NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a quick poll to gauge the attitudes of those here. A brief explanation is also useful to explain why you feel this fits into your ideology.

Edit: Can't change the lower options, messed it up. Lower row is for pro-choice, even if it says otherwise.

I'm pro-choice and i'm a leftist. I think it fits into my worldview because my main ideal is live and let live. I think that people should have the right to live their lives however they see fit as long as they aren't hurting anyone else, at least not physically. Emotional pain is much harder to put limits on. Breaking up with someone for example can cause emotional pain, but i don't think that should be illegal. I don't think a fetus is a fully developed human being, so i don't think that constitutes hurting someone.

Too...many...people.

Contraceptives, abortion, infanticide. In the grand scheme of things, is there really a difference?*

*Much like everything else I say, I refuse to be held to this statement.

Pro-choice, leftist. I hold that human beings have the right to be free to control their own lives, and that is a core part of my ideology.

If I may ask At what point is thier a miraculus event that makes a fetus a person... And i want you a pro- "choice" to describe this event because clearly a baby the day before and after its born is 100% the same brainwise and body wise exept for ambilical cord. I ask you back it up with definitions of tearms your using such as person. human. baby because to be a human having distinct human dna. Just clarify this for me plz

Pro Life, because I happen to think it is killing. Its stupid to try to persuade someone else to my side so I wont, and I don’t think we can make abortion illegal, because its unrealistic. I’m just saying that limits have to be set, and abortion is not the same thing as birth control. If your responsible enough to have sex, sack up and be prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions. peace

Pro-choice, leftist. I hold that human beings have the right to be free to control their own lives, and that is a core part of my ideology.


At what point does a fetus stop being part of your body...??? Its clearly its own organism, similar to a baby joey in the pouch which are 2 distint organism but begin life as a zygote and grow outside of the mother in a pouch.

Pro-common sense moderate. I don't think abortion is a viable means of birth control. It certainly isn't a substitute for making intelligent choices before becoming sexually active. But there are times when it is the only sane choice and making it illegal would create a climate much like the fifties where your options, if single, were 1. Marry the father, even if he's a jerk 2. Have the baby and tough it out 3. Go to a home for unwed mothers and give it up for adoption 4. Have an illegal abortion with all the concommitant risks of disease and sterility. If you were married and simply could not afford another child physically or financially, you were s.o.l.

This should not even be a political issue.

I am a pro-life libertarian. As a libertarian I hold that people have certain natural rights, including the right to life. Furthermore, I hold that a foetus is a person, although not from conception like many extremists claim.

That said, I recognize the inherently complicated nature of the abortion debate.

Pro-choice, leftist.

If a woman doesn't want her womb occupied, then that's her business.

You forgot "against abortion but for killing babies."

You forgot "against abortion but for killing babies."

I agree with you...but I am all for abortions, too.

I definitely don't think it should be used as a form of birth control either, and that is one of many reasons why i think people need to be taught about birth control. Using it is much more likely to prevent unwanted pregnancies than not, which would lessen abortions.

As for when a fetus is a fully developed human, even scientists and doctors can't agree with that. I've looked up this information before, and there are many different opinions. I think it is at six months, when the baby is viable outside the woman's body. That is also when the baby's brain rapidly develops, so they develop the qualities we all know babies to have. The argument of when sentient life begins will go on forever, because no one has found any concrete proof.

This should not even be a political issue.

I really think the political issue behind it is whether we ought to legislate morality or not. Can we dictate to someone else that their morality ought to be the same as ours? If we can't, then why isn't murder okay? If we can, whose morality wins out - mine, or yours? It's about morality, and how we deal with it, and I think that will be the defining issue for our country - even for the world - for a long time to come.

I agree with Mr. Pro Common Sense, It shouldent just be an escape for a Crazy New Years Eve party. you should have more moral fiber than that, But, if some unlucky lady happens to get raped, and becomes pregnant because of it, I dint think it carring a memory of the rape around her, for eighteen years.

Leftist, pro-choice.

*echo* Leftist, pro-choice.

Leftist, pro-choice.
Same here.

Pro-choice, Pro-life, Independent (I suppose you might call me centrist, although it really depends on the issue.)


I really think the political issue behind it is whether we ought to legislate morality or not. Can we dictate to someone else that their morality ought to be the same as ours?

Nope.

If we can't, then why isn't murder okay?

Murder objectively harms another human being. Since the purpose of government is the protection of its people, this falls under the government's purview.

I am a pro-life libertarian. As a libertarian I hold that people have certain natural rights, including the right to life. Furthermore, I hold that a foetus is a person, although not from conception like many extremists claim.

Does this mean that you are ok with abortion to a certain stage, but not ok with it after?

Why does the poll look so ... pro life?


Your stance on abortion and political affiliation
Pro-life, centrist
Pro-life, leftist
Pro-life, rightist
Pro-life, libertarian
Pro-life, statist
Pro-choice, centrist
Pro-life, leftist
Pro-life, rightist
Pro-life, libertarian
Pro-life, statist


There is only one Pro-choice option on the list, and two pro-life choices for anything but centrist. :p

Why does the poll look so ... pro life?



There is only one Pro-choice option on the list, and two pro-life choices for anything but centrist. :p
Read the OP. It was a mistake that can't be edited.

Where's pro I don't give a crap?

Where's pro I don't give a crap?
The choice I always miss on these is "pro-compulsory abortion". That way, we'd finally find an end on the debate!

Does this mean that you are ok with abortion to a certain stage, but not ok with it after?
Yes. To a certain point in the pregnancy, the personhood of a foetus is at least questionable enough to extend reasonable doubt. I am not learned enough in the field of medicine to say exactly when that is, but, having studied the issue thuroughly, I have a rough idea.

I think that defining personhood, although rather difficult, is necessary if we want to protect the lives of people. Some people have argued that there is no scientific proof of when a foetus becomes a person. One of the reasons for this is that such a definition is inherantly a moral issue rather than a scientific issue. Creating such a definition would be a matter of examining one's conscience and using common sense. This does mean that we might enforce our morality on others, to a certain extant, but we should only do so in rare cases such as when we feel morally obligated to protect one person from another.

By saying that an object is a person we mean, in a practical sense, that in the practice of morality we regard the object as possessing a set of rights (among which most people consider life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness) which should not be violated and (according to many moral systems) ought to be protected as well. Therefore, it behooves us to examine closely the personhood of all objects whose personhood is protested, especially if we ascribe to the moral belief that a person's right to life ought to be actively protected.

Ideally, the definition of a word is a method of perfectly separating the set of objects to which the word can be assigned from the set of objects to which the word cannot be defined. For our purposes, the definition of a person merely needs to accurately separate a human foetus into one of those groups. Therefore, the following definition will suffice:

Any object which possesses the qualities of life, humanity, and individuality can accurately be described as a person. By life, we mean that it is an organism which is still alive (as in not dead). By humanity, we imply the biological definition of a human (That is, judging from an object's DNA does it fit the human genome.) The question that remains, however, is that of individuality.

Obviously, judging simply by the qualities of life and humanity our definition would be far too broad. A red blood cell possesses those qualities, but noone is alledging that a red blood cell is a person. Unfortunately, individuality is at the crux of the issue, so our inability to easily find a definition puts us in an awkward position. Fortunately, we can apply the previous idea of creating a definition that doesn't necessarily perfectly outline the word, but rather, merely suffices to separate the currently debated object into one of the two categories.

The qualities that I will look at to judge the individuality of foetuses will be dependancy and integration. One might argue that the level of dependancy that a foetus has for its mother shows that it is not individual until the latest stages of the pregnancy. Basing the definition of individuality on the level of dependancy, however, creates questions as to the individuality of the severely mentally and physically handicapped, while noone raises doubts about the individuality of those individuals.

I think that the idea that one approaches with the dependancy based definition is one of integratedness. To what extant is the foetus's system integrated with the mother's? At relatively early stages in the pregnancy, a foetus developes its own nervous system and artery system. Until relatively late stages in the pregnancy, however, the foetus's developement is partially executed by a trasfer of hormones from the mother's system.

In conclusion, in my judgement, a foetus definately becomes a person at some point between those two events. As a person, this foetus possesses a natural right to life that should be actively protected. Once again, however, it is important to note that certain excetions must be made when various complications arise.

*snip*

Sounds fairly reasonable, and I would think that it places you pretty squarely in the pro-choice camp. Politically, pro-choice simply refers to having access to legal elective abortion, but you will find very, very few people who would extend elective abortion to the entirety of pregnancy. Thus, the argument becomes, "At what point is the embryo/fetus a person to be protected?" It moves the debate a bit, but allows for elective abortion at some points.

I have found that most pro-choicers place the limitation of abortion at time points similar to your own - generally related to neural development, for a number of reasons.

Sounds fairly reasonable, and I would think that it places you pretty squarely in the pro-choice camp. Politically, pro-choice simply refers to having access to legal elective abortion, but you will find very, very few people who would extend elective abortion to the entirety of pregnancy. Thus, the argument becomes, "At what point is the embryo/fetus a person to be protected?" It moves the debate a bit, but allows for elective abortion at some points.

I have found that most pro-choicers place the limitation of abortion at time points similar to your own - generally related to neural development, for a number of reasons.
I place myself in the moderate pro-life camp for a few reasons. Libertarians are generally very very pro-choice, so by comparison to my fellow party members I would be considered pro-life. Secondly, I tend to lean toward the earlier portion of the time period I described. That would put my opinion at about 11 weeks, a relatively early limitation if I were to describe myself as pro-choice. Thirdly, I am extremely morally oppossed to all abortions (excluding mortally necessary ones). Finally, and most importantly, I think that I am to the right of the government on this issue. While late term abortions are highly regulated they are still legal on the federal level for reasons other than medical necessity. The fact that few doctors will perform them without medical necessity implies nothing about government policy on this issue. (Note that I am not saying that I am to the right of people in power in the government. I am to the right of government policy on late term abortions. The people in power are just too stubborn and imcompetent to pass a law that is moderate enough to avoid getting pwnd by the courts.)

short answer pro-choice, right (in America...sorry "the USA" anyway)

long answer, I don't like abortion I think it's morally wrong, I wish people didn't do it, those are all opinions, I don't like to force my opinions on others (unless I can back them up, which I can't)

so anyway, if I ever find a way to scientifically prove that I am right and a fetus is alive (heck, I would like to prove an embreyo is alive) then I will switch back, but for now, my beliefs on it shouldn't get in someone else's way of aborting their child.

Very delicate issue, I shouldn't like to commit myself personally.

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. I'm pro the lives of people, and pro the choice to have an abortion.

Foetuses are not people. Regardless of when life 'begins' in the womb, a foetus is not a human life until it is born. Potential human? Sure, why not. But to be a person, you need to have the characteristics of a person, including the ability to function without being inside and attached to one's mother.

Not being people, foetuses do not have a right to life that outweighs a woman's right to freedom.

Pro-Abortion rationalist. I don't fit on the poll.

Pro-abortion, broadly centrist.

If I may ask At what point is thier a miraculus event that makes a fetus a person... And i want you a pro- "choice" to describe this event because clearly a baby the day before and after its born is 100% the same brainwise and body wise exept for ambilical cord. I ask you back it up with definitions of tearms your using such as person. human. baby because to be a human having distinct human dna. Just clarify this for me plz

I'd imagine a functioning neural system.

Pro-Choice libertarian... Is any explanation really needed?

Pro choice and leftist.

Why? Because if you want an abortion, you can get it. If you happen to be pro life, noone is going to force you to have one.

The government should not have any say at all over what my or anyones morals are - whether it be abortion, drugs or sexuality.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen defines Liberty as "Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights." That should be the only limit on restricting the actions of the individual, not the morals of a single religion or 'majority'.