Is there anyone here who is pro-choice?

D

Diogenes

Guest
I wouldn't think so, but I thought I'd ask.

I'd imagine most of the atheists here are pro-choice. I would qualify myself as pro-choice with some reservations. I don't have an issue with Planned Parenthood loosing government support, clinics that preform surgeries requiring higher standards of operation, or post 1st Trimester restrictions,
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
I suppose I should have said, "Is anyone here 'pro-abortion.'"

I am glad to hear that you support choice even though you are anti-abortion. I am in the same boat, and I suspect we agree on more than we disagree.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I suppose I should have said, "Is anyone here 'pro-abortion.'"
I'm not.

I'm pro-choice, though. For me, that means on demand in the first trimester, I'm not sure how to handle second trimester abortions, and I can't see many legitimate/justifiable reasons to get one in the third.
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
I suppose I should have said, "Is anyone here 'pro-abortion.'"

I am glad to hear that you support choice even though you are anti-abortion.

I don't understand what you mean by "anti-abortion" while being pro-choice.

I am in the same boat, and I suspect we agree on more than we disagree.

When it comes to public policy, I'm rather pragmatically centrist.


I'm pro-choice, though. For me, that means on demand in the first trimester, I'm not sure how to handle second trimester abortions, and I can't see many legitimate/justifiable reasons to get one in the third.

I'm okay with late-term abortions when it's clear the mother's life is in danger. I tend to treat 2nd Trimesters as the foetus could be a person in light of the Sorites Paradox and prefer to err on the side of caution.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I'm okay with late-term abortions when it's clear the mother's life is in danger. I tend to treat 2nd Trimesters as the foetus could be a person in light of the Sorites Paradox and prefer to err on the side of caution.
I don't disagree with any of this. For me, the blob of cells gradually becomes a human being over the course of 9 months, such that any discomfort I have with abortion increases as gestation progresses. As a guy, I'd never assert that abortion should be illegal, but I have a difficult time being charitable to the idea of third-term "contraception" (which is extremely rare).

ps. kudos for the logic reference. I knew of it informally, but did not know the name...
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
, but I have a difficult time being charitable to the idea of third-term "contraception" (which is extremely rare).

My charitability is mainly from right to preservation in that, when a life is threatened, the life being threatened takes precedence over the life of the individual putting the former in jeopardy; basically self-defence. The mother could choose not to save herself, but the mother's life takes precedence. If the mother's wishes aren't known, the default should be to preserve the mother's life. Also, the mother's right to life in a situation of danger takes precedence over and rights of conscious.

ps. kudos for the logic reference. I knew of it informally, but did not know the name...

My positions can get really nuanced, so it helps to know these things :).
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
I suppose I should have said, "Is anyone here 'pro-abortion.'"
Nobody is 'pro-abortion'. That's a phantom of the right.

Most pro-choicers are, like me, pro-choice and anti-abortion.

We wish nobody was ever in a position where they felt the needed to choose abortion but realise that it happens. And when it happens, the decision on what to do should be nobody's but the woman's.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
The only time any woman gets an abortion in the 3rd trimester -- the only time this EVER happens -- is if there is a problem with the baby (i.e. it is already dead, or so horrifically deformed that it will not survive). Usually in these cases a woman will tragically miscarry, but sometimes -- about 5% of the time -- that does not happen, and if doctors don't perform an abortion, the woman will go into sepsis and die a horrific, agonizing death.

This is a couple who has been waiting expectantly for a baby. They've already purchased a crib, picked out names, painted the nursery pink or blue. These are not what they call "elective abortions." These are life-saving operations that should not be limited in any way. Would you tell doctors they can't perform cardioversion until they got permission from the patient's family and the patient has waited 24 hours to make sure they really want it? Of course not! That would be ludicrous. Millions of people would die needlessly. Why do we think such measures are necessary for this one surgery, when it isn't needed for any other emergency medical procedure?


We can discuss 1st and 2nd trimester, but there's absolutely no reason to limit 3rd trimester abortions, because they are the most necessary of all.
 

HillsboroMom

Active member
Nobody is 'pro-abortion'. That's a phantom of the right.

Most pro-choicers are, like me, pro-choice and anti-abortion.

We wish nobody was ever in a position where they felt the needed to choose abortion but realise that it happens. And when it happens, the decision on what to do should be nobody's but the woman's.

In fairness, I have a friend who sees abortion like any other medical procedure. She says, "we don't say 'I'm pro-choice but anti-appendectomy. If someone needs their appendix removed, they should have the choice to do it, but it's something that shouldn't happen." In other words, we shouldn't see abortion as any more tragic than someone having their appendix removed.

Perhaps she's not "pro-abortion," but she's certainly not "anti-abortion." Right?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
In fairness, I have a friend who sees abortion like any other medical procedure. She says, "we don't say 'I'm pro-choice but anti-appendectomy. If someone needs their appendix removed, they should have the choice to do it, but it's something that shouldn't happen." In other words, we shouldn't see abortion as any more tragic than someone having their appendix removed.

Perhaps she's not "pro-abortion," but she's certainly not "anti-abortion." Right?
That's right. Abortion is sometimes the least bad option when none of the available choices are good. On the other hand, very early abortion, easily obtained, delivered chemically, at home, is effectively a contraceptive option, which while not ideal, is no big deal either. In Europe a widely used contraceptive is the coil, which is effectively an abortificant, in that it prevents the fertilised egg from implanting. As such it would fall under the definition of baby-murderer much abused here, but I would definitely say that I am pro its use. It is safe, reliable and non-intrusive.

In short, I think that it is too simplistic to regard abortion at every stage as the same thing, which ever side you are on. I am pro-abortion whenever it is safer for the woman than continuing the pregnancy. As abortion gets more difficult and intrusive, then we have to consider the implications more, but as long as it is the safer option, then it should be adopted if that is what the woman wants.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
In fairness, I have a friend who sees abortion like any other medical procedure. She says, "we don't say 'I'm pro-choice but anti-appendectomy. If someone needs their appendix removed, they should have the choice to do it, but it's something that shouldn't happen." In other words, we shouldn't see abortion as any more tragic than someone having their appendix removed.

Perhaps she's not "pro-abortion," but she's certainly not "anti-abortion." Right?
I would agree. And I would suggest that her position is the minority among pro-choicers.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
My positions can get really nuanced, so it helps to know these things :).
For the record, I once mischaracterized your position here as that of a typical CRAM Christian fundamentalist. It was based on a few things you'd said, and I was being dismissive. While I'm positive that you and I disagree fundamentally on a few things (and I'm sure they'll reappear in the future), for what it's worth, I'll do my best to not mischaracterize your position again.
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
For the record, I once mischaracterized your position here as that of a typical CRAM Christian fundamentalist. It was based on a few things you'd said, and I was being dismissive.

That's fine, I don't even remember. I'm used to it. I'm in a weird gray zone.

While I'm positive that you and I disagree fundamentally on a few things (and I'm sure they'll reappear in the future), for what it's worth, I'll do my best to not mischaracterize your position again.
(y)Thanks.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
In fairness, I have a friend who sees abortion like any other medical procedure. She says, "we don't say 'I'm pro-choice but anti-appendectomy. If someone needs their appendix removed, they should have the choice to do it, but it's something that shouldn't happen." In other words, we shouldn't see abortion as any more tragic than someone having their appendix removed.

Perhaps she's not "pro-abortion," but she's certainly not "anti-abortion." Right?
An appendix will never progress to be a human being so it's not the same at all.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
I suppose I should have said, "Is anyone here 'pro-abortion.'"

I am glad to hear that you support choice even though you are anti-abortion. I am in the same boat, and I suspect we agree on more than we disagree.
Nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody is pro-apendectomy either.
But if you need an abortion, you should be allowed to have one.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
So what do you mean by "need"? How many abortions are performed each year because they are "needed"?
Medicaly required to prevent the mother from dying of septic shock, or internal hemorage, or any other fatal consequence of a failed pregnancy, or being too young to carry pregnancy to term.

Most
 
Top