I'm extremely pro-life, i believe that all living things should have a chance of actually living so to speak, but i also have experience with this first hand.
My younger sister and i each have children, i have only one whereas my sister has two. My sister has had a rough couple of years and her two children have been given to their father to help her out and yet she still got into trouble and ended up pregnant. Now it was her own fault, she was concious of what she was doing and should have stepped up to the consequences. But my sister decided to abort the child.
At first i was extremely upset, actually i still am, but that's not the point. The point of the matter is, it was my sisters body, life and child and it was her decision. The whole family gave their views and opinions, supported her and gave her the options available.
My sister had other options, having the child and keeping it, having the child and adopting it out etc, whereas some women may not have that choice.
For example - medical complication, disabilities (which i will explain further along), rape, abuse etc
My little brother ashley is disabled with cerebral palsy and when the doctors discovered there could be a 'slight' chance of this on her scan, they told my mother it would be better to abort to save all the hassle and trouble. My mother carefully thought about her options and decided to keep my brother (and a fine young lad he's turned out)but some people are not as strong. Some people, with or without support, family or otherwise, will struggle daily and they will suffer and if the parent is suffering then the child is. I don't think it fair to bring a child into a world of suffering to be honest.
To put it simply. I believe people have the right to abort if they so wish, but to think carefully. Are you or the child mentally or physically disabled in some way and how will that affect both lives. Are you financially stable or not and how will that affect both lives. Is the pregnancy a condition of rape and do you believe in your heart of hearts you could bring up this child or give it away to be brought up by others. etc
Now if you're like my sister, and just get drunk one night and open your legs to the first man that comes your way and get duffed up because of it, then no, i don't think you deserve an abortion and that you must pay for your own stupidity, but i shall say again - it is your life, your body and your child and ultimately your choice. What people have to remember is, there is a child involved at every step, but you have to think - are you strong enough to physically, mentally, emotionally and financially support a child, or strong enough to know for the rest of your life that you gave up that child to someone else, or strong enough to know for the rest of your life that you chose yourself over a child?
Just when does it become life? I'm not going to go into religious detail about this. This should be clear as day to people from all religions. You have a baby in there, and you decide to intervene to get rid of it. Killing a single celled organism and a stem cell are two different things. The stem cells have 100% capability to become a baby, the cell, is a cell. That's all it will be.Life on the smallest level must be valued if we are to continue the march of human rights.I believe that abortion is morally wrong and punishes the unborn for something they did not do. It has been clearly demonstrated that life begins at conception. The idea that we have to wait until the fetus can feel pain or has a heartbeat is beside the point. Outside of some intervening factor, it will develop into a human, so, therefore, abortion is murder. Furthermore, given the advances in medicine, there is virtually no reason for someone to become pregnant except by choice in this new world. By failing to take steps to prevent a pregnancy, and then choosing to have an abortion, we are punishing the unborn child for a mistake made not by them, but by one or both parents. How would we all react if we knew of a case, only one, in which an innocent person were sentenced to die for the actions of someone over whom they had no control, simply because that person was irresponsible? If abortions were banned, people would be forced to be more responsible about their behavior.
In a general answer, no. People try to use the exception of the health of the mother. I would go along with this if the life of the mother was in danger. Some pro-abortionist try to use this phrase to include the mental health of the mother. I do not find that acceptable.
I believe adoption is the better choice to abortion. It's a baby growing inside not just a piece of tissue.
I would rather have assistance and support provided to women going through an unwanted pregnancy, rather than government subsidised termination of pregnancy.
I am not uncaring towards women, I do not want to control thier bodies. However, if you view life beginning at conception, life that is human, I believe it deserves to be protected.
No, I would not get an abortion. I would see it as my unfairly killing or at least ending the life of my child, and I could never do this.
I do not believe in abortion. Quite majority of the times, I see it as utterly tragic and wrong.
I'm Pro-Life for numerous reasons, a few of them I will explain;
1) I believe the life and vitality of an unborn baby is just as essential as ours are. They show signs of life, emotion, senses, and even personality earlier than one may know; thus I believe they should be protected. I see no significant difference between the well-being of an unborn baby, and that of a two-hour-old newborn.
2) The reasoning that numerous women contemplate of when deciding to go ahead and seek an abortion; They don't wish to face the consequences and responsibilities of their actions, nor deal with the responsibility of a child. I understand this is not always the case in women seeking abortions (Financial problems, drug and alcohol abuse, father abandons the pregnant mother etc.), but even with in these cases I would suggest the same as I would for the first cases I discussed; Going forward with the pregnancy and giving the child up for adoption. That way a loving couple who wants children and can't have any or would love to welcome a new child into their home will take this child in, and both mother and child can leave this problematic situation unscathed and alive.
As for extreme cases, this is where (as much as I would view it a tragedy) I am open for the option of abortion being considered.
However, here's a little fact;
"Less than 3% of abortions had something to do with rape or the mother's/child's life between 1999-2005."
And I rest my case on that.
3) The father (who is present and wishes to raise the infant) evidently has no say in whether or not his own child should live and be born, or die. I find that tremendously unjust, and believe that the choice should go equally hand in hand with both mother and father.
4) For me, abortion is a enormous trademark of society losing hope in those destined and expected to fail in numerous cases, by suggesting abortion for the homeless mother living in a cart or for the fifteen-year-old pregnant teen who is terrified of their future, or the pregnant women with two other children living in the dangerous ghettos of LA. To me, abortion sort of plausibly labels these children and people as "Destined to fail" in a lot of ways. This is something I entirely oppose. Numerous children were born in such situations, and rose to be outstanding citizens in our society.
As any child born from a given case could possibly be.
I would if my cardiologist recommends it.
I have health issues that may cause the stress of a pregnancy to tear my aorta apart, killing both me and the baby, plus, there's a significant change that the baby would spontaneously about itself. It would depend of the extent of my cardiovascular complications prior to the pregnancy.
As for non health related issues, it depends. I would have a few discussions with a few select people to help decide. If it turns out that the odds of my ability to stably care for the baby on my own are not in my favor, I most likely would.
I'm not willing to put myself through such risks for a baby I wouldn't be able to keep.
If I became pregnant right now I would have an abortion without hesitation.
Last October I had my second kidney transplant and my body still has to adapt to that, so the stress of pregnancy is someting my body can't handle at the moment.
Also, I take medication which have a high risk of damaging the fetus.
Aside from the medical reasons, I really want to do have a normal life now. I've been sick since I was 4 and really ill since I was 16 (dropped out of school, couldn't do much because I was always tired, later dialysis). Now I am about to start university and I don't want something else to happen so that I cannot do that.
I'm 100% pro-life. In my view there is no exception in the case of abortion. I think that a baby is alive the moment it is concieved and that killing it before it has the chance to defend itself is selfish and murder. I know some people say it's OK if the mother was raped, and even though it isn't her fault I still do not think she should just abort the baby. I know it would be painful to have to deal with that but there are thousands of people who would love that baby and adopt it. Rape is a horible thing but it's still not the baby's fault. Another "exception" for some people is if it is for the mother's health. First of all I can't see a mother who loves the baby she's carrying even consider putting her life before her child's, in my opinion I think it's a poor excuse to make abortion legal. Anyway I am very passionate about this topic and will defend unborn baby's rights at all costs :)
Replace Lifers with non-tokophobic people and this is basically how I would feel if I were forced to gestate against my will.
I believe that everybody has a right to life, but no one has a right to use another person for survival against that person's will.
No born person of today can just latch on to me for 294 days and eat my food and kick me and whatnot without my expressed consent to them doing so, and a fetus does not have the right to my uterus just because my uterus may be a 'natural environment' for it. My uterus isn't safe for even me, as it is a real pain in my arse every month or so.
I want there to be some sort of solution to abortion that does not end in a fetus' death or forcing a woman to birth(And it is a traumatic experience for quite a few women, believe it or not.)
I want that solution more than anything.
I do not have any reason to 'believe' in abortion, it's not like the Easter Bunny. My beliefs aren't necessary.
WHETHER WE AGREE OR NOT THE FACT IS IT AGAIST THE LAW OF GOD AND GOD WOULDN,T SAY THAT"WE MUST GIVE BIRTH APON THAN ANY OTHER LIVING ANIMALS" IF HE DOES NOT HAVE THE PLAN FOR THOSE YOUNG ONES.ALSO DID YOU EVERY PUT YOUR SELF TO THE SHOES OF THAT UNBORN CHILD AS YOU ARE THE BUSINESS WOMAN/MAN OF TO DAY?
The first position is the pro-life one. Pro-life individuals believe the life of the unborn infant is tantamount. Some allow for certain cases of abortion, but in the end, these people would deny most people access to abortions. This may be for a number of reasons, but essentially, this perspective places the life of that infant over the choice of the mother. They do not, as many pro-choice individuals seem to believe, aim merely to reduce women's rights.
The second is the pro-choice perspective. Pro-choice individuals believe that the life and choice of the mother are tantamount. Some of the members of this group want to limit abortion, but they are a minority. The vast majority are fine with the situation as is in the U.S. Again, this may be for a number of reasons, but the essential fact is that pro-choice individuals value the option. They do not, as many pro-life individuals seem to believe, value abortion itself, but rather keeping it as an option.
I think a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand one side or the other. In the end, both have good arguments. One could easily agree with both sides and yet choose one based on the realities on the ground. I am one of those people, and I choose to be pro-choice.
I do this for several reasons:
1) We cannot ban abortions. The medical necessity for many abortions is readily apparent, many children die in the womb (and mothers shouldn't be forced to give birth to a dead child), and rape and incest shouldn't have to result in a child.
2) We cannot effectively limit abortions. A lot of pro-life individuals argue for this, and yet I'm always stumped. You would need someone to decide who gets an abortion and who doesn't. Who does the deciding? Most would say the physician, but then you run into a litany of other issues. What if the physician is against abortions? They say no, that no stands on the medical record, and the woman cannot get an abortion, no matter what the situation might be. What standards should they go by? Even if the physician is reasonable, figuring out medical necessity isn't always straightforward. What level of harm is necessary? How likely does the baby's death have to be? How can they be certain of cases of rape or incest? Should tests always be done? Who will pay for those tests? The reality is that limiting abortion in these ways is going to leave people out in the cold, and result in a return to back alley abortions. We should never encourage that.
3) I support the mother over the child. The infant, let's face it, has a good chance of never coming into the world alive. Even if they do, many of these children will die in early infancy. I'm not saying this because I feel that the infant's not important, just by comparison. The mother is a living, breathing human being, capable of having more children.