NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I know that there is a discussion on abortion going on right now in a thread, and I also know that the abortion poll has been done, but I think I have a better poll for abortion.

I personally am pro-choice, although I would never do it myself.

A few points about the poll:

- This is an opinion poll. What is your opinion on the matter in a situation like this. (saying "I think only women who are in this position should choose, we have no right" doesn't apply... it asks for what do you think should be (whether or not your opinion should count) and what would you do in the situation)
- Guys, pretend that you'd be able to be pregnant, it's not that hard to do, and then think about if you would have an abortion or not.
- Vote on your personal feelings on the matter at the current moment. You could still vote pro-choice but would never do it, if that's what you feel, despite having had an abortion in the past.
- Also, this is in normal circumstances, for contemplating abortion. This isn't a mother's life in danger or rape.

this poll is better, I voted.

:D

I anticipated your reply! (time warp)

this poll is better, I voted.

Thank you for fixing it.

I"m for a right to choose. I'm also for prevention. I do not want kids ever. I've chosen one of the most fail safe methods of birth control, I also use condoms and a supply of morning after pills.

If it ever comes down to it, I will [more than likely] have an abortion. I couldn't have a child and give it up to some stranger to raise. I know the pro-lifers will ask if it's better to murder my child instead of giving up to a home that could very well be loving and happy.

I don't believe life begins at conception. I don't think life begins until the fetus/ baby has cognitive brain funcition. I would have the baby if I didn't find out I was pregnant until the second trimester. I would also have the baby if my mom was willing to adopt it.

I'm pro-choice, but I can't really know if I would be willing to have an abortion or not, what with the whole lack of a uterus thing.

i am 'pro-choice' but, as i am male and lacking a womb, and as i am squeemish and not willing to wield a coathanger, i would never do it myself. i can't know how i would feel about a foetus i conceived being aborted until such a situation arises. i hope it never does, but i'm not going to rule out the possibility that it may be necessary or desirable to go through with it.

oops, i didn't read the OP properly. my vote still stands though, i voted for the first one.

I'm pro-choice, but I can't really know if I would be willing to have an abortion or not, what with the whole lack of a uterus thing.

don't worry about it. i'm sure you could get one on ebay.

I'm one of those horrible people who would drop a baby like a hot plate at the first excuse

I don't think I could have an abortion, however, I'm not going to tell any person what to do with their body and I don't want anyone telling me what to do with mine.

How do abortions happen (don't worry, I have a huge disgust-resistance)?

I don't think I could have an abortion, however, I'm not going to tell any person what to do with their body and I don't want anyone telling me what to do with mine.

Touch your toes.

How do abortions happen (don't worry, I have a huge disgust-resistance)?

In the first trimester they give you a pill. Then you have an extra crampy super heavy "period".

Second trimester they have to dilate your cervix then suck and scrape it out.

Third trimester abortions are barbaric and thankfully only performed if the mother's life is in danger. I'm not sure if the technology has changed, but they are the infamous partial birth abortions.

I hope I never have an abortion, because I'm a male :D

I hope I never have an abortion, because I'm a male :D

would you rather give birth? :eek:

In a striking display of non-dualistic thought, I'm both pro-life and pro-choice, as well as being in favor of a number of other good things like general political equality.

Similarly, I'm both pro-red and pro-blue, in addition to being in favor of other colors like yellow. I just figure that sometimes blue is a better fit, and other times red makes more sense with the color scheme. I'm just silly like that, I guess.

Finally, decent options.

No one's protesting that the poll is biased and that the proper term is not "Pro-Life" but "Anti-Choice Woman Hating Fundie"? That was the whole fun of the last thread...

In a striking display of non-dualistic thought, I'm both pro-life and pro-choice, as well as being in favor of a number of other good things like general political equality.

Similarly, I'm both pro-red and pro-blue, in addition to being in favor of other colors like yellow. I just figure that sometimes blue is a better fit, and other times red makes more sense with the color scheme. I'm just silly like that, I guess.

Being pro-life and pro-choice at the same time is perfectly reasonable. Personally I think pro-life is a misonomer. Anti-abortion would be a better term for that side, but that doesn't even fully encompass their stance. Anti-choice would probably be the most accuate, but it's highly unlikely that side of the fence will ever willingly adopt that title.

I think the majority of pro-choicers are also pro-life in the literal sense. We don't go wandering the streets with abortion pills forcing them down the throats of the newly pregnant. Nor do we do a happy dance over a newly aborted fetus.

would you rather give birth? :eek:

Hmmm, I'd rather have somebody else doing all that hard labouring for me :D

Being pro-life and pro-choice at the same time is perfectly reasonable. Personally I think pro-life is a misonomer. Anti-abortion would be a better term for that side, but that doesn't even fully encompass their stance. Anti-choice would probably be the most accuate, but it's highly unlikely that side of the fence will ever willingly adopt that title.

I disagree somewhat, in that I don't think the anti-choice label would fit your average pro-lifer. Most pro-lifers are not opposed to choice, they just value human life in its early stages far more highly than the average pro-choice person would.

The debate over abortion, particularly in the case of the two broad camps, is a very complicated question of balancing two good things: Which is more important in general, the right of a woman to control her own body or the preservation of a human fetus?

I think the majority of pro-choicers are also pro-life in the literal sense. We don't go wandering the streets with abortion pills forcing them down the throats of the newly pregnant. Nor do we do a happy dance over a newly aborted fetus.

Exactly right.

I lack a uterus, so none of the poll options really fit me.

I disagree somewhat, in that I don't think the anti-choice label would fit your average pro-lifer. Most pro-lifers are not opposed to choice, they just value human life in its early stages far more highly than the average pro-choice person would.

A pro-choice person, like myself, can certainly place just as much value upon an embryo/fetus as a person who would push to make abortion illegal. The fact that I am pro-choice does not make me any less opposed to abortion than those who would make it illegal. It simply means that I don't see it as my right to make it illegal.

Those who want to make it illegal are no more opposed to abortion than I am. The difference is that they don't think the choice to have one should even be available. In that sense, especially if we are looking for a term for a stance that is actually opposed to pro-choice, anti-choice fits the best.

Pro-life doesn't work, and neither does anti-abortion. You can be both of those things and still be pro-choice.

I disagree somewhat, in that I don't think the anti-choice label would fit your average pro-lifer. Most pro-lifers are not opposed to choice, they just value human life in its early stages far more highly than the average pro-choice person would.
I see your point. I find "pro-life" a tad offensive because the implication is the other side is anti-life.

The debate over abortion, particularly in the case of the two broad camps, is a very complicated question of balancing two good things: Which is more important in general, the right of a woman to control her own body or the preservation of a human fetus?

It is unfortuante this is such a complex issue. It's not like armed robbery where almost everyone falls squarely on one side or the other. Most pro-lifers aren't unequivably against abortions. Most see there are exceptions to the rule (usually rape, incest, danger to the mother's life). Most pro-choicers wish that [certain] women would excercise some common sense and use birth control so they aren't in that position to begin with.

I'm sure it's too much to ask for both sides to sit down together and hammer out some common sense legislation. Both sides could make some concessions.

You need a "I am pro-life, and can't have an abortion" and "I am pro-choice and can't have an abortion".

I'm pro-choice, and I would be willing to have an abortion if I could get pregnant.

I don't think life begins until the fetus/ baby has cognitive brain funcition.
That doesn't happen until they're 15.

I'm pro-choice, but only in certain cases. For example, if the woman becomes pregnant after being raped, or if she is in danger of losing her own life if the pregnancy continues. I have heard of women having abortions because they found out that their child will be born with handicaps, such as downs syndrome. I'm a little torn on that part of it.

I disagree somewhat, in that I don't think the anti-choice label would fit your average pro-lifer. Most pro-lifers are not opposed to choice, they just value human life in its early stages far more highly than the average pro-choice person would.

The debate over abortion, particularly in the case of the two broad camps, is a very complicated question of balancing two good things: Which is more important in general, the right of a woman to control her own body or the preservation of a human fetus?


whatever. im not interested in claiming to know the motives of either side.

i prefer to think of it as those who want liberal abortion laws and those who want very strict abortion laws.

few prochoice people want abortion on demand up until the day the woman goes into labor. few pro-life people want to ban abortions that would save the life of the mother. the fight lies between those 2 extremes

i prefer more liberal laws that allow abortion on demand until about 16 weeks, and medical necessity after that.

other people draw the line differently.

That doesn't happen until they're 15.

yeah but if we allowed abortion on demand up to age 15 (its more like 21) how many children would make it to adulthood?

I'm pro-choice, but only in certain cases. For example, if the woman becomes pregnant after being raped, or if she is in danger of losing her own life if the pregnancy continues. I have heard of women having abortions because they found out that their child will be born with handicaps, such as downs syndrome. I'm a little torn on that part of it.

I'm torn on that as well - not that women should be able to abort in certain cases of fetal deformity - but more in what deformities should count. Such abortions are almost always late trimester abortions, and the particular fetal health problems that are allowed as reasons vary from state to state. In the case of trisomy of any autosomal chromosome other than 21, I would whole-heartedly support the woman's choice. In cases of truly severe hydroencephaly or in cases of anencephaly, I would whole-heartedly support it.

In cases of cleft palate or Down's (both allowed in some states), on the other hand, I'm much less likely to support her decision. Cleft palate can most often be corrected with plastic surgery, and Down's patients quite often live full and happy lives, despite their difficulties.

I'm torn on that as well - not that women should be able to abort in certain cases of fetal deformity - but more in what deformities should count. Such abortions are almost always late trimester abortions, and the particular fetal health problems that are allowed as reasons vary from state to state. In the case of trisomy of any autosomal chromosome other than 21, I would whole-heartedly support the woman's choice. In cases of truly severe hydroencephaly or in cases of anencephaly, I would whole-heartedly support it.

In cases of cleft palate or Down's (both allowed in some states), on the other hand, I'm much less likely to support her decision. Cleft palate can most often be corrected with plastic surgery, and Down's patients quite often live full and happy lives, despite their difficulties.


That's pretty much where I stand. I'm not sure what the laws here(I'm Canadian) are regarding abortion in these cases, but it should only be allowed in the extreme cases you have described. However, there are people who either wouldn't be able to afford the cost of the plastic surgery or wouldn't be able to live with the emotional stress that having baby with Down's or some other birth defects would cause.

This aspect of abortion justs adds to the touchiness of the whole issue. I think it would come down to what the mother would want to do.

Part of the reason I don't want kids is because I don't want severely handicapped kids, mostly the severly mentally handicapped. Mostly I worry about what would happen to them after I die. I would worry about them going to some state run facility and not having anyone that loves them taking care [or not taking care of them]. I also think about their quality of life. Down's Syndrome people seems very happy and content with life, other people with other disabilities don't seem as happy. It's cruel to bring someone into this world that's going to be miserable for their entire life. I'd also feel horrible about aborting a child for that reason and that reason only.

Also, we should be able to abort children over 21 in certain circumstances. Like people who talk at the theatre.

A pro-choice person, like myself, can certainly place just as much value upon an embryo/fetus as a person who would push to make abortion illegal.

Yes, but neither you nor I fit the mindset of the average pro-life/pro-choice person, which is what I was addressing.

Pro-life doesn't work, and neither does anti-abortion. You can be both of those things and still be pro-choice.

Indeed. Which is why I object to the debate being framed in dualistic terms. If we wanted to make a list of positions that could be held on abortion and try to fit them under either the pro-choice/anti-choice or pro-life/anti-life labels, we'd run into massive problems from both ends and the middle.

If I somehow got pregnant, however, I certainly get an abortion. I just don't have the necessary instincts to raise children.


Especially since my reaction to seeing a newborn baby is "Kill it with fire!".

Yes, but neither you nor I fit the mindset of the average pro-life/pro-choice person, which is what I was addressing.

I think we're closer than you might think to the average.

I'm sure it's too much to ask for both sides to sit down together and hammer out some common sense legislation. Both sides could make some concessions.

Well so far as I'm aware, in the United States we do have (mostly) moderate legislation on the issue. Abortions are legal (except for mid-to-late term depending on the state you're in last time I heard) and responsibility in sexual activity is generally encouraged, whether that be by promoting abstinence or contraceptives.

Actually, the contraceptives issue is the more legally controversial one the past few years, as far as I can tell, and though the abortion debate is very much alive on an ideological level, it seems to be pretty settled that abortions will be legal to some extent or another in the US.

whatever. im not interested in claiming to know the motives of either side.

i prefer to think of it as those who want liberal abortion laws and those who want very strict abortion laws.

few prochoice people want abortion on demand up until the day the woman goes into labor. few pro-life people want to ban abortions that would save the life of the mother. the fight lies between those 2 extremes

i prefer more liberal laws that allow abortion on demand until about 16 weeks, and medical necessity after that.

other people draw the line differently.

I don't claim to know people's motives either. What I do claim to know is what the say their views are.

And I'm leery of trying to make it an entirely political issue, because ethics and politics are, and should be as far as I'm concerned (hell I wish there were more ethics in politics) a large part of politics.

So I think the question of values, whether a woman's right to her own body or the preservation of a human fetus should be held more important, is very much a relevant one, even the central one that should inform our political views.

I think we're closer than you might think to the average.

I'd agree that we're close to the overall average. Not that we fit the average views of folks within the context of the pro-choice or pro-life movements.

yeah but if we allowed abortion on demand up to age 15 (its more like 21) how many children would make it to adulthood?
If anti-abortion activists made outcome-based arguments like that (our birth rate is too low - let's stop killing babies) I'd be much inclinced to listen to them.

I support abortion up to the start of the second trimester but no later barring medical emergency. Once the brain forms, there is no question that that fetus is a human being.

As far as I know I am unable to even get pregnant...