Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion!
I made this stamp to voice my opinion on this issue.
Many people who are pro-life attempt to demonize those who are pro-choice saying that we are pro-abortion and want people to abort their fetuses. I am pretty sure that no one who is pro-choice is pro abortion, we are for women being able to have the right to choose what she does with her body, we also believe the government should not have any say in the matter when something is such a personal issue.
Pro-lifers love to preach the importance of life and want this to be 100% illegal, this would do nothing but cause more death, the fact of the matter is before abortion was deemed legal, the number of women who died trying to get abortions in back allies and other places outside of hospitals many of them died. On top of this, suicide rates also went up, they were higher because of woman who did not want to have the baby, yet did not know where to go.
Those who pride themselves on being pro-life pride themselves on the wanting to take the rights away from women, a gender who have been the inferior species in male dominated societies for thousand of years, now they have the rights to do what they wish to, to their body with the need to seek the permission of their male counterparts as they have had to do in the past. If you want the government to start regulating what is morally right or wrong more than it already does you might as well get ready for a fascist government who will dictate every part of your life. Once you give them the right to dictate and regulate reproduction, everything else goes down hill from there.
I also cannot stand hypocrisy. Some people who are pro life say it is okay if they are raped, incest and certain other situations, so a child born from rape holds less value in your eyes? Either you are for something or against, there can be no middle ground on this issue. Either you are for a womens right to choose what happens to her body under all circumstances, or you believe she should have no choice in the goings on of her own body.
If you truly care about the child, then sometimes in these situations, abortion may be better. I would much rather one child be aborted, than that same child to be abused through out their entire life because the mother did not want them to begin with. There are cases of mothers actually killing their infants after birth because it was the result of a rape, is that more inhuman in your eyes?
Adoption really; Many pro lifers speak of the mother having the baby and then putting it up for adoption. So, does the feelings of the mother matter less than the child? Many of these women go into deep depressive states, and in some cases have psychotic breaks, as well as harm themselves and in some cases kill themselves as the result of their depression.
But if we must speak of reality for a moment, and talking about the kids; if you want to speak statistics, there are millions of children in the foster care system in the US alone, and unless adopted the state/country is responsible for these kids until they age out of the system, which is not until the age of 21. So if a child is taken from the mother at 1, that means for the next 20 years tax payers are paying for these kids. In a system that is already overburdened with far too many kids and not enough money to take care of these kids. That is billions of dollars a year we spend on these kids, cannot afford to build new facilities that can house these kids, not enough case agents to check up on the kids properly to make sure they are being taken care of properly, that is if they are even lucky enough to be placed in a foster home or with a family.
Now let us speak of a reality if abortion were illegal. In the US alone there are on average 800,000 1,000,000 abortions performed per year, let us say that half of these kids are given up for adoption, that is 500,000 new kids put in a system that cannot handle this load this frequently, and these kids must be taken care of for 21 years. So for 21 years for EACH child the tax payers have to pay more and more, on top of a guaranteed 500,000 MORE KIDS being added to the system each year.
According to records on average it cost $40,000 per year per child in the foster care system, so that would be $40,000 x 500,000 per year added to a system that cannot support the work load, that does not have the money to support the kids it already has, yet the pro-lifers want it to handle more, as well as not enough case workers to make sure these new kids are safe when they are placed in a home. Which means these kids may be abused, physically and sexually, as many of the kids in foster care are.
So if you wish to be pro life and speak of the importance of the children, why not also show some of that same care for the kids that are already born. For each mother that is forced to have her baby and put it up for adoption, that is a kid who is already born who gets even less support than they already do now. So if you wish to add 500K kids per year to a system that is already working under budget to support the kids it already has, and still take the stance of caring about the kids, maybe you need to evaluate your own choices. Should we take from those who are already born just to save those who will be in a even worst position as it ages in the foster care system.
These are My opinions and reasons that I am pro-choice, I know many will disagree, and I know some may agree, but My opinion and reasons are Mines and Mines alone and does not represent anyone else other than Me.
As always, comments are encouraged, welcomed and appreciated.
Though speaking of Pro-choice, did you see the new proposal going around Sweden?
Whereas within the first 18 weeks a man has the right to relinquish all responsibilities and .. as such has no rights to the child, nor can he have a right to see the child nor be financially responsible for the child.
As well as, there are many reasons why a woman may have an abortion, so when you say "for no reason" that makes no sense.
Now, if your question is, outside of forced rape, birth defects, etc should it be "necessary" for them to have an abortion, I would still say yes.
but yes, I imagine from different languages and semantics it would be worded differently
in addition - it isn't only women who can give birth kthx
The foetus should be born because it's a comfort for its mother to nearly die or ACTUALLY die during childbirth.
The foetus should be born because it's a comfort to fucking endanger its father/parent's life and credibility because they're trans.
The foetus should be born because it's a comfort for the foetus to suffer fatal problems resulting it becoming deformed and in severe pain.
If someone doesn't want the foetus inside them, your morals can be damned. And that's the ONLY reason you want to keep the foetus; "B-b-but it's murder!!! You're killing children!!!!" The foetus is a foetus, not a child.
A seed is not a plant, a silkworm is not a dress, an egg is not a chicken.
If you still believe in pro-life, if I get raped and you force me to have the child, I'll force you to take care of it indefinitely.
Then that alone does not address the fundamental issue of if you were to ban abortion what to do with all of the kids?...
If you are one who says abortion should be illegal in all cases - including rape or incest as many American law makers have.. then that is attempting to take away their right to a choice.
"but understand The unborn is human that also deseves choice and rights."
I disagree, so an unborn person has the choice as to whether or not they would be born? and pray tell how would you gather such a decision from them?....
"And why instead of doing illegal abortions"
There are a myriad of reasons why people have abortions, most times is of course because of an unplanned pregnancy, some are rape, some are incest etc
"They just don't have their kids."
Because they do not want to, nor should they be forced to.. especially, while in a minority of cases rape... would you force a woman who was raped to carry her rapists baby?
If you say you would not force someone to have their rapists baby, then does a baby bred of rape hold less value than one who came about through consensual sex?
"Thre should be aware that kids can be born at 21 weeks. About The kids, even if The parents don't love em, They can overcome that and by dying, They are losing that chance""
.... 21 weeks.. you do know that with a few exceptions usually life of the mother or child is in danger the law allows only a legal abortion in your first trimester .. >12 weeks .. of which 92% of all abortions happen within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy ..when it is not viable to survive outside of the body.
Around another 7% happen during the second trimester that is between 13-20 week period and these generally range from issues with pregnancy and more often than not, closer to the 13-15 week range because of the mother did not want it.
.. only around 1% of abortions happen during the 3rd trimester and that is usually due to issues with the pregnancy which threatens the life of the mother.
But the question posed to you was, if abortion was banned.. I did a piece entitled "adoption will not solve the abortion problem"... America has around 1M abortions a year.. if you ban abortions
America gets around 150K kids entering the foster care system every year... we adopt out around 122K .. so even now we still have a net child in foster care rate of 28K kids per year.. if abortion is banned... and say ... even if 75% chose to keep their babies [which it is unlikely that 75% who wanted an abortion would keep the baby] that is then an additional 250K kids going into a system that cannot handle the amount of kids they already have...and this will be an annual amount ..
I googled "there are up to 36 couples waiting for every one baby placed for adoption"
and could only find that citation on LIFENeWS, LIVE ACTION and other places that are anti abortion, I googled that in conjunction with "Business Library" since you said that was the source and found no such citation
Unsure if Business library has gone out of business because looking at that citation which
both cite business library but both of what they link to have been deleted ..
So if that is the best argument that we should ban abortion because some people want to adopt and using either outdated or deleted citations then..
Especially when no one ever said, that there are no people that want to adopt kids, but simply banning abortion at the rates at which we adopt out kids would leave far more kids in the system utilizing the rate..
You have your view and that is fine, it will not change my view as I am sure my view that abortion should remain legal, under the current basic parameters as outlined in Roe v Wade, will not change your mind.. such as they say is life..
*..any further comments will be addressed tonight or tomorrow*
came from a 1988 survey, you would forgive me if I do not think a survey asking people do they want to adopt is not the best practice for measuring how many people actually want to and are serious about adopting. As well as, of those 2 million, 1.3 or a whopping 65% of them did not adopt and were no longer wanting to adopt.. .. besides the fact of course that if a pro life website can only find a 1988 study, if the best thing they can use for numbers is a nearly 3 decade old study .. As of 2012 they were still using that 1988 study and the study asked women 15-44 hmm..
Well only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does are abortions so if they were serious about wanting to adopt they would be better served by going to an actual adoption agency than waiting outside planned parenthood asking if you do not abort I will take it..
It is not the fact that there aren't enough kids, depending on who they want, the sad fact is there are more kids that go into the system than are adopted out and part of it is race, Black boys are among the least wanted in the adoption pool, white girls are the most wanted, followed by white boys, followed by Asian girls, asian boys.. hispanic girls hispanic boys.. black girls and finally black boys.
I disagree with the premise that we should ban abortion for the sole purpose of making sure foster care systems have more kids .. if that is the only reason then it seems a terrible reason.
I see on your page you are against abortion 100%, I would ask you two question.
If a doctor told a woman that she will die if she had the baby because of some complication at which would make her bleed out, or whatever, which life of the mother abortions are the vast majority of late term abortions, would you tell that woman that even though her life is in danger you would make that decision for her even if it may kill her .. ?
Second thing, which would really piss me off having been a rape crisis counselor in the past, if a woman was raped, and got pregnant, would you be the person telling that woman that even though she does not want to have the child of the man who raped her.. you would stop her from making that decision and force her to have the child of the person who raped her?...
When it comes to these scenarios, the people who would force someone to have their rapists baby if they do not want to is like raping them over and over again ..
As the piece stated, "many" not most or all, and there are many that utilize the term interchangeably with pro abortion.
So, I know of no place in this piece that said people in general that consider themselves pro-life want women to feel guilty for getting pregnant and am unsure where within the piece was such a premise formulated. Nor can I, or will I speak for everyone that considers themselves "pro-life" or seeminly more apt anti abortion.
lmao, but I know of no, in general, pro abortion side that advocates all pregnancies should be terminated... would make for an interesting debate between these groups though..
Anyways those who have a religion don't have to receive cold stares and misunderstandings because they choose not to believe. It's a farce that anyone's religious rights are being taken away, I mean talk to me when Atheism is seen as normal and I am not discriminated against and misunderstood. Then get back to me. Being pro-choice is a pretty recent way of thinking, so of course it is the more discriminated against. People are still too afraid to even think of anything other than pro-life, the opposite view is the emerging social value if anything.
While of course America has a freedom of religion for some people in this country – other groups getting the rights that these religious groups have always had they claim they are being attacked for their religious beliefs.
Your understanding of Freedom of Speech is correct.
Asking some people, they would say yes, some people believe unless you are preaching the greatness of Jesus then you should not be included on the national dialog – Yes, I am in America. Well we have to say they have the right to their religious belief and the government cannot attempt to intertwine with religion though personally I do not like that many religions get tax exemption and such but.. that is the law – which I think should be changed but doubt it will.
I also agree that not everyone can be forced to believe what they [Christians] believe or any other belief structure.
I agree that Religion and Politics are things that should not be mixed.. but sadly in America – on the national stage – the likelihood of someone getting elected without the usual church speeches, without the usual dinners at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner which is a Catholic Dinner thrown where many politicians, priests, archbishops etc meet, give speeches and pretty much every modern president has went to these dinners… to say that you are not religious would make it harder to get elected. Currently America has not one open atheist in congress – congress has 535 members, so in a nation where 2% of people are apparently atheists then you would hope for at least one.. we had one atheist, Pete Stark, but he lost his seat to another Democrat back in 2012…
I am an agnostic atheist and often when debating politics, somehow everything leads back to that – especially when I am debating someone who is a conservative – seems my being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc is because I lack morals and that is of course *sarcasm* because I am an atheist.
I do not know about it being more recent.. in America at least.. Roe v Wade which legalized abortion happened in 1973 so around 40 years… when did abortion become legal in your country?
What seems to be needed as you seem to have already diagnosed - the youth must get more involved in the political process.
Also let me give you a history on the baby boomers vs gen x gen y younglings, as this is key in Australia, so is the dynamics between all of us. You see, the system in the baby boomer's young days was actually quite well run. It was also very progressive, especially at the time. Abortion had just been let in as I mentioned, and one of the great policies to be introduced was a free tertiary education system. At the time this was a huge move forward as there was more of a divide between country living vs city living, verging on the level of unfair because country kids were uneducated on a large scale as a result of the fees required for travelling and being at university. They would be forced to work on their parent's farm or find something that didn't require a uni degree in a bigger city elsewhere. Then former prime minster Whitlam implemented a free university policy. Suddenly a lot of country kids with higher ambitions were able to learn at uni. Sounds great right? One of the things that grinds my gears is that Tony Abbott himself was one of these country kids who would've never have learned at uni had the 1970s policy not been passed. Yet he is trying to pass a budget that forces the few free unis left to charge the kids going to uni. And what about all those ambitious kids living in poverty? I guess they can forget it. It's this attitude that young people don't like. So they could have it, but the free education system was for them only? All I can say is, dat sense of entitlement.
Also he claims that young people do not work hard enough and so the way right now to fix this is to pass a very tough bill that takes away basic elements of healthcare, including a great medical insurance company called "Medicare", making people wait for the dole for periods of six months or more, and even then they may still need to do volunteer work in order for it to do validated, cutting disabled pension, cutting pensions, and the list goes on. My personal view is that this bill is harsh, generalises who actually uses these systems, and it could potentially hurt the quality of life of a lot of people. It fails to take into account minimum wage/unemployed uni students with little parental support/poor parents, single mothers and fathers with multiple children living on the dole because they are out of jobs, the Australian job market is quite competitive and the economy does little to help this, people just beginning to live on their own, and the list really goes on about the candidates of people this could affect. It is mainly young people because we are not in stable careers yet but we are stuck because our elders in these jobs are entitled, retire much later, and the rich ones tend to be amazingly stuck up, and they do not understand that they got it easy in life because their job market, conditions and job availability were much better than ours are today, and these budget cuts will not harm the rich and old, so they feel as if they can sit back and tell us we are whiny and that we need the "tough love" doled out by our hypocritical prime minister.