What is a good reason for pro-choice to be allowed?

Question

There is a debate in class, any good information is welcome.

Answer 1

The main argument against it is that it isn't "religious"; however, most religions didn't have an issue with it until a few hundred years ago -- until recently, Christians did not consider a fetus to be "alive" until the mom felt it kick.

Answer 2

Women are smart enough and capable of making the decision on their own.
Women and young girls are victims of rape.
Some women live in poverty.
Not all women have health care.
Pregnancy can cause many complications, especially in very young women.
If a young woman gets pregnant, she could be in an abusive home where her parents could endanger her life if they found out she was pregnant. (Sometimes men rape their daughters as well.)
There is debate about the start of life. (The idea that life begins at conception is from Medieval Catholicism because it was believed that humans were very tiny at the beginning and the sperm allowed the tiny person to grow into a baby. This is obviously wrong, but the values stay the same. Then again, the Medieval Catholics though that masturbation was a worse sin than incest.)
Pregnancy can endanger the lives of women.
Some people believe it is better to have wanted children they can care for than unwanted children in poverty.
Not all birth control is 100% effective. Sometimes birth control can fail and not everyone has access to Plan B.
Not everyone has access to birth control in the first place.
Average cost of hospital delivery ranges from $10,000-$30,000, but an average abortion costs $500.
Not all women want to have children. Married women who use contraceptives face the same chance of pregnancy as unmarried women.
Ectopic pregnancies.
Forcing women to have children against their will is not a very nice thing to do. While people may argue that the embryo/fetus has rights, the woman is already a person and she should have rights as well. Keep in mind that not all women want to be mothers or even engage in sex willingly.

Answer 3

Pro choice about what exactly, there's homosexuality, abortion.


But with anything the best argument you could have is dictating.
Free will would be your greatest argument.
Would your apponent like some one governing every aspect of their life, right down to the food they eat.

No one likes someone comming in and taking controll of a life that is not theirs. That's what makes America so great.

If we could dictate eachother's life's then what makes us better that North Korea?


The point is, It is no one elses say except the woman in question.Why should I let anyone. Exspecially a man dictate my body. I will never kill my child, but I will not tell another woman what to do with her body. That is for HER to decide.

And let me ask you something Pro Lifer's. Let's say a woman had HIV, Or even genele Herpes.

The baby will be born with whatever disease the mother has. Now lets go on and say it is Genetle Herpes. If the mother is having an outbreak (sometimes the sores aren't visible with a naked eye) while in labor, poor little baby is going to have genetal herpes, from head to toe.


Now in my eyes, making an baby face the world like that is way more cruel then aborting it, before the child can feel physical pain.

And if the mother had aids, or HIV. Well the death will be ALOT more painfull ( for both the child and family) that it would have aborting it.


just some food for thought.

Answer 4

While I don't think abortion should be used at birth control - I think pro-choice definitely helps cull the population and takes some burden off the tax payers so they don't have to pay for a bunch of unwanted children. It also helps young people who make a big mistake. Their lives don't have to be ruined by an unplanned pregnancy. On a more practical note - since doctors can now detect severe birth defects and genetic diseases when a child is in the womb, we can eliminate the pain and suffering of many children and families by finding this out early and terminating these types of pregnancies. Also - in some instances, abortion can save a woman's life (if the baby inside her will end up killing her). Not to mention that once the state starts legislating women's bodies they might start legislating intercourse, menstral cycles, bodily functions -- who knows. A woman has the right to choose whether or not she will be used as a vessel for a fetus or not. She has to live with her choices. Her choices do not affect the rest of us. You also might consider how many women died of illegal abortions before Roe vs. Wade. That will come back - where young women have illegal abortions because aborting the child is worth risking their lives for. Don't forget the women who are raped and get pregnant. Should we force them to suffer and continually relive their rape for 9 months? They're going to end up dumping the child on the system anyway.

What cracks me up about pro-life people is how many of them actually adopt unwanted children? Especially unwanted children who have special needs? My guess is a very SMALL percentage actually support pro-life 100%. Most of the pro-lifers don't care about the kids the second they're born. Once they're born - they're on their own.

Answer 5

No good reason comes to mind. Even in the case of a rape, is it the child's fault that the woman was raped? No, it was the fool who raped her who caused this. Why blame and murder a child for the actions of an adult. Also, if an unborn child is found to have some sort of illness or physical disorder, who has the right to say that that child shouldn't exist?

If a woman willingly allows a man to have intercourse with her, she (and that man) should also be willing to take on the responsibility of the child. If not, there's always adoption. If a teenager "messes up" (even though there's a ton of sex education out there supplied by our schools and the media explaining what happens when two people have sex), then that teenager has made a decision to do something that will affect the rest of her (and, in a perfect world, his) life. Unfortunately, many parents today would rather have the child aborted for reasons of shame or uncaring than try to support their daughter and the boy who impregnated her.

We spend billions of dollars each year trying to save baby seals and pound puppies, yet we have no problem with murdering innocent children. It's a child, it's never been a choice!

Answer 6

I accept as true with both your factors. i imagine the rape sufferer reason is in effortless words round 10% or a lot less. i imagine the blunders human beings make or percieve is that professional-determination is professional-abortion. It isnt, its merely recognising the rights of someone to opt for on in the adventure that they opt for to flow by skill of with the being pregnant. I heavily doubt each person who's professional-determination feels a experience of loss at the same time as someone chooses no longer to have an abortion. a lot the same as a specialist-determination doesnt rejoice and celebrate someone having an abortion. finally in spite of the undeniable fact that they could be at liberty to the alternative develop into there for that individual. there isn't any determination with the pro-lifestyles arguement - you may flow by skill of the being pregnant. i recognize human beings that've had abortions and those who would have yet didnt. I dont part with both being more beneficial than the different yet I part with the alternative that they made and that i help peoples determination. As a guy, if a lady I had a one evening stand with ended up pregnant I wouldnt have a difficulty inclusive of her having an abortion and may help her determination. yet when i'm getting my female friend of three years pregnant and she or he needs an abortion because she feels its going to intervene inclusive of her occupation - truly i'd have a difficulty with that and strive against for my baby. i'm particular some professional-lifestyles supporters may say "what about the rights of the youngster or the alternative of the youngster, wouldnt they opt for to stay". it is at the same time as the argument receives slowed down in nonesense, emotional argument in accordance with belongings you cant coach or validate.

Answer 7

"Pro Life" people aren't allowed to scratch an itch on their skin. If killing a group of cells inside the body is murder, than doing so on the outside of the body is murder as well.

Right-to-Lifers are all about right to life, but not right to QUALITY of life. Picture the following: A 15 year old girl becomes pregnant. The father runs off into the night never to be seen again. The parents will kick the girl out of the home if they find out. Without an abortion you have 2 homeless children on the streets, neither likely to survive. So in a sense, you've created 2 losses of life where as one injection would have saved a life. It would seem that right-to-lifers argument is that 2 wrongs make a right.

The bottom line is: Pro-Choice people aren't forcing Pro-Life people to get abortions. Pro-Life people are forcing Pro-Choice people to abstain from abortions. Hypothetically, if my girlfriend and I decided to abort a pregnancy, then how does that affect anyone in the church up the street? It doesn't and I wouldn't go in there and force anyone to abort a pregnancy. Yet most of that congregation would probably try to step in and force me to run my life the way they run theirs.

Hm... I seem to recall this scenario happening in history before. There were a group of people forcing their will on other groups and sending them to death camps if they didn't comply. Except those videos were all in German and the only words I could understand were "Zeig Heil"

This is my challenge: Show me in the Bible where it says abortion is against God and I will renounce my position. If you quote "Thou shalt not murder" then you must prove to me that a fetus is self-aware despite having no high-level brain activity.

Answer 8

According to the constitution every U.S. citizen is entitled to equal rights. If you take this right away from a woman, what would you take away from the man? He is unable to give birth, so that ability could not be taken away. Some people argue that it is murder but if people paid attention in Biology they would know that when the abortion would occur the "baby" would be in an early stage of meiosis, not even formed into a living human being. I am pro - choice because it is a woman's body and her right to choose. If she's not ready then she's not ready. But I do believe that if you choose to have an abortion because "you are not ready" you were also not ready to take on the consequences of sex.

Answer 9

Abortion is a very touchy subject and talking about it can result in anger and accusations. Therefore, I will take great pains not to offend anyone needlessly or carelessly. As a Christian, I believe abortion is wrong. But, I will not point an angry condemning finger at anyone who has had an abortion or supports abortion. You will see why if you finish reading this.

Many Christian website's attack people who support abortion. I do not to believe an outright attack is proper on my website. Abortion is a difficult subject to tactfully address and emotions can flare up easily. I will seek to avoid that error of inciting emotionalism. If I fail at it, I have only myself to blame. However, I will try to persuade people using reason -- and scripture -- to avoid abortions.

However, because I am a man, many women will dismiss my comments as irrelevant and maybe even unsympathetic since I cannot relate to having an abortion or to carrying a child. Others, I suspect, may be tempted to dismiss my comments because I am a Christian as well as a man. I can only hope that they will not do that and give me a fair chance.
Others may assume that I will try to condemn them and the use the Bible to bash and ridicule. I won't. But, I will quote the Bible, not as a club, but as a source of forgiveness and encouragement. Since I am a Christian, the Bible is my standard of truth and I cannot help but consult it for guidance.

Many people will refuse to accept God's word as a standard by which they should live and make decisions. That is their right to reject it. Nevertheless, I offer the following as reasons for not having abortions.

What is growing in the womb of the woman is alive.
Even one celled creatures are alive.
What is growing in the woman is more than a one celled creature.
The nature of the life in the woman is human.
It is the product of human DNA, therefore it's nature, its essence is undeniably human.
Because it is human in nature, if left to live, it will result in a fully developed human baby.
Humans are humans not because they have feet, hands, walk vertically, and speak, etc. Not all people have feet, hands, can walk, and speak. They are humans because of their nature, their essence, not because of physical abilities or disabilities.
A person born without arms and legs is still human.
A person who cannot speak is still human.
A person in a coma, helpless, unaware, unmoving, is still human by nature and it is wrong to murder such a person.
What is growing in the womb does not have the nature of an animal, a bird, or a fish. It has human nature.
If it is not human in nature, then what nature is it?
If it is not human in nature, then does it have a different nature than human?
If so, then from where did it get this different nature since the only sources of its nature are human egg and and human sperm?
Objection: A cell in the body has human DNA and is alive and it is okay to kill it. So, it doesn't make any difference with a fetus.
Though it is true that a cell in the human body has DNA and is alive, a cell (muscle cell, skin cell, etc.) has the nature of being only what it is -- not a human. In other words, a muscle cell is by nature a muscle cell. A skin cell is by nature a skin cell. But, the fertilized egg of a human is by nature that very thing which becomes a fully developed human. Its nature is different than that of a muscle or skin cell because they do not grow into humans. Therefore, they are not the same thing.
A fertilized human egg has the nature of human development and it is alive. This is not so with a muscle or skin cell.
To abort the life, which is human in nature, is to kill that which is human in nature.
Therefore, abortion is killing a life which is human by nature.
Where, then, does the mother get the right to kill the human within her?
A question for those who believe in abortion and that the life in the womb is not human. Is it okay to take a fertilized egg between a man and a woman and place it in the womb of a dog?
If you say no, then why? If it is not human then it doesn't matter, right?
If you say no because it will become a human then you admit that it has human nature and is alive. If it is human in nature and alive, then you do not have the right to abort it.
If you say it is alright, why is it okay

Answer 10

1) because it is the law
2) because if it were suddenly illegal again, women would seek out less healthy alternatives like they did in the 1960s. This could result in many more deaths to the women involved, or permanent serious injuries
3) performing this operation in a clean, sterile setting is better for the woman psychologically
4) removing this forces women to bear a child that is the result of rape or incest
5) removing this forces women to bear a child that could medically endanger their life

Granted, it is abhorrent when abortion is used as birth control. It would be wonderful if every child conceived is wanted. But until we mature as a society to that point, I defend a woman's right to choose what goes on in her body.