To ask if anybody on here is pro-life?

[Teeandee]

When it comes to the subject of abortion I've noticed a high number of people on here are very pro-choice and support abortion. Is there anybody else, like me, who doesn't?

Everybody is entitled to their opinion of course and I don't think badly of anybody who has had a termination and I don't judge. It's only my personal outlook and life experiences that shape my view and was wondering if I really am in the minority here?

In order for the actual abortion to be justified it relies on dehumanising the foetus. This is why I cannot get too worked up about early abortion since the technology is so safe and the process straight forward, and most people I think are able to dissociate v early pregnancy from babies. But after a certain time has passed, we all instinctively know what is in the bump under a pregnant woman's jumper, and what would need to happen to make it go away. For most people therefore you would need a very very compelling reason to terminate that life because it cannot be dehumanised so effectively. Again, the law has it right.

If you prevent a woman from having an abortion you are forcing her to give birth. That’s not hyperbole, it’s simple fact.

It's a deliberate twisting of words, no one forces her to be pregnant and give birth anymore than I am forced to breathe by being denied access to (or being unable to find) someone who will kill me.

@ElonMask - I rather think you're missing the point.

There are several posters who have said they are pro-life and don't agree with abortion under any circumstances. Unless you're denying that rape happens, if abortion were not possible - surely it's forced birth?

In all honesty, your language is so passive that its difficult to tell if you do or don't support abortion (although I think you do) so not sure why your problem lies with someone else sharing that view?

Just read back further and saw your earlier post which was clearer.

Still, there remains plenty of examples of people forced into pregnancy, and is a well noted technique of abusers

“It's a deliberate twisting of words, no one forces her to be pregnant and give birth anymore than I am forced to breathe by being denied access to (or being unable to find) someone who will kill me.”
Nobody forces a woman to get pregnant-except a rapist.

But banning abortion does force her to give birth.

you do or don't support abortion

I've said several times that I am happy enough with the law as it is, because I understand that sometimes abortion (as early as possible) is necessary.

What annoys me is the attitude that society is morally compelled to provide me with abortion just so's I can have sex whenever I want to. The point is that in my, and I believe most peoples, opinion, the act of abortion itself is a "bad thing" generally, it is acknowledged that in certain circumstances it is a necessity. Something is being killed, whether you want to quibble about exactly what that is.What frustrates me is the attitude of entitlement which you see expressed as the absolute right to have sex removed from consequences. I think when you really consider the issue it doesn't seem reasonable to expect the state to continually terminate healthy foetuses just so people can have lots of sex (compared to every other generation of humans who ever lived). The language employed by the "as late as necessary" crowd is as bad as the pro life one, I actually admire the pro life stance a bit more as is feel it is morally honest.

But banning abortion does force her to give birth.

So who is forcing me to breathe then ? Allowing the inevitable to happen is not the same as forcing someone to do something. in much the same way someone who can only survive with a life support machine is not forced to die if that machine is turned off. You might be arguing the there is a negligence there, but no one could reasonably be held accountable for forcing her to give birth.. except maybe god.

The use of "force" is one thing (consider also the difference under law of walking past a dying person and yet not being called a murderer because you did not force them to die), but the other extremist argument you put out there is that there is no intrinsic value to a life. Again, instinct tells us what is in a visibly pregnant woman's body and the position that it is a thing with no intrinsic value is in my (and I believe most peoples opinion) extreme.

Denying someone an abortion may not be physically forcing them to give birth, but it doesn't really leave much of an alternative does it!

Haven’t RTFT but to reply to the OP, I am 100% pro-life.

“Let me put it a slightly different way, you are not morally entitled to have sex free from the biological reality of what the act might entail.”

Why not?

Am I morally free to travel to Malarial areas and take anti-malarials and accept medical help should they fail and I encounter the biological reality of malaria?

You believe (I assume) in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. I don’t. I believe in the right of the woman to make a decision about the blastocyst/ embryo / foetus inside her.

Elon I actually think it’s far more moral to abort an unwanted child than give birth to one who may endure a miserable life at the hands of a mother who doesn’t want it, which could mean its neglected and resented. Or it could be miserable in the care system. Making women unwillingly go through pregnancy wont make them good mothers. Out of interest, what would you do if that was your 14-year-old daughter? No rape, but say she had consensual sex of her boyfriend of the same age, and their contraception failed (or they didn’t use any). Would you really say she deserves to become a - possibly very unprepared, terrified and unwilling - parent just because she had sex? Not to mention the impact that could have on her prospects?

PantTwizzler

Haven’t RTFT but to reply to the OP, I am 100% pro-life.

Go back a page or 2 and read my posts. Tell me what 15 year old me should have done...

PantTwizzler if you do actually RTFT and Porpentina’s story I would be very interested to know what sort of life you are actually ‘pro’ and for whose benefit it is.

And where, ElonMask, your morality places itself.

I get, Elon, that you accept the law. And I agree with what you say about ‘dehumanising ‘ the embryo (though I would argue that early embryos are ‘hyperhumanised’ for want if a better word, when described as ‘babies’). But denying a woman choice/ forcing her to change timye a pg in a case such as described by Porpentina dehumanises the woman. Not in a biological sense, but in terms of her rights as an individual by reducing her to a vessel or incubator.

@ElonMask
"There is no moral justification for killing something just because you wanted to have sex, but don't want to be pregnant. Someone asked earlier about contraception, I'm all for that and don't consider it in any way a moral issue."

Bullshit, i dont want to be pregnant is a perfect reason. Consent to sex isnt consent to pregnancy. Like an std is a risk of sex, so is pregnancy. As women we have a right to fix ay mistake or issues that may arise, like std or pregnancy. If contraception has failed, we have a right to fix that failure as the intended result of contraception failed.

There is no moral justification for thinking women should be brood mares, gestating every pregnancy as a punishment for having sex. Would you say women cant treat an std cos they chose to have sex?

Would you say women cant treat an std cos they chose to have sex?

Not comparable to abortion.

If you prevent a woman from having an abortion you are forcing her to give birth. That’s not hyperbole, it’s simple fact.

So that means that the UK state/law is directly complicit in forcing nearly all women to give birth in cases where they haven't yet managed to decide if they want to/feel able to continue with the pregnancy, haven't found the courage to admit it to others (or accept it themselves) or, as sometimes happens, haven't realised that they actually are pregnant - once 24 weeks have passed?

Even if you believe that it's just a bundle of foetal cells up to 24 weeks, but a human life from the next day, you are presumably a misogynist who is happy to shut down women's freedoms and force them to give birth, however much they might not want to, if you don't support their full bodily autonomy to abort at any time right up to the birth, at which point another adult would be able to take over and absolve the mother of any/all further responsibilities to the child if that is her wish.

Why is nobody supporting women's freedoms and actively campaigning for this? Are most pro-choicers somehow only partially misogynistic whereas pro-lifers are fully so?

If anybody is not in favour of free access to abortion for any woman who wants it, for any reason, right until the point of birth, how can they possibly justify their stance on condoning forced birth just because a certain proportion of the pregnancy has passed and they might personally have a moral objection over what another woman wants or doesn't want to do with her own body?

I'm fully aware that some people heartily disagree with me, as is their absolute right, but I surely can't be the only person who is deeply saddened that a case of chlamydia or malaria is seriously being held up as the direct equivalent of the beginnings of a new human life - can I?

No, you’re not alone WeBuilt.

"Not comparable to abortion."
It is actually, especially if people think that women shouldnt be able to abort just cos contraception failed and they dont want to be pregnant, effectively usimg pregnancy as a punishment for having sex.
Broken down, emotions out of it, pregnancy is a mere risk of sex, like an std.
So people are fine with a woman being punished with pregnancy but not std? How does that work, they both came about the same way, through sex. Both have unwanted consequences for the woman if left untreated.

Webuilt, you know for some its not the beginning of a new life but the beginning of a parasite or disease growing inside, risking the womans life and wellbeing.
Like it or not, pregnancy isnt some "oh yay awesome" thing to everyone.
For some of us the mere thought of being pregnant again leaves us cold and running to swallow a bucket of contraceptives.

Ummm, an untreated std isn’t going to become a human being. No, ethically not the same thing at all.

Would you say women cant treat an std cos they chose to have sex?

I'm pro choice. That's a ridiculous argument. An STD isn't a life/potential life.

Consent to sex isnt consent to pregnancy

It isn't. But some people don't take too much care in preventing pregnancy and I feel sad that this then results in an abortion. Of course it still has to be a woman's choice, because of the huge effect it has on her physically and mentally, to go ahead with a pregnancy she doesn't want but in many cases people have to be more responsible.

Broken down, emotions out of it, pregnancy is a mere risk of sex, like an std.
So people are fine with a woman being punished with pregnancy but not std? How does that work, they both came about the same way, through sex. Both have unwanted consequences for the woman if left untreated.

I don't think the most adamant of pro-lifers is coming from a position of wanting to 'punish' the woman. If that were the case, there would be widespread calls to make putting a baby up for adoption illegal unless the parents had died or were simply physically or mentally incapable of safely raising them.

The concern is for the new human life that is being extinguished - I don't think anybody is wanting to force the mother to bring up an unwanted child for the next 18 years - or even necessarily a minute longer than necessary, after the birth, once another adult is able to step in take over all caring responsibilities for the child.

An STD is not a sentient human organism and is universally considered to be a valueless parasite. Please tell me that you really don't view humanity as a whole that way (granted, some people do grow up to make horrific choices with how they decide to live out that life - never before they're born, though)?

If I had a broken radio, stuck on top volume and out of tune, that wouldn't stop hurting my ears with a horrible tinny cacophony, I could take a hammer to it, smash it to pieces and hurl it in the bin, with no moral issues - because it's just a thing.

If I was similarly driven crazy by my neighbour's incessantly barking dog, there are a number of avenues I could reasonably explore to try to resolve or ameliorate the issue, but going around there and taking a hammer to its skull would be universally condemned as a horrifically barbaric thing to do.

Sorry if that's quite a violent analogy, but it's exactly the thought that springs to my mind when the value of a human life is compared to that of an STD.

Webuilt, you know for some its not the beginning of a new life but the beginning of a parasite or disease growing inside, risking the womans life and wellbeing.
Like it or not, pregnancy isnt some "oh yay awesome" thing to everyone.

Just because the pregnant woman may consider it a 'parasite' and/or the equivalent of a disease in no way stops it being a developing human life. I know there can be serious risks to the woman's life and/or wellbeing, for which I would show all due compassion; but are you thereby saying you believe that the availability of abortion should be heavily curtailed and reasons such as "I just don't want to be pregnant" or "It really doesn't feel like the right time for me" be considered invalid and an abortion subsequently refused?

I realise that not all pregnancies are greeted with unalloyed joy and that many leave a woman feeling utter dread and panic, but if you believe that an unborn baby is a human life (which, granted, not everybody does - or they maybe sort of do after about 24 weeks), how can it be right to simply kill any other humans who negatively impact our lives as a matter of routine?

We don't (in the UK) kill adult serial killers or repeated predatory child abusers, so why would killing be our solution and first port of call where a blameless, vulnerable child is concerned?

As I said before, there aren't many people who are pro-choice enough to accept the free right of any pregnant woman to abort between 24 weeks and birth, for any but the most serious reasons, and thus would condone her being forced to give birth (I don't know you, so I obviously can't speak personally for you); so how can a baby be considered akin to an STD before then but a valuable human life to be protected from the next day?

The only two logical conclusions as to when an unborn baby can be considered an actual human life are either at conception or at birth. Many will correctly say that life would be very unlikely to continue if anything untoward happened (either naturally or with intervention) before 24 weeks, but the exact same result would soon happen if a baby was born healthy at 42 weeks and just left to fend for itself. So, in fact, you could even argue that it's not a viable/valuable independent human life until the age of about 4yo, when it might possibly be able to start foraging for food if left in the wild. I don't think many people would in any way agree with that, though.