Can you really call yourself pro-choice if you wouldn't have an abortion yourself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I firmly believe in the right to keep and bear arms, although I would never allow a gun in my house.

What is the inherent conflict in this statement? None.

Because you see nothing immoral about bearing arms. You simply choose not to have a gun. The reason people say I would never have an abortion is because they view it as killing a baby. How can you see it as killing a baby, but be pro-choice about it?

YouERe inferring a lot there. Many people are personally uncertain about what a fetus is, and are willing to let each mother choose. Others might feel that they would protect potential persons even of it isn't murder, because adoption isn't so bad to them. Others might hold one intellectual position but recognize their emotional side is in conflict. To many people a fetus is not a person but it is not completely insignificant either.

Being pro-choice is about supporting the right. And there are a range of positions on either side. It's best not to look for validation of one specific belief. If for expletive you look at the stats on people who support abortion as an alternative form of birth control, the numbers decline precipitously. And if you look at the stats on support for abortion in the case of rape, incest the numbers go way up.There are not two philosophically coherent camps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I firmly believe in the right to keep and bear arms, although I would never allow a gun in my house.

What is the inherent conflict in this statement? None.

Because you see nothing immoral about bearing arms. You simply choose not to have a gun. The reason people say I would never have an abortion is because they view it as killing a baby. How can you see it as killing a baby, but be pro-choice about it?

Because, baby killer, I want to live my life as I see fit. And unlike you, I am able to give others that same courtesy as opposed to trying to dictate what others should feel. Do what you want, its not my job to control you, but I still will have my opinions on it. Live and let live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I firmly believe in the right to keep and bear arms, although I would never allow a gun in my house.

What is the inherent conflict in this statement? None.

Because you see nothing immoral about bearing arms. You simply choose not to have a gun. The reason people say I would never have an abortion is because they view it as killing a baby. How can you see it as killing a baby, but be pro-choice about it?

Not at all. My first son was conceived unintentionally on my honeymoon. My wife was still a teen-ager and I was pretty young and naive myself. We were pro-choice, but when my mother-in-law suggested an abortion, neither of us took the idea seriously. We didn't think of it as murdering a baby, more a matter of feeling that since we were married and I had a decent job, we should have the baby. In retrospect, I'd say that my mother-in-law probably knew what would have been best for her daughter, since we split just a few years later -- probably in part because of the stress of having our family too soon.

[Anonymous]

Yes to OP's question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I firmly believe in the right to keep and bear arms, although I would never allow a gun in my house.

What is the inherent conflict in this statement? None.

Because you see nothing immoral about bearing arms. You simply choose not to have a gun. The reason people say I would never have an abortion is because they view it as killing a baby. How can you see it as killing a baby, but be pro-choice about it?

YouERe inferring a lot there. Many people are personally uncertain about what a fetus is, and are willing to let each mother choose. Others might feel that they would protect potential persons even of it isn't murder, because adoption isn't so bad to them. Others might hold one intellectual position but recognize their emotional side is in conflict. To many people a fetus is not a person but it is not completely insignificant either.

Being pro-choice is about supporting the right. And there are a range of positions on either side. It's best not to look for validation of one specific belief. If for expletive you look at the stats on people who support abortion as an alternative form of birth control, the numbers decline precipitously. And if you look at the stats on support for abortion in the case of rape, incest the numbers go way up.There are not two philosophically coherent camps.

This is quite an interesting observation, and one I wish more people on both sides of the abortion debate realized. There does seem to be a lot of overlap in what both pro-choicers and pro-lifers believe. I myself am pro-choice, although admittedly I do struggle with abortion as a moral issue. My best friend is pro-life. We have had many heart-to-heart conversations about abortion and our personal beliefs about abortion are basically identical. Even though she is pro-life, she does not view abortion as murder; and although I am pro-choice I do see an inherent value in the life of a fetus. The two sides are not as polarized as it commonly made out to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I firmly believe in the right to keep and bear arms, although I would never allow a gun in my house.

What is the inherent conflict in this statement? None.

Because you see nothing immoral about bearing arms. You simply choose not to have a gun. The reason people say I would never have an abortion is because they view it as killing a baby. How can you see it as killing a baby, but be pro-choice about it?

YouERe inferring a lot there. Many people are personally uncertain about what a fetus is, and are willing to let each mother choose. Others might feel that they would protect potential persons even of it isn't murder, because adoption isn't so bad to them. Others might hold one intellectual position but recognize their emotional side is in conflict. To many people a fetus is not a person but it is not completely insignificant either.

Being pro-choice is about supporting the right. And there are a range of positions on either side. It's best not to look for validation of one specific belief. If for expletive you look at the stats on people who support abortion as an alternative form of birth control, the numbers decline precipitously. And if you look at the stats on support for abortion in the case of rape, incest the numbers go way up.There are not two philosophically coherent camps.

Example, not expletive. Damn you, autocorrect.

[Anonymous]

OP,

Choice is about laws. Your friend's choice is to have the choice and her choice is not to have an abortion.

When I stop drinking, as I do now and then, I don't expect the Prohibition to return.

[Anonymous]

Here is what I mean about the diversity of opinions about abortion:

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"
ABC News/Washington Post Poll 3/7-10/12

legal in all cases: 21
legal in most cases: 33
illegal in most cases: 25
illegal in all cases: 17
unsure: 3

Another way to ask the question is presented by Quinnipac 2/14-20/12:
"In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman's right to an abortion?"

Agree: 64
Disagree: 31
Unsure: 5

Pew presents yet another stab at the topic: 2/8-12/12

"Do you personally believe that having an abortion is morally acceptable, morally wrong, or is it not a moral issue?"

Morally acceptable: 13
Morally wrong: 48
Not a moral issue: 25
Depends: 9
Unsure: 5


And another (Gallup 5/5-8/11)
"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"

Pro-choice: 49
Pro-life: 45
Neither/mixed: 3
Don't know what the term means:2
Unsure: 2



What I make of this is that on both sides, the people holding relatively pure positions are in the minority. To a good half of the country, the subject is complicated or somewhat situational. But when someone is asked to stand on one side of the dividing line of Pro-choice vs pro-abortion, there you find a relatively even split.

So the good news for a pure pro-choice or pro-life person is that lots of people side with you to a degree when it comes to the law. But the flip side is that people who are philosophically like-minded are much rarer. To me, this is not a surprise. A fetus may not be a person, but to most people, especially parents, it is not "nothing" either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I mean about the diversity of opinions about abortion:

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"
ABC News/Washington Post Poll 3/7-10/12

legal in all cases: 21
legal in most cases: 33
illegal in most cases: 25
illegal in all cases: 17
unsure: 3

Another way to ask the question is presented by Quinnipac 2/14-20/12:
"In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman's right to an abortion?"

Agree: 64
Disagree: 31
Unsure: 5

Pew presents yet another stab at the topic: 2/8-12/12

"Do you personally believe that having an abortion is morally acceptable, morally wrong, or is it not a moral issue?"

Morally acceptable: 13
Morally wrong: 48
Not a moral issue: 25
Depends: 9
Unsure: 5


And another (Gallup 5/5-8/11)
"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"

Pro-choice: 49
Pro-life: 45
Neither/mixed: 3
Don't know what the term means:2
Unsure: 2



What I make of this is that on both sides, the people holding relatively pure positions are in the minority. To a good half of the country, the subject is complicated or somewhat situational. But when someone is asked to stand on one side of the dividing line of Pro-choice vs pro-abortion, there you find a relatively even split.

So the good news for a pure pro-choice or pro-life person is that lots of people side with you to a degree when it comes to the law. But the flip side is that people who are philosophically like-minded are much rarer. To me, this is not a surprise. A fetus may not be a person, but to most people, especially parents, it is not "nothing" either.

But at what point does it become "something"? As someone who is pro-life, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of letting individuals decide for themselves whether the entity that they are choosing to kill is indeed a person. It's just too big of a deal to simply leave up to individual opinions.

[Anonymous]

I get that. From a legal point of view, the answer is the Supreme Court. From a moral point of view there is no answer because there is no single agreed-upon moral authority. UnlessGod is willing to decisively prove his existence it is by necessity a personal opinion as to what that moral philosophy or authority is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me, this is not a surprise. A fetus may not be a person, but to most people, especially parents, it is not "nothing" either.

Then what is it? how do you define what 'it' is?

If it can be discarded at will and the value comes only from being wanted or not, then it is nothing to many people. It it was 'something' it would have value separate from a mother's feelings.

I agree that there are many opinions - I am pro-life and believe that life starts at conception but but have differing viewpoints about others choices depending on the point in the pregnancy. While I may not agree, I can understand a teen getting an abortion at just a few weeks pregnant. I can't understand abortions in the third trimester because someone decides they no longer want a baby. I saw a TV show that had 3 young women all accidentally born during their third trimester abortions. All had disabilities related to the trauma of being born while being aborted (as abortion involves chemicals and amputations at that stage). Listening to their stories impacted me in a big way and it saddened to that to so many people these girls were 'nothing'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that. From a legal point of view, the answer is the Supreme Court. From a moral point of view there is no answer because there is no single agreed-upon moral authority. UnlessGod is willing to decisively prove his existence it is by necessity a personal opinion as to what that moral philosophy or authority is.

But there is much more knowledge about fetal development now than there was in 1973. Shouldn't we be able to change the law since medicine has provided us with more information than there was 40 years ago?