Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Pro-Choice v Pro-Life *clean debate plz*

Posted by on Nov. 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM
  • 57 Replies



Question: Which category do you fall into?




Lil bit of both


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 71

View Results

I was trying to find something to explain both sides of the argument so I looked up "Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice".  And here's the information I got.  It was nice to finally hear the diff in beliefs without ppl bitchin that some1 doesnt agree with their belief.

I am 100% Pro-Life.  And if you could please read the information and give an honest answer as to which you agree completely with, or if u agree with diff things from each please explain.  LETS TRY TO KEEP THIS CLEAN LADIES!! I just want to have a decent debate!  Not trying to stir up drama!  I'd like to just talk n get to know some moms is all!

Here's the link I got this info from if you'd like to read more:



The Pro-Life Issue Spectrum

To say that someone is "pro-life" is to say that the person believes that the government has an obligation to preserve all human life, regardless of intent, viability, or quality-of-life concerns.

A comprehensive pro-life ethic, such as that proposed by the Roman Catholic Church and similar religious organizations, prohibits:

  • Abortion ;
  • Euthanasia and assisted suicide ;
  • The death penalty ; and
  • War, with very few exceptions.

In cases where the pro-life ethic conflicts with personal autonomy, as in the case of abortion and assisted suicide, it is conservative. In cases where the pro-life ethic conflicts with government policy, as in the case of the death penalty and war, it is liberal.


The Pro-Choice Issue Spectrum

To be "pro-choice" is to believe that individuals have unlimited autonomy with respect to their own reproductive systems as long as they do not breach the autonomy of others.

A comprehensive pro-choice position affirms that all of the following must remain legal:

  • Celibacy and abstinence ;
  • Contraception use ;
  • Emergency contraception use ;
  • Abortion, for the first two trimesters of pregnancy ; and
  • Childbirth.

In the United States, the pro-choice position is perceived as "pro-abortion." In China, where abortion is sometimes required by law, the pro-choice position would be perceived as "anti-abortion." The purpose of the pro-choice movement is to ensure that all choices remain legal.


Point of Conflict

The pro-life and pro-choice movements primarily come into conflict on the issue of abortion. The pro-life movement argues that even non-viable, undeveloped human life is sacred and must be protected by the government. Abortion, according to this model, must not be legal, nor should it be widely practiced on an illegal basis.

The pro-choice movement argues that in cases where human personhood cannot be proven, e.g. in pregnancies prior to the point of viability, the government does not have the right to impede a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy.

Religion and the Sanctity of Life

What politicians on both sides of the debate generally fail to acknowledge is the religious nature of the conflict.

If one believes in an immortal soul that is implanted at the moment of conception, and if personhood is determined by the presence of that immortal soul, then there is little difference, in effect, between terminating a week-old pregnancy or killing a living, breathing person. Rational members of the pro-life movement do acknowledge that there is a difference in intent--abortion would be, at worst, involuntary manslaughter rather than murder--but the consequences, i.e. the death of a human person, are regarded by pro-lifers in much the same way.

Religious Pluralism and the Obligation of a Secular Government

The trouble is that the United States government cannot acknowledge the existence of an immortal soul implanted at conception without taking on a specific, theological definition of personhood.

Some theological traditions teach that the soul is implanted at quickening--when the fetus begins to move--and not at conception. Other theological traditions teach that the soul is implanted at birth. Some traditions teach that the soul is implanted well after birth. And still other theological traditions teach that there is no immortal soul at all.

Can Science Tell Us Anything?

There is no scientific basis for the existence of a soul, but there is no scientific basis for the existence of subjectivity, either, which makes it difficult to ascertain concepts such as "sanctity." Physics alone can't tell us whether a human life is worth more or less than a rock. We value each other for social, emotional reasons; science does not tell us to do it.

But to the extent that we do have anything approaching a scientific definition of personhood, it would most likely rest in our understanding of the brain. That being the case, it's worth noting that neocortical development, which scientists believe makes emotion and cognition possible, does not begin until the late second or early third trimester of pregnancy.

Two Other Standards of Personhood

Some pro-life advocates argue that it is the presence of life alone, or of unique DNA, that defines personhood.

The problem with the life-alone argument is that many things that we do not consider living persons meet that criteria. Our tonsils and appendices are certainly both human and alive, but we do not consider their removal as constituting anything close to the killing of a person.

The unique DNA argument is more compelling, but also poses problems. Sperm and egg cells, for example, contain the genetic material that will later form the zygote. The question of whether certain forms of gene therapy also creates new persons would also be raised by this definition of personhood.

The Burden of Proof

Before the government can prove that a homicide has taken place, it must first produce evidence--a person's body, or sufficient body tissue as to constitute a body for legal purposes. It would not do for homicide prosecutions to proceed based solely on a philosophical or religious conviction that a murder has taken place.

Ronald Reagan famously said in the 1980s that if the government is to err, it must err on the side of protecting life. In practice, to err on the side of life in criminal prosecutions is to convict without adequate evidence. Our system of jurisprudence is not consistent with this goal.

No Choice

On the other hand, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate tends to overlook the fact that the vast majority of women who have abortions do not, in fact, do so entirely by choice. Circumstances put them in a position where abortion is the least self-destructive option available to them.

According to a study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, 68% of women who have abortions in the United States say that they cannot afford to have children and 27% cite this as their primary reason for terminating the pregnancy. 20% cite health reasons. 38% are young women either hiding pregnancies from their parents, or ordered by their parents to terminate their pregnancies.
by on Nov. 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
by Bronze Member on Nov. 12, 2009 at 10:09 PM

i'm prochoice, and i think the "no choice" thing at the bottom is totally unnecessary.  sure, in rare cases some women really don't make the choice [coercion] but for the most part, we all make the choice.  our situations just help to influence our decision making process.  we should always have the choice to do what we want or feel is best.

in my case, i did what i wanted to, over what i knew was best.  all i care about is that it was my choice to make.

by on Nov. 12, 2009 at 10:13 PM

Good luck with the no drama thing, this is a pretty drama filled topic.

I am def. pro choice.  With 20 years experience with the elderly  I have seen alot in the spectrum of death and dying.  Im a firm believer in Living Wills.  Make your choices known!  You should have the right to die how and when you want. 

I dont think I could have an abortion, but its not my choice if you do. 

Im on the fence with the death penalty.  I had a good friend whos two daughters went for a walk one day and never came home.  Almost a year later there bodies were given up by there serial killer when he was caught.  My friend did not want this man to get the death penalty.  She said it was a two quick easy way out for him..........I kinda like that idea.

by on Nov. 12, 2009 at 10:15 PM

I'm Pro choice because I believe that a woman should have the right to do as she pleases with her body. I don't believe the states,government or anyone for that matter has the right  to dictate what women do with their bodies.

by Member on Nov. 12, 2009 at 10:22 PM

When getting pregnant with all three of my children I never looked at it as having a choice. I was raised by my mother and father who took great care of me and my brothers, they have been married 34 years. So there was no thinking I got pregnant and that was it I was having the baby and that was that . All my kids are the best things that have ever happened to me and my husband. I don't know that's just me, I don't think that I am better than anyone.

by on Nov. 12, 2009 at 11:32 PM

I am pretty much pro-life.  However I am for the death penalty and I fully support our military.

by Silver Member on Nov. 12, 2009 at 11:36 PM

So, does "fully support our military" mean "I have no moral qualms with our country killing people that talk or look funny"?

And considering yourself pro-life when you support the death penalty is fairly hypocritical.

Quoting Aldea:

I am pretty much pro-life.  However I am for the death penalty and I fully support our military.

Lilypie Second Birthday tickers

by on Nov. 12, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Mostly pro choice, but I find it as a form of birth control disgusting.    

by on Nov. 12, 2009 at 11:45 PM

I am pro life. I don't believe in abortion, death penalty or war. I think there is no reason to take another's  life.

by on Nov. 12, 2009 at 11:59 PM

clean debate? that's totally unrealistic, and completely a joke in this group!!

Lilypie - Personal pictureLilypie First Birthday tickers

Lilypie - Personal pictureLilypie

Lilypie - Personal pictureLilypie
by Platinum Member on Nov. 13, 2009 at 12:18 AM

I'm pro-choice, I respect other people's choice to be pro-life, but I have found that most are pro-life because of religous beliefs, and I don't feel that one religion's moral code should rule those who don't follow that religion.

I also don't agree with the "no choice" section.  A persons circumstances may dictate their options, but each person still makes the final choice themselves.  For example, my finances dictate I either go camping for my holiday or go to a friends cabin.  I don't have the choice of a trip to Europe, but I do still have options that I ultimately get to choose from.  If 68% of women can't afford to have children, they still have two options - abortion or adoption, are those necessarily the options they would like?  Maybe not, but they do still have an option other than abortion.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)