Pro lifers and pro choicers answer please?

Question

Why do pro lifers thrive on saving an unborn from being killed in the womb, while pro choicers thrive on killing it because it's not consider human life yet? Why do pro lifers usually not agree with stem cell research, they wanna save the unborn but what about saving those who are born? Why do some pro choicers not agree with stem cell research even though they agree with murdering a human... oh my bad it's not yet a human right?

Answer 1

I think that killing one to let another live is never an even trade especially when the one dying didn't have the choice.

Christ died to save all of mankind, but he had the choice and chose to do it. An unborn baby doesn't have that choice.

I believe that a person can choose their actions, but are also held accountable for them. When you abort, you are bloodguilty for that baby's life. It's your choice, but it has effects far beyond the mother.

I do not agree with abortion and do view it as murder. I hope I never find myself in a position where it is presented as an option. I hope I can make good enough choices to avoid that situation. Should it come up, abortion is not really an option in my mind anyways. Murder is never really an option, it's a choice.

Answer 2

Pro Choice- For several reasons.Do you know how many children are emotionally abused due to not being wanted, or physically abused b/c mom is not old enough to handle some of the extremes. Do you know how children are in ophanages, or other group homes b/c they were given away, or worse taken into foster care due to abuse or neglect? Do you believe that baby and mother form a bond during pregnancy, can they hear music and cooing at the stomach they are inside. Does a woman's mental stress during pregnancy have any effect on a fetus, and if so, do u think that they may know subconsciencly that their momma didn't want them if they put up for adoption? What about extreme cases, such a serious health risk to the mother if baby is carried to term? Should she be expected to carry the baby anyhow, and what about the mother ; She not only looses her life, but she is forced into putting a baby on this earth that she will not be around to protect. Pro Life says no means no. What about if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant? Rape is huge enough to work through w/o a reminder of big belly etc for 9 months, or even 18 or 19 yrs, if kept. A woman's body, A woman's choice. And whatever her decision, she will have to live with it for her whole life, which if you have ever made a decision, then after thought maybe that wasn't what you should have done, then u know what I mean. Abortion is a better option than even possibly putting a 'precious' life through hell, what ever that may be.

As far as Stem Cell research, well abortion is legal, so those fetus are 'dying' anyway, why would u let that all be in vain, if life was such a gift to you. And also why not improve the life of one who is already here and could benifit from these developments, since life is that important. Why let anything like a precious miracle suffer in anyway. Are you an organ donor in case of an accidental death? Hmmmmmm......

Answer 3

I know what you mean about pro-lifers defending the unborn but then not helping the born. We should be supporting and helping human life all the way from conception to a natural death.

I can't answer for pro-choicers because I am definitely a pro-lifer. but I know some people that do have compassion for born people and cannot see that before birth a fetus and embryo are human life that has equal rights to every other human life, including that of the mother.

Answer 4

I don't thrive on killing a fetus. I think that a woman should be allowed the choice of abortion, as well as the choice of adoption and the choice of continuing the pregnancy.
I am for stem cell research, I don't know anyone who is pro-choice that isn't, I am sure that there are probably some that aren't.
Just like like there are those who are pro-life and yet all for the death penalty.

Answer 5

Procreation is an ongoing process which can be interrupted at any point, right from not having sex in the first place, through contraception, and drugs which prevent implantation, to abortion anywhere up to the moment of birth.

Somewhere along that process, most people would have a point where they consider it's OK to interfere to prevent the birth of a baby up to that point, but not afterwards - e.g. abstinence is OK, but contraception isn't.... or contraception is OK, but abortion isn't... or abortion is OK but only up to week 20... or whatever. It's simply a matter of conscience where you personally decide to draw the line, and on what basis.

For myself, I cannot accept that an undifferentiated bunch of cells has more rights than the fully grown adults who are responsible for its existence. I also cannot accept that it's right to kill a foetus when it's fully developed and due to be born. Logically then, there has to be a point somewhere in between that I decide, on the basis of conscience, is the point at which abortion becomes unacceptable. I don't know enough about it to have a definite view where that point lies, but it must lie somewhere in the 9 months of pregnancy.

It's in the nature of life that there are no easy answers to this kind of question, as it's a matter of subjective opinion rather than objective fact - and my opinion is that abortion cannot be wrong, per se.

Oh, and it's pointless to argue about whether the embryo is 'human life' or not - Of course it is. That is not the issue. The issue is whether a human life at a stage of being a tiny featureless blob of cells should be protected at the expense of the wishes of the parents - and particularly the woman who would have to give birth to it. I don't think it should.

Answer 6

As a former fetus, I am adamantly pro-life.
Yoda has fallen for a much publicized lie. An awful lot of pro-lifers do adopt, in fact, a great many are pro-lifers for that reason. It might be interesting to run a poll on Christian families who are or would be willing to adopt as compared to other groups...
Whirlingmerc points out another fallacy being fed to us via our media on stem cell research. Obviously, as a pro-lifer, I am all for stem cell research, as long as nobody has to die in order to provide the stem cells.
I don't know where Dukalink gets his notion that pro-lifers are also supporters of child molesters?

Answer 7

I take it that you are asking about stem cell research. Since most steam cells, using current technology, are taken from human embryos, many pro-lifers view steam cell research as a way to sacrifice newly formed lives just to save the old. Shouldn't be the other way around? Shouldn't a parent sacrifice himself to save his child, not sacrifice his child to save himself?

An old person (the ones who stands the most to benefit from steam cell research) has already had his chance at life. Why deny that same chance at life to the embryo, just to give one or two more years to an old person who has already had a full life? The embryo who gets sacrificed for its steam cells will not have a full life (or any life, now).

Seems unfair.

Answer 8

In the mind of God it is a human way back in eternity and now brought forth in time in the womb of it's mother. That makes it a human being even before conception. But most people of knowledge say human life begins at conception. It is positively murder and sin to abort a child because it is thwarting God's purpose and intent for that child to live a full and wonderful life on this earth.

Answer 9

i'm prochoice. but i don't think it really matters if it's purely up to the woman, because nearly every woman who gets pregnant wants to have the baby, whether it's the right time or not. i go with pro choice because what about those women without the means to take care of a baby? i've seen homeless women with 3 kids around them. and what about women like andrea yates? her children basically drove her insane. what about victims of rape? yes, there should be some bars put on abortion, but it should always be made available. and there are more than a few hospitals who won't do abortions or even give you emergency contraceptives, so pro lifers don't have much to worry about.

Answer 10

In the end, it is often not a choice between murder or not murder, it is a choice between two evils. For example, murder or raising a child to be sexually abused by its father; murder or birthing a child that will starve to death because I can't afford to feed it. Murder, or bringing a child into this world to be ignored, unloved, and unattended.

I don't think just looking at the immediate result is enough to find the answer. I think that is too easy. There are many many factors to consider. It all depends on what you consider to be the lesser of two evils. For some, that is easy - murder. For others, not so much.