Does a candidates stance on abortion sway you when you vote?  Is it the "Big Issue" for you?

Vote now and tell us all about it.

anyone who can support the whole-sale slaughter of those that cant speak for themselves is too debase to make any rational decisions; but then again, maybe its just above there pay-grade

agree

Far down the list of important issues to base my vote on.

There are two major factors that lead me to be pro-choice:

• Self-Awareness doesn't come into play until pretty far into the pregnancy (I don't support late-term abortions)
• Nobody has any right to require a mother to carry a child. Period.

There is also a very large amount of hypocrisy in the pro-life camp, and many illegal arguments. First and foremost is the blanket idea that abortion must mean the death of the fetus. I'm personally holding out for medical science to create artificial wombs that fetus's could be transplanted into. At that point you would have abortion without any loss of life. That would also address my second point above that the mother's body is her own and she can do with it as she pleases - including choosing not to be an unwilling incubator.

Then, as was said earlier, there are those who scream bloody murder at pro-choicers, but then turn around and support war, capital punishment, etc. While I know they don't make up the whole of the pro-life community, they are among the most vocal. I cannot and will not ever respect people that so blatantly contradict themselves. And they make it increasingly hard to find any credibility in the pro-life movement at all.

Then there's religion. If the pro-life movement wants to convince people that abortion is wrong, spouting gospel really isn't going to help. Every modern major religion has had their credibility so absolutely shot by hypocrisy and double-standards that to say it's wrong because your god says it's wrong might as well be saying "because I said so." Good luck with that. And the general rule of thumb... bitching at and threatening people isn't likely to make them see things your way. Again, probably only a small subset of the movement, but a very visible one.

For now I follow the path paved by science. If it's done early enough that the fetus would be unable to make sense of it, what's being lost? Only what that fetus might grow up to be; their potential. An unmeasurable assumption. A sad thing, perhaps, but hardly anything that threatens our society. And laws are intended to exist only to protect society - not control it. Or at least that's the case in the US.

P.S. Being largely against war and definitely against the death penalty, I'm probably one of the more pro-life people in this country.

I am pro-life, though given the patchwork of human inconsistencies that politicians tend to hold on the various issues, it is not a deal-breaking issue in the grand scheme of my vote.  However, I feel like my position is consistent with my libertarian views (and not based on religion or any inconsistent opinion of human rights).  To Rikaelus and others, I believe the fundamental question boils down, like all things, to the concept of individual rights.


That is, of course, unless there is another, more fundamental right that trumps the woman's right "not to carry the child."  I believe there is: the right of the unborn child to live.  You mentioned a possible future technology such as artificial wombs, or something that would allow an unborn child to be removed and still develop healthily.  I'd absolutely support that, since it would remove the conflict of rights, but until such a thing actually exists, we have to decide which right wins out.


The problem with this supposed contradiction is that both war and capital punishment have potentially valid justifications.  While I think it shouldn't be used except as a matter of defense, war is putting one nation's armed forces against another, or at least some other form of resistance.  If you live in a free society and pick up arms to fight, you are accepting the possibility that you will be killed.  Capital punishment is grounded in the various theories of justice, whether that's deterrence or retribution.  And agree with those theories or not as they apply to the death penalty, it's a far cry from ending the life of someone that hasn't even been born, much less committed a crime.


So by your standard, if you are unable to make sense of what's happening, it's okay to kill you?  Does that include newborns and infants that wouldn't understand they are going to die?  How about elderly people that are becoming increasingly senile?

And no, what's being lost by aborting a fetus isn't just his potential, it's violating his most fundamental of individual rights -- the right to be alive.  You mention that laws exist only to protect society (sadly if only that were the case nowadays).  You are absolutely right!  And what is more critical to protecting society than shielding its most inarguably innocent from being killed by someone, regardless of the reason?

To return to your initial point, that no one has the right to require a woman to carry a child, I don't see how the society that can't force that could then require her to take care of the child after he's born.  Yes, there is adoption, but that doesn't conflict with the child's right to live.  If the mother is choosing between caring for a born child and killing it, I'm sure you would feel she doesn't have the right to the latter.  Society also forces fathers to provide care for their children, whether they want to or not, and there is no way out of it.  If the mother and father are apart, a custodian is appointed to require the non-custodial parent to pay child support, even if the custodial parent doesn't want it.  Why?  Because the money is not dependent on the mother, but "the good of the child."

We can argue till we're all blue in the face about whether a fetus is in fact alive, or when it becomes alive, but our entire system of laws is based around the premise that "it is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer."  Put another way, when in doubt, don't do the harmful action.  Obviously a child one week before a natural birth is "alive," almost certainly one month before.  What about two months?  There have been cases of children being born and surviving after just six months, after which they were quite alive by any rational definition.  The further medical technology progresses, the earlier the date of viability will go (right up until your artificial womb, obviating the need for abortions entirely).  My question is, if the scientific definition of when a child is "living" is so fluid, who are we (or even the mother) to decide to violate the unborn child's first and most important right?

((Note: by my own definition, if the question is a matter of the child's life or that of the mother, the rights in question are equal and a sacrifice must be made either way.  In that instance alone would I consider abortion a permissible avenue -- one life or the other.))

I think I did but may have neglected mention of the belief in some "fundamental, inalienable rights" that are inherently applied to all living things. If you believe in such a thing then it's easy for me to see why pro-life-like positions are so easy to cling to. Such ever-present notions of right and wrong are the basis of many religions as well. The issue I have with them is that they've so often been used throughout history as justification for horrible things. Even today there are people who feel they have some fundamental right to a piece of land and they've died and killed for that for centuries. I was about to say that abortion might not be as hot a topic as that, but there have been abortion clinic bombings. In the name of everyone having a right to live - including early-stage fetuses? The principle is ultimately the same and I cannot endorse one side of the coin without the other, lest I become a hypocrite.



So there really are two wars commencing within the larger abortion debate: the idea of an absolute right, and the law. When you begin to speak of law and use such terms as "valid justification", you enter the realm of moral relativity. One person's valid justification is another person's terrorist movement. The two arguments are, I feel, at a logical impasse - if not for the moment then moving forward. If the human population grows to such an extent that uncontrolled births literally threaten others' ability to live, would there then be "valid justification" to have abortion as an option? The problem with the larger debate is if you're pro-life due to there not being a valid justification now, you'll have a hell of a time changing the law if and when it can be justified. By that time, the people that are in this debate for religios reasons will have gotten their way and no level of legal justification will make them willing to change their views.

Laws are meant to be changeable, but it can be much easier to change them one way than the other when so many people want them one way for reasons that have nothing to do with the safety of society.



But how do you define "alive"? That's the crux of the debate. Some people say they're alive the moment they're conceived, others say it's not until they reach some level of self-awareness, and others say it's not until they receive their birth certificate and are recognized as a legal member of society. My reason for drawing my line at self-awareness is because it's consistent with other behaviors, as well as aforementioned reasons. If a person is in a coma or in some vegetative state, today they can be removed from life support and allowed to die legally. Are they not still "alive"? How do you draw that line? Perhaps it can be drawn at the point where they're able to maintain vital body functions without assistance? If so, couldn't we apply that same criteria to babies not yet born? Indeed, that's a position I've taken once before.

There are many instances in which modern law allows for actions that would lead to the expiration of someone's life. To suggest the law should disallow all instances with regards to fetuses is rather narrow-sighted, in my opinion. If there are justifications for ending the life of someone who's older, why can there not be those for fetuses who have never seen the light of day? In the grand scheme of things I think it's a much greater overall loss with an elderly person dies than when a fetus does. Being a moral relativist, no fundamental right is being violated when a fetus dies, and there's no identity, knowledge, or memories being taken from this planet. When an elderly person dies there's a life time of experiences that are forgotten from time. (btw, I don't believe in an after-life, either)



"The good of the child" is another reason why I'm pro-choice. If the parents do not want the child, is it fair to the child to put them into a position of being raised by parents that didn't want it? Like you said, there's adoption, but that's a solution that only works so far and for so many. And there's no small part of a double-standard when so many pro-lifers demand laws against abortion while they also oppose the funding of social programs that help unwanted children. But that's another debate in itself.



Laws are meant to be changed when it becomes applicable to change them. Unfortunately, with the weight of religions put into this debate, it will never be such an easy matter. Too many people are invested in this emotionally and not enough from a logical or purely "safety-of-society" standpoint.

It might be an interesting side comment that recent history has shown us that it's perfectly acceptable for an innocent to suffer if they're not a recognized US citizen - and then sometimes even when they are. Until birth a baby isn't recognized as a citizen at all.

Quote:

((Note: by my own definition, if the question is a matter of the child's life or that of the mother, the rights in question are equal and a sacrifice must be made either way.  In that instance alone would I consider abortion a permissible avenue -- one life or the other.))

I definitely agree with that, at the very least.

Merely a personal believe, and one seemingly shared by many given the number of laws dependent upon it. I recognize that other people believe otherwise and, indeed, other cultures differ significantly in that regard, so quite obviously it's not some absolute law.