.

The world has 6+ billion people; we don't need to multiply the species. Families that choose to have more children than they can provide for are making an irresponsible choice. People who have more than 2 kids (replacing the parents, population wise) are contributing to overpopulation and all of the global problems that accompany it.

Choice, by it's nature, includes the right to bring kids into the world that the parents can't support. I'm not talking just $$ here; I'm talking time, conversation, and healthy relationships. Choice includes the right to reproduce like a plague of locusts.

Somewhere along the line, choices ought to be responsible.

I also had a relative who chose not to use birth control. She told me, "That's ok; if I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion." I think that is an irresponsible choice.

I support the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but I do that with my eyes wide open. I also was present 3 decades ago when a young girl experienced a late term abortion. She didn't tell her mom about the pregnancy, because she didn't want to be forced into the abortion. Her mom found out anyway, and moved hell and highwater to get the job done. They injected her with a saline solution and put her in a bed; left her there to begin labor. All night, the ward rang with cries of pain from girls "giving birth." When the time came, there was no nurse on hand, and the girl "gave birth" to a fully formed dead baby girl. Grief, nightmares and regrets have followed her for decades.

So I'm ambivalent, and conflicted. On the one hand, I support reproductive rights. On the other, I want some reproductive responsibility.

But if I can only have one, then it must be rights, because responsibility absent rights is mere despotism.