Did you know I think I finally see the difference between pro life and pro choice?

Question

I am not saying this out of anger or judgment. I think from the responses to my earlier question I have possibly been able to understand the difference in the two positions.

The pro life individual wants to protect the rights of the unborn. The pro choice individual wants to protect the rights of the born.

Now the real question is. How do we ever come to consensous on whose rights are premier? There's the rub. Most pro lifers I think would say they believe that God has said the unborn childs rights are premier. Most pro choicers I think would say they believe that the born individual should make that decision.

Not trying to be judgmental and not trying to say all Christians are pro life. Just thinking outloud as to the basis for each argument.

What do you think? Do you agree with my thinking or do you see another rationale? I want to hear from both Christians and non Christians. Both pro lifers and pro choicers.

Answer 1

Personally I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how any person could justify to either themselves or to others that their right to make choices should somehow take pecedence over the life of an unborn child.

As human beings we all have a number of ways of expressing choice. If we are dumb, we can use sign language, if we are also paralysed we can indicate our choices with say eye movements etc. etc. But how does an unborn child express his or her choice to live.

The answer is simple, the desire to live is an inherent human attribute, we need only watch one of those amazing videos of life in the womb, struggling to simply be. Watch just such a video and then deny if you can that the unborn child has not already made a clear and resounding choice to live, and then contemplate if you will, the child's God given right to make that choice.

Life is sacred and God ordained, He has a plan for each and every one of our lives, including the lives of those not fully formed in the womb. How can we deny the rights of unborn children especially when we are all so quick to claim our rights.

I am Pro-Choice, Pro the unborn childs right to choose.

Answer 2

Good call! I think you've cut right to the heart of the argument.
Pro-choicers are not pro-abortion, as some pro-lifers seem to think... wouldn't be all be happy if no one ever needed an abortion ever? But life doesn't work like that, and the situation will continue to come up, as it has for hundreds of years. What do you do when the woman's rights conflict with the rights of the unborn child within her?

I agree, most of the argument arises because each side is arguing a slightly different issue: pro-lifers argue for the child's right to be born, and pro-choicers argue for the woman's right to be physically and emotionally healthy.

The other difficulty is the clarification of when that fetus becomes a "person", when it obtains rights. Is it from the moment of conception? of birth? when it can viably survive outside the womb? when?? Pro-lifers tend to argue that the fetus has a right to life from the instant of conception, whereas pro-choicers tend to believe that during the first few months of pregnancy, while the fetus is inviable, that the fetus is not a full "person" and the rights of the existing person (the woman) should be foremost.

Another sticky problem is that pro-lifers seek to limit the actions of pro-choicers, but pro-choicers do not seek to force abortions on pro-lifers. I say let everyone do what is best for them, without judging.

Answer 3

While I sympathize with the pro-life folks - some of them have had trouble conceiving or lost a child, but they are committed to protect these precious little bundles of joy - but the pro-choice folks that I know just don't believe that a soul is being harmed in this process. Many people don't think a soul even enters a body until birth or even after (I heard 18 or 21 weeks somewhere?). Some people feel that all acts are led by god and an abortion is the soul changing it's mind about returning to earth at this time, just as miscarriages can be, but it teaches a different lesson.

Many pro-life billboards want to talk about the heart beating in a very short time in a fetus, while pro-lifers will tell you of elderly or sick folks who's body was kept alive after the soul had left.

I think the only resolution is to live and let live. I think part of the problem is that some religions teach their faithful that it is their responsibility to "save" others and get others to join their religion. I think that is wrong. I think people should mind their own business and worry about themselves and trust that others are the same reasonable intelligent people making different choices. We want to teach our children as we do, both spiritually and medically - that is where our focus should be, not the solution for the neighbors or other countries.

Live and let live, I say. It's the only way to peace - inner peace and world peace.

Peace!

PS - Seperation of church and state should be making this a non-religious issue. The questions is "we have this technology, is it SAFE to make it available to our citizens?" not "is it MORALLY CORRECT to make this available to our citizens?" If we applied the moral question to all our surgery, would be have breast enlarging, plastic surgery, sex change, hair restoring, hystorectomy, etc. These things all tamper with god's plan also, don't they? A lot of these seem to be very unsafe besides, to me - which is not the case with abortion when it is legal.

Live and let live, people!

PPS - I am always so surprised to hear these "abortion hurts the mother so much" comments. I know several women who have had abortions for a wide variety of reasons and each of them felt (and still do) relief and blessing from the 1 time incident. In fact, the one woman I know who was made to feel bad and agonized over what she had done and lived in fear that her decision would come back to haunt her was the 1 woman I know who gave her child up for adoption. Don't believe the propaganda from the religious right, folks, please. This is a vital and necessary procedure that will happen whether it is legal or not. If it is not legal and handled properly we will have more instances of girls hurting or killing themselves trying to do it on their own. Let's really look at this. Our only hope is to lovingly embrace and teach and support our kids - not take away their choices.

Answer 4

I like your thinking but here is why I'm pro-life...
It's not a matter of me thinking that the rights of the unborn are more important. To me the unborn did not have a choice in being conceived. In most cases the born decided to have sex and now for their convenience want to murder their child.
As a Christian I believe that every child that is conceived has a purpose and God has a plan for his or her life. You can't convince me that a baby is not really a baby until it passes through the vagina.
I also think that there are many lies surrounding pro-choice like the lie that women have no health or mental repercussions from having an abortion.
According to the abortion industry's own data...
Almost all babies aborted are healthy, almost all of their moms are perfectly healthy, virtually NONE of these pregnancies resulted from incest or rape and virtually none of the pregnancies presented a threat to the mothers health.

I could go on all day.

For more info...

ProLifeAmerica.com
LifeDynamics.com
KlanParenthood.com
BlackGenocide.org

Answer 5

I'm Pro-Life, I'm not Christian (or religious). I think abortion is ok in circumstances like rape, or if it will kill the mother. I have a problem with abortion as birth control.

When someone CHOOSES to have unprotected sex, in my opinion, they are making their choice. They know what the outcome may possibly be, but choose to do it anyway. And when the test comes up positive, hindsight tells them it was a bad idea. So now the mother has the opportunity to "protect her rights" and rid herself of this unwanted ,yet unprevented, problem.

The baby (which it becomes at conception) has no part in any of it. It does not get to defend it's rights or freedoms. So that leaves the mother (who we already know is a bad decision maker) to make a choice.

Pro-Choicer's can scream women's rights all day long. But for the most part, I think it's a cop out. Of all the women I know that have had abortions, it was always done in vanity and selfishness...they never once mentioned anyone's personal freedoms or rights or morals. In highshcool, they couldn't bare to tell their parents. In college, they didn't want to get fat; they didn't want to have to drop out and move back home with mommy; they didn't even know that guy; it just wasn't in the game plan...I never thought my friends, and women in general, could be so shallow.

Answer 6

>>"The pro life individual wants to protect the rights of the unborn. The pro choice individual wants to protect the rights of the born."<<

thats a crude way of saying it, but I guess after a fashion thats a way of putting it. slightly more accurate owuld be protecting the rights of the potential person over the rights of the existant person.

but imo it doesn't help your case.

can you execute someone because they might be genetically predisposed to be a serial murderer? no. they haven't done it yet.

can you convict someone of serial murder for kicking someone in the nuts? (look at all those potential lives they stopped..)

posession... or rather, EXISTANCE is nine 10ths of the law.

you can't legitimately protect the rights of a person that doesn't exist yet.

what "pro-life" people are asking for is to basically force a potential future person, to rape their own mother. (force themselves on her).

really the question is when you declare personhood. my own view is that doing this before the late term, is, well, jumping the gun. .... lol, pun not intended.

>>"The pro-life position is that the rights of EVERY individual human being must be respected, and that any so-called "right" of one human being that ignores the most fundamental rights of another human being is not a legitimate right. "<<

umm, that would result in pro-choice.
the mother's right to not having anther person force themselves on her is just as legit. the problem is until its born, it hasn't claimed rights as a person yet.

until the baby is born, or at very least, is NATURALLY viable outside of the womb, (that is, without fancy machinery and technology, thats cheating) its only a potential person. and just like potential murderers, rapists, nobel prize winners, whatever... they can't be treated as such until they actually do that thing.

I don't think that pro-choice people think theres no physical or emotional impact... but that the CURRENTLY EXISTANT person's choice, signifigantly overrides the rights of a person who is not yet in existance.

Answer 7

I am a Christian pro-life person, and I have been studying this in my Rhetoric class. There's this thing called the stasis theory that basically states "If two people can agree to disagree on the same level, a solution can be reached." Now, I'm not saying that everything will be resolved, but people will be able to see exactly where the other is coming from and be able to work from there.

In the abortion argument, pro-life people argue over quality: whether abortion is morally right or wrong; however, pro-choice people argue at definition: what determines whether someone can have an abortion? at what point? who gets to decide? Because the levels are different, I don't think that a true resolution will ever be able to be created about abortion.

Answer 8

I would add that pro-lifers believe that one should not have a choice when it comes to effecting the life or death of another individual. I do not have the choice to kill a born child, even if that child is causing me headaches. You simply do not have the right to kill another being with rights. Pro-choicers deny that an unborn child has any rights.

Answer 9

No one has the right to end a life except God.

There is no right to abortion. Never was. Never will be.

The entire concept of Pro Choice is based on a false, atheistic and communist human principle that rights come from the state.

Pro Lifers know that all rights come from God, and he never gave anyone the right to snuff out innocent life.

Answer 10

As soon as an embryo can live on its own without being sustained medically, then I'll believe it's a being of sorts. This also goes for any fetus up to a certain age.

The rights of the parent should overrule any right of the fetus and any person who is pregnant should have the ultimate decision to do what is right for them, regardless of the reason.

To ban a procedure specifically for religious reasons is rather ludicrous to me. There are no other reasons for banning abortion. If you say it's dangerous -- wrong. It's as dangerous as any medical procedure. If you say it can damage the woman's reproductive system - that's the choice the person having the abortion takes. If you say it goes against god -- well, if the person who is getting the abortion doesn't subscribe to your (or any) god, it's a moot point.

The religious right has no right pushing their minority opinion on the majority. It's only happening because the majority doesn't give a crap about their rights, it seems.

Oh, food for thought -- will gawd stop miscarriages as soon as we stop abortions? After all, it's 'his' way of performing an abortion.. and it happens more than medical abortions.