No. A woman has a Right to choose to NOT get pregnant. (And the man has a right to choose to NOT get the woman pregnant) Pretty simple, eh?
Seems as though too many people are using abortion as a form of birth control which I find abhorrent to say the least. Then when said woman gets pregnant she decides a quick fix abortion is the answer... What happens when that same women contracts HIV from an unprotected encounter, she can't very well ABORT HIV!
Consequences of unprotected sex is not a mystery to most people in the USA and most western countries...Given the wealth of information provided, no one should be in the posistion to have to decide such a thing.
As always this is a generalization and many factors come into play such as rape and incest, the health of the mother vs. the baby. Such things make everything more complicated and have to be decided in a much different way. But simply using abortion as birth control is down right MURDER. http://www.silentscream.org/
2006-06-18 22:20:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Trent 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
The question distills down to this: someone is going to choose.
It's either going to be the individual, or it's going to be the majority (through enacted laws). If the majority gets to choose, then they are effectively imposing their belief system -- which is usually religiously-based -- on everyone. If the individual gets to choose, then it allows for those people who happen to belief that a 6-week old collection of cells is not yet a person, as well as those who believe it is.
The question basically becomes -- do we trust the government to be in the business of deciding who can and who cannot be pregnant? Once reproductive rights are no longer protected, and once freedom of choice is no longer the individual's decision, then we've joined China and Saudi Arabia in devaluing the individual.
If women don't have the right to choose, and the government does, then there is nothing to stop the government from mandating abortions, like they do in China. Or mandating sterilization. Or mandating that women serve as surrogates.
The concept of reproductive freedoms is not whether you agree with the individual choices being made. It's whether you think the government should have the right to take away and mandate those choices.
Freedom of choice is not a minority position, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice.
2006-06-19 03:25:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes I'm pro-life, but I'm a man. So by that defintion I have no choice in the matter. But the tide is changing in the US to outlaw it a little at a time, because of old timer Republicans. Traditonaly Dremocats are for abortions. And they have always been the younger crowd that embraces the concept. The Democrats would have the upper hand of politics if only they haven't eliminated 22 Million of thier own constituents over the last 25 years with abortions.
2006-06-18 22:21:02
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am pro-life. And yes, a woman as the right to choose not to get pregnant.
I've seen young girls intentionally miscarriage and flush thier child into a public toilet. Flushing murdered babies down a toilet seems wrong to me.
Because this debate is so emotional, I'm not going to try to back up my argument with logic, although I easily could. I simply don't have the energy to waste talking to a brick wall which will only call me sexist when I am done.
2006-06-18 22:42:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by askthepizzaguy 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that abortion is morally wrong, so I guess you could consider me pro-life. However, I don't have a problem with abortion for a rape victim who has conceived, or if the woman is risking her own life carrying the child.
Having said all that, I have to agree with Clinton somewhat that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare", with emphasis on "rare". I can't see punishing a woman for having one (for reasons other than listed above), but I do believe she'll eventually answer to God for it.
I know I'm all over the map here, but it's a complex issue.
2006-06-19 01:30:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by Chris S 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know if I'm pro-life or not. I think abortion in general is'nt right, but I think it's just as, or more wrong to force my moral view on someone's body. People who're pro-life, generally base their opinion on their religious values. Any time the god-fearing bible thumpers get started, I get scared. It's the exact same principle as a taliban muslim stoning a woman to death for a adultry, whatever.
2006-06-18 22:28:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Saying someone is pro-life means that they are absolutely against abortian, no matter what. You are basically either pro-life, or pro-choice, meaning the mother (woman) has the right to choose an abortian or not.
2006-06-18 22:17:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by cbmaclean 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Choose what? LIfe? If you are a pro-lifer, then you don't beleive in abortion. So your question is vague. If you are a pro-choice type, then you beleive in abortion and NO choice for the baby. So, it is a little contradictory as most liberal ideals.
2006-06-19 03:54:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm all for life -- but I'm not anti choice.
Both individuals should choose wisely - like that's going to happen.
2006-06-18 22:28:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by twstdlzrd211 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
i believe she has a right to choose as much as the MAN has the right to choose too...that would be gender equality...it always takes TWO to conceive a child...
2006-06-18 22:26:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by turntable 6
·
0⤊
0⤋