BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Pro-Choice What does "pro-choice" mean to you?

Quite interesting that this is so focused on abortion only. True, abortion rights are a big part of being pro-choice, but it's still only a part.

Debate the semantics as much as you like. If you want to boil down what being pro-choice is about then the easiest answer is:

Being pro-choice means that a person supports the right of women to have control over their own bodies, lives, careers, educational potential, and intimate relationships without fear of being controlled by others.

Forcing a woman to have (or not have) a child has an impact on everything mentioned above. Legislation to control abortions is just the beginning of a larger agenda. If the radicals in power would have all that they wanted, women would no longer have access birth control, would see radical cuts in funding for medical research for "women's health" problems (ironically enough, including research into infertility), and would probably see insurance companies cease coverage for most, if not all, women's health concerns.

Calling pregnancy an "inconvenience" marginalizes the issue - for both sides. Choosing to have an abortion is not an easy decision to make. Claiming that adoption is always an option is inaccurate as well - not only for women with health or drug problems, but also for perfectly healthy ones. Potential adoptive parents don't want the headache of worrying whether or not a mother (or father) will come around to reclaim the child, which is probably why foreign adoptions are rather popular. Pregnancy remains an excuse for inequities in the workplace, with women still making less than men for the same jobs, presumably because women can end up leaving the workforce at any time due to maternity leave.

I could say much more, and definitely will on the main site here...

Give me a break.

Pro-choice means that a woman has the right to choose to kill the human life growing in her womb. It's that simple.

I personally belief a society is judged by how it treats it's weakest member. You are never more defenseless than when your in your mother's womb. All this talk about the mother's rights for a more comfortable life.....be glad you were allowed to live that life at all, and not flushed like waste.

Truth is so clear when you don't let yourself be blinded by greed.

First, thank you for taking the time to reply here.

In the future, please post your opinions without presuming what the lives of others on this forum are about - like your reference to my mother's choices at a time when abortion was illegal.

As for being blinded by greed, that simply isn't the case. One reason for choosing not to carry a pregnancy to term is financial, and usually that involves a situation where the woman is fully aware that she will not be able to support a family on her own. A life of poverty, or a life of understanding that she wasn't wanted in the first place is not a good life for a child. Someone who cares about the sanctity of life should also be concerned with quality of life. There is no such thing as perfect birth control, and abstinence simply doesn't work forever. If you truly want to see an end to abortion, because it will happen whether it's legal or not, then maybe you should consider campaigning for better birth control methods, and comprehensive sex education.

To me, being pro-choice means that women are not controlled by others, and that every child born is wanted and loved, because if they aren't, they are more likely to be abused. Then again, I'm against the mistreatment and exploitation of any person.

Are you saying that if it was legal, you wouldn't exist? Or are you making the point that your mom didn't have the choice to rid you of her womb. Is that a bad thing? Either way, don't you see how wrong it is? Nobody, not even a woman with an unwanted baby should have the right to kill another human being, other than self-defense.

As far as my comment about "greed". I thought about my choice of using that word and decided a woman choosing to kill her baby is not always greed. However it is still killing. There are so many choices a pregnant woman can make if she finds herself unwanting of a child. There are so many choices that she has (not always comfortable or convenient) without eliminating the baby's right to live and have future choices. There are reasons why families in the USA have resorted to paying huge fees to get a baby from China. Tons of these USA aborted babies could have been adopted instead of discarded as "woman's choice", and living in loving homes.

I do, by the way, support the use of birth control and sex education. All should be armed with the knowledge of how to avoid getting pregnant. Prevention is, of course, the first and foremost solution to unwanted babies. But once there is a real human being, living....she or he has has the right to live. Period.

If you are against the mistreatment of any person, than how can you justify killing a little human being that has no means to defend him or herself?

I'm just applying critical thinking to this matter. I don't mean to attack you or offend your sense of an individuals right to choose. I'm just appealing to that passion you must have, for the rights of the little ones who don't have a voice....yet.

An early elective abortion is, as far as it being a human, not much different than an early spontaneous abortion (the medical term for miscarriage.)

A large number of elective abortions occurred, even when it was illegal - and a sadly large number of women and young girls died or were rendered sterile as a result. Unfortunately, both then and now, we are not doing a good job of PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies. There are many methods of birth control, as well as many reasons to delay sexual activity, but there is too little information for kids out there, and too much societal pressure to have sex.

Then there are the cases of sexual assault that result in a pregnancy. Are those girls and women required to have a child, regardless of their wishes, that was forced on them?

But really, pro-choice is CHOICE. In an ideal world, only those who wanted a child would conceive one. In the real world, some women who conceive unexpectedly will CHOOSE to give birth to that child, while others will CHOOSE to abort.

Technically, an IUD doesn't prevent conception, but prevents the fertilized egg from implanting. So, would that also be "killing a baby?"

Normally, I would be calling you on this as being far too personal, and severe an attack. If it was directed at a general user here, and not me, I would.

When I decided to apply to be here, I also decided that I would be open with readers here. My mother did not choose to abort because it never crossed her mind. She intended to get pregnant. A month before I was born, she fell down the steps in our house. That is assumed to be the cause of the problems she had giving birth to me. The cord broke before I was born, I bled out and filled up with amniotic fluid, would have died if I had been male, and spent the first two weeks of my life in the hospital.

As a teenager, I ended up pregnant. Because of my problems at birth and other risk factors I inherited, I cannot take the synthetic hormone based birth control, so I am left with choices that are far less effective. When I decided to have an abortion, my mother - the woman who remains opposed to it - was the one who took me to the doctor for the procedure. She has her beliefs, but is opposed to the concept of forcing her beliefs on others, regardless of what the Roman Catholic Church she belongs to tells her to do.

I learned from her. You are entitled to your beliefs. No matter how much what you think and say may make me or anyone else want to scream in fury, you have the right to believe what you choose.

Here, you have the right to say what you believe, with one limit. When your statements become attacks on the beliefs of others, you have crossed the line. If what you find yourself posting here is obviously meant to make someone else feel guilty about a decision they have made (or are trying to make), then you are choosing to force your beliefs on another.

We understand that you are opposed to abortion, and opposed to the beliefs of many people here. You do, however, share common ground with us on one issue - comprehensive sexual education. Please, let us know what you think would be the best way to combat the current abstinence-only education being promoted by the government today. Your input would be very useful, since I suspect it is very difficult for users here to understand where pro-life activists are coming from. Meaningful conversation tends to stop before we can get to this subject.

Curtis'mom wrote: "But once there is a real human being, living....she or he has has the right to live. Period."

Aha! A real, living human being. Define the exact moment when a fetus becomes a real, living human being.

My opinion: if it isn't breathing, then it is not living.

I believe that this is a very naive statement. There are many women and young girls in the US who get pregnant unexpectedly, who know for a fact that the baby they would give birth to would have little to no chance of being adopted. I don't mean to jump on a soap box, hijack the thread and turn this into a racial issue, but we can't ignore the facts. And the facts say that the majority of couples looking to adopt in this country are white and the reason they go to China, Russia, Ukraine to adopt is because they don't want to adopt black or hispanic children, of which there are plenty in US foster care.

Actually, that's not true. Babies of all races are in high demand. It's the older children, of all races, who are harder to adopt. For reasons that would be a whole different discussion. Do you really think that people are who are ignorant enough to be prejudice favor Chinese babies over any other races other than their own?
Please....

Ok. Hitting the proverbial brakes here on the "when is it a baby" issue. Since there isn't an "official" answer, how about we stick with the IRS standard. A baby is a baby when the U.S. government grants you tax benefits for it. Before anyone tries turning this into a debate as well, there is no law of the land on this that has withstood the test of the highest courts, and there is no standard "age" even amongst the victims of violent crimes laws that cause higher penalties for killing a pregnant woman. So, for the purposes here, we'll stick with a "put your money where your mouth is" standard. (Which, btw, is my standard answer on this issue when asked because it tends to silence the other side.)