English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have been taught to believe it does.

2006-11-16 04:12:27 · 40 answers · asked by Sean 5 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

where is the babies choice?

2006-11-16 04:17:18 · update #1

40 answers

yep, because they are for abortions-- or pro death - however u want to look at it, and u are absolutely right where is the babys choice, after all its his/her body that they are ripping up

2006-11-16 19:11:17 · answer #1 · answered by ♥ gina ♥ 4 · 1 1

Each of us has a choice, even when we are constrained by present circumstances or past behavior in some way. To maintain that having a choice means that one will decide always on one side is simply ludicrous. Even fundamentalists should be pro choice. You may restrict one's actions, and hence his likely choices, but you cannot force one to either choose or believe. Jesus always encouraged choices, although he would prefer the ones which were Godly. That's all fundamentalism is.
Clearly we do not have a choice to do certain things, such as flap our arms and fly or leap tall buildings, but we do have a choice over whether we take one path or not, despite efforts to constrict those choices. The difficulty with the term, as I see it, is that it is too narrow. As Santayana said, "Freedom is the right to say no." Jesus encouraged freedom of choice.
The real issue is whether an individual decides that being pro choice is only about a woman's right to use abortion as a matter of convenience. Unfortunately, that begs the question as to whether anyone, woman or man, has the right to make certain decisions. It is bad logic to believe that one has the right to do something simply because he or she is able to do something. Nevertheless, one should be keenly aware of all the possibilities when making a choice. The difficult part is that we are often ill-prepared for the consequences of some of those choices.

2006-11-16 04:46:59 · answer #2 · answered by Bentley 4 · 1 0

No, not at all. I am definitely pro-choice, but I am against abortion for myself. I don't feel I have the right to decide for another person, dealing with another set of circumstances, whether or not she should have an abortion. I am just glad I don't have to make such a choice for myself or those I love. However, I want to respect those who are face with that choice and truly believe that the decision to have an abortion is never taken lightly and is a very personal one. No one has the right to force a woman to have a child and then abandon that woman and that child. What I find very unfair is that many of the same "pro-life" people who are forcing their choice on others are generally very much against welfare, support for schools, food stamps, and any financial support for children of the poor.

2006-11-16 04:44:22 · answer #3 · answered by newcalalily 3 · 2 1

No. Pro Choice means that you believe that a woman should have to right to choose if she wants to have a baby or not. You can be against abortion and still believe in the right to choose.

2006-11-16 04:22:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I think this is a bit of a silly semantical argument. Most people who are pro-choice wish that abortion was never an option that someone would need. The reality of the world as it is though is that things aren't always perfect. Pro-choice means that you believe the decision to become a parent is a private and personal one and that sometimes things are not straight forward. Some women find out they are carry a baby with profound birth defects, some women get raped, some girls not old enough or ready to be a mother get pregnant, some women have other issues. By the way most of the vocal anti-choice movements are also ultimately for restricting access to sex ed and birth control. Studies have shown that access to these things has decreased the number of abortions. So I think the anti-choice agenda is much deeper and restrictive than this issue. I think if you are concerned about abortions a much more positive response is to address the reasons people might need one like improving birth control and increase child services to single moms and poor families. In the time it took someone to read this over 200 children already born in the world starved to death. One in eight American children goes to bed hungry. Think of the good the money spent trying to make abortion illegal could have done for the already born children who are actually sentient and have feelings.

2006-11-16 04:20:24 · answer #5 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 5 3

No. It's more like "abortion-tolerant". The term "Pro-Choice" was undoubtedly chosen with care. "Pro-abortion" is not only politically unpalatable but it is also inaccurate. There may be a few fanatics who would promote any means to keep the population growth rate as low as possible, but for most pro-choicers, it's a matter of allowing people reproductive options. I believe most women who consider themselves pro-choice have not had an abortion and many would not consider having one under most circumstances. But they recognize that the people who suffer most under morally absolute legislation are the economic and social underclasses.

There is also a practical issue. Laws or not, people are going to seek abortions. If it is illegal, if it is pushed underground, abortion would become a medically invasive procedure that is not licensed, regulated or certified. As criminals, people who perform abortions would not be responsible for their own competence or patient care. The chances of death or mutilation would increase dramatically.

It is comparable to alcohol prohibition, the war on drugs, or gun regulation. "Immoral" behavior can be a social problem, but whenever draconian laws are passed to prohibit it, crime increases and public safety is threatened. Regulation is a compromise that keeps problems from getting out of hand. Those who consider the behavior sinful should preach against it and avoid it themselves, but outright prohibition amounts to restraint of conscience, which is morally indefensible.

Thoughtful pro-choicers (there are others, of course) consider abortion a last, desperate resort among many better options. They promote unbiased sex education and family plannning to make abortion as unlikely as possible. "Safe, legal and rare" is a phrase they often use. They may not agree on thorny philosophical issues such as when human life begins, but they believe people must be allowed to make their own (informed) moral choices.

2006-11-16 04:52:49 · answer #6 · answered by skepsis 7 · 2 1

Perhaps you have not been taught correctly.

Have you ever considered the idea that the best way to stop abortions is through education rather than through legislation.

On a personal level, I cannot favor abortions. I would even go so far to say that I find them immoral. This does not mean that I think that they should be outlawed.

However, there are lots of things that I find immoral that I do not feel should be made illegal. I'm sure that you feel the same way.

Lots of people felt that the sale of alcohol should be made illegal. However, things actually got worse when it was outlawed. Have you ever thought that things might get worse if abortions are outlawed? I believe that they would.

We now combat alcohol abuse primarily through education. We should do the same with abortion. We need to educate young men and women in methods of birth control.

2006-11-16 04:21:59 · answer #7 · answered by Ranto 7 · 3 2

Yes. Saying "I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortion" is exactly like saying "I'm pro-choice when it comes to slavery" or "I'm pro-choice when it comes to rape." If a person claims to be personally against slavery and rape, but argues that others should have the "choice" to own slaves and rape people, would you believe them when they say they are not pro-slavery and pro-rape? Please. If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why do people object to being called pro-aborts?

2006-11-17 04:52:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Theoretically, yes. And before someone jumps down my throat, hear me out. By voting yes to the choice of abortion, you are, in theory, saying it's ok to have one, and thus, are for it. YOu cannot be pro-choice and not say that aborition is ok. YOu say it's a choice now, but you are giving it your stamp of approval. Therefore, pro choice is pro abortion. To be anti-abortion, you don't want it as a choice at all.

2006-11-16 04:27:06 · answer #9 · answered by sister steph 6 · 2 2

No one is pro-abortion except the doctors who get paid for performing them. I am pro-choice, but to me it means that I believe in a woman's freedom to have an abortion if she feels it is what she needs to do, rather than have the baby and keep it, or give it up for adoption. People have their reasons, and it is wrong to force them into dark alleys, or do-it-yourself situations, when a doctor is the only person who should be performing the surgery.
Did you watch "I pity the fool" last night? It was too funny.

2006-11-16 04:20:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

No.
If it meant the same thing, wouldn't it be worded the same?

Pro Choice means just that. You believe that women should have a CHOICE as to whether to have an abortion or not. Every situation is different.

Pro Abortion means that you loves abortions. You think everyone should have them. You must be sick.

I hate when people confuse the two because they are 2 completely different things. I know tons of people that are pro choice but would NEVER have an abortion themselves, but don't feel like they have the right to tell other women what they should do.

Hope this helps!

2006-11-16 04:17:02 · answer #11 · answered by suekiemama@sbcglobal.net 2 · 4 5

fedest.com, questions and answers