Abortion ...genuinely interested if you are Pro life.....

[Foxy333]

I was undecided, not sure. Then I read this article with example ( pro-choice article) of how to tell if society really does/ or should/ value the life of an embryo the same as an adult or child.

It said imagine you are in a burning building and gave to get out . Next to you is a 2 year old toddler and a small fridge in which 5 embryos or test tube babies post-conception are stored. Building could be an IVF clinic. You can climb out the window of the building but only time to save either the toddler or save the small fridge with embryos in.

Which do you save and which more important?? Those embryos would be massively wanted by some couple going through ivf, could be their last chance at parenthood. Which is more important for you to save.

It made me think. I think the unborn baby does have some rights but a born living child.....Not sure you can say they are equal. How many people would save the fridge with more potential living people in it and leave the 2 year old. I know its hyperthetical but am genuinely interested in others views.

Not pro life but an embryo isn't the same as a baby inside the womb.

The unborn baby absolutely doesn’t have the same rights as a living child.

No one would save a fridge of embryos and no they don't have same right to life as a living child

Save the child....

But I do believe that the maximum time should be bought down for all but abortion on the some acute medical grounds.

I had a 3D scan done of both my babies at about 24 weeks. There was no doubt that was a baby in there, but I was still within the legal abortion limits. Seemed very wrong to me

'Pro-life' is a ghastly label.

"Not pro life but an embryo isn't the same as a baby inside the womb."
THIS ^^

A better example would be who would you save from a burning building, a two year old or a pregnant women if you only had time to save one.
I think most people would save the child over the adult, and the adult being pregnant wouldn’t impact on that decision. Still the two year old.

I’m pregnant and if I was me in that hypothetical situation, I’d far rather someone saved my toddler son than me.

The analogy doesnt work. There are plenty of people I'd put behind a child if i could only save one, it doesnt mean I don't value them and their life.

well obviously the child , the embryos have the potential to be a pregnancy than a baby etc, but the two year old is alive now

I think everyone would save the toddler as she is alive and it is in no way garantie that any of the embryos would actually stick and become a pregnancy, it's a bit like saving sperm..
I am not exactly pro life, I respect everyone should have a choice but personally I could never end a pregnancy just because of convenience. And I don't understand how anyone could have a very late abortion when the baby could survive outside the womb.
But these are my opinions and that is all.

How many people would save the fridge with more potential living people in it and leave the 2 year old

Nobody.

It’s a ridiculous question.

And many women have had an abortion who are 'for life' - for the lives of their families and others. They don't suddenly become 'against life'.

Anti-abortion campaigners aren't ethical paragons of being 'for life' - a lot of them support the death penalty.

So 'pro-life' is a stupid label, to me.

The point is 'choice'. Forced birthers anti abortionists would try to force you to rescue the embryos no matter the risk to your own life, harm or distress it could cause you. And even worse, they would leave you to deal with all the consequences, for the rest of your life.

Pro choice allows you to make your own decision about who what or even if you rescue the embryos or the baby.

It's not called 'pro life' it's called Anti Choice

"Pro-life" is just forced birth. There's no 'life' about it when you're putting the rights of something that can't even think yet over somebody who will have to give birth and go through irreversible hormonal, bodily and personal changes. Adoption is not always an option.

Also, my ability to give birth (in regards to the "it could make an IVF couple very happy") does not mean that I have to sacrifice for somebody who is sadly unable to have children. I shouldn't have to have a baby because somebody else can't.

Is it my 2 year old or a strangers... And does the fridge have wine in it... Tough call 😉

Of course everyone saves the child.

And regarding the wider issue, you can be pro choice and still not agree with abortion personally - but it’s about respecting the choices of the individual.

I hate the way people generalise the opinions of pro-life supporters. Some of the attitudes on here are revolting.

it's not an analogy, it's a thought experiment and an interesting one
most people would instinctively choose the toddler, you can then ask why and try to discern what principles underly that choice, and whether they hold in all circumstances
Socrates, innit.

Ofcourse I'm "pro-life" if being "pro-life" means prioritising saving a toddler from a burning building as opposed to a fridge of embryos. I honestly think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't prioritise the toddler. The scenario is really not an effective comparison to the concept of being "pro-life" in relation to abortion. In that instance "pro-life" actually means "pro-birth" and I'd have far greater respect for people who acknowledge that reality that for those who pretend they give the slightest fuck about the lives which already exist or the life to be post-birth.

Personally, I don't think abortion is a good thing health wise and it's expensive for the health service.

The govt should be spending the money on sex education and promoting contraception and making it more freely available - vending machines, schools, etc.

Introduce fees for abortion based on income with exceptions for rape and so on.

Sleep no no no no no. I can’t disagree more. Restricting access to abortions in the way you suggest is bad for health.
Also why should women be unfairly stigmatised against by the health service, through having to pay for a service/procedure that they need?

Furthermore you mention abortion is costly, how much is an abortion? I think it wouldn’t cost more than antenatal care, care during birth, post natal care, and the ruined mental health of women who without abortion, would be forced to carry deliver a baby. Would it really be cheaper for the health service to restrict abortion? I doubt it.

Not that it is a cost arguement over an ethical one, but I dont think the cost of abortions is really the issue within the nhs.

I agree they could promote contraception and the provide the map for free however.

If I had to choose between saving a 2 year old and saving an adult I would pick the baby.

I have mixed feelings on abortion. I've had miscarriages at 12 weeks and saw the baby and its definitely not a 'bunch of cells'. At the same time I understand why people would have abortion in many circumstances. I don't feel like I can clearly identify with either side in this debate. The pro-choice side are often very dismissive of the fetus/baby and the pro-life side are often very dismissive of the pregnant woman.

A more interesting question to forced birthers would be, having saved the baby, would you risk your own life to go back in to the burning building to rescue the fridge?

I suspect in real life none of them would.