First, I want to commend 03:33, 05:34, and especially 08:58 for thoughtful, heartfelt, cogent, and (to me) convincing argument for choice. I'm pro-choice, but have never managed to make the argument as well as these three.

As to OP's original question, I think the logic of the statement (although I don't agree with it) is this: All of us exist because our mothers chose not to have abortions. As beneficiaries of that choice, the only consistent choice for us is the same one.

Anonymous wrote:This is what anti-choicers do not understand: not everyone shares their life-begins-at-birth-belief. If they don't like it, they needn't have one.

Let's try it this way: "This is what pro-abortion people* do not understand: not everyone shares their 'it's just a blob of cells' belief."
And if you don't like when people kill others, don't do it! Oh wait, it's illegal to kill others...


*We should use the terms "pro-life" or "pro-choice," ideally, as that is what each side seems to prefer.

I am very pro-choice. But I'm interested in hearing from the anti-choice folks who are against abortion in all cases except rape and incest.

If you really believe life begins at conception and that abortion is murder, why allow it in those cases? So *sometimes* the good of the mother matters more than the fetus?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is not life.

We eat meat, we go to war, we execute criminals.

If you go out of your way not to step on every bug, then you are pro-life. Otherwise you are inconsistent on life. You are anti-abortion.

Actually it should be called "pro choice" or "anti choice".

Otherwise, it is analogous to supporting "banning cow slaughter in India" and calling it "pro life" or "anti animal cruelty" because it sounds more politically correct than saying "I want to impose my religious opinion on you"!

Should be "and" and not "or".

Anonymous wrote:The issue is not life.

We eat meat, we go to war, we execute criminals.

If you go out of your way not to step on every bug, then you are pro-life. Otherwise you are inconsistent on life. You are anti-abortion.

Actually it should be called "pro choice" or "anti choice".

Otherwise, it is analogous to supporting "banning cow slaughter in India" and calling it "pro life" or "anti animal cruelty" because it sounds more politically correct than saying "I want to impose my religious opinion on you"!

For the person who asked about reconciling the belief of when life begins with abortion: I am rabidly pro choice. I am *personally" anti abortion. As in I had an unwanted pregnancy that I knew would totally f*ck up my life (birth control failure while married). But I had and kept the baby anyway and am still wrestling with the consequences today. I personally couldn't look at the child I already had and destroy what in my mind was another copy of her in the making. I knew I would not be able to live with that ghost on my conscience. But I am glad I had a choice and glad my daughters will have a choice.

I believe that life is present from conception and that a zygote, a fetus, grows into a BABY. I don't think a zygote is the same thing as a baby, or that a fetus is a baby. I think a zygote or fetus has life, is a potential person, but is not a person YET. When that line is crossed, I have to leave to science, theologians, and law. I think that limiting abortion to the first trimester is fine. I DON'T want the Arizona legislature passing laws about when my pregnancy begins (two weeks from last period..... It's a miracle! I'm pregnant RIGHT NOW!). That determination should be left to a woman and her doctor. Some women can be OK with (or feel forced to) end that emerging life. Others like me, couldn't. But I don't think MY beliefs shoudl dictate other women's choices.

I believe abortion should be legal but discouraged as much as possible by providing alternatives to women. By increasing availability of birth control, sex ed, and economic alternatives that encourage life instead of abortion. Basically, everything Republicans don't want to pay for.

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who would have an abortion would most certainly have had slaves in colonial times.

This wins for most absurd post in the thread. congratulations.

When saints were revered for emptying wombs. Seriously: http://www.medievalists.net/2012/06/07/research-examines-the-abortionist-saints-of-medieval-ireland/

The issue is not life.

We eat meat, we go to war, we execute criminals.

If you go out of your way not to step on every bug, then you are pro-life. Otherwise you are inconsistent on life. You are anti-abortion.

Anybody who would have an abortion would most certainly have had slaves in colonial times.

It means your mother was civilized and thought you were more than a glob of cells. God said "I knew you before you were formed in your mothers womb."

Anonymous wrote:OP, the issue is not "choice" or "life."

It's abortion and whether or not it should remain legal.

If you change your terminology to say "favors legal access to abortion" or "favors making abortion illegal" you are more precise and avoid nonsense like those bumper stickers and similarly trite slogans.

PP, you are far too rational in choosing to use non-politicized language!

I am pro-life in all but the most limited circumstances (life of the mother, e.g., in which there truly is a choice to be made regarding the life of two different individuals). From my view, pro-life has an implication that there is no choice - that fetus is a human being and we should not have the choice to kill another person.

Not trying to start a fight, simply a very basic answer to the OP.

OP, the issue is not "choice" or "life."

It's abortion and whether or not it should remain legal.

If you change your terminology to say "favors legal access to abortion" or "favors making abortion illegal" you are more precise and avoid nonsense like those bumper stickers and similarly trite slogans.

I'm pro choice and believe life begins at conception. Like PP it's a matter of whose rights prevail - the mother or the baby. In situations where the mother is considering abortion, I feel she's almost always fighting for self-survival. Too poor to raise another kid, mental health issues like major depression or worse, abusive relationship with the father or even her own father (a leading cause of death during pregnancy is domestic homicide), the pregnancy was coerced (just short of rape), she has drug or alcohol problems, is worried about bringing child into violence or plunging her family into poverty, and so on.

In all these situations, a woman needs to be able to choose herself over the baby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is their way of trying to use what they see as the pro-choice argument against pro-choicers.

But the fundamental problem is that pro-lifers see that life begins at conception, and nothing else, while pro-choicers may differ at when life begins, but also acknowledge a whole host of other factors that go beyond when life begins.

To me its like 2 sides are shouting in different languages and can't even understand each other -- that's how different the perspectives are.

I'd like to hear from pro-choicers who think life does begin at conception. How can those two positions be reconciled? There was another thread recently where some posters were admitting to having multiple abortions and several responded saying something like this: "I am staunchly pro-choice, but these women having multiple abortions make me sick!" I honestly don't understand that. If the fetus isn't a human being then why would pro-choicers care? And if the fetus is a human being, then why is it ever okay to kill it?

Life does begin at conception, but I would still have to classify myself as relunctantly pro-choice. To me, abortion is about rights, those of the mother vs. the baby, not whether or not an embryo or fetus is human or a life. There are some circumstances in which the mother's rights trump those of the baby she is carrying or where the mother exercises the right to do what she feels is best for her baby. I would not want to see the legal right to abortion taken away or have the government/courts deciding when those justifiable situations exist or when they don't. I do, however, view people who justify abortion as acceptable because they erroneously convince themselves that an embryo or fetus isn't really a human being as cowards who don't want to face the true gravity of the situation. I also find anyone who has an abortion for her own convenience disgusting. And I wish with all my heart that all the people who feel strongly about this on both sides would band together to do things to prevent the need for abortions in the first place; to promote and support sex (and other) education, to end poverty, to provide resources for all prospective mothers, to promote equal rights and protections for women throughout the world. Oh, if only...