Page name: pro-choice..woman's choice [Logged in view] [RSS]
2007-05-08 10:54:23
Last author: Cenyre
Owner: Veltzeh
# of watchers: 29
Fans: 0
D20: 15
Bookmark and Share

Pro-Choice..Woman's Choice

If you think women should have a choice about abortions then you are at the right place. Feel free to tell stories or just leave a comment. I would really like a banner! I started this wiki because I feel that every woman should have the choice. I am also going to have a page for "pro-lifers" to have a say, but first we need more people to join! I will have pictures of the March in DC, the largest humans right march in the world! 1.2 MILLION! please leave a comment on why you are pro-choice!

PC stories feel free to write anything!

pro-choice banners!

PC pics put up your pics!

american terrorism - become aware of crazy pro-life extremists

[Vampire Mariam] I believe women should have the right to do what they think is right when the get pregnant. I know some women who get pregnant by accident may not be able to raise a child, or want to raise a child. What if the condom broke? What if she got raped? is her choice....I AM NOT pro-abortion!! is for the woman to decide!!!! not the goverment or any one else!

[Scooz] I must agree that women should be allowed to have abortions, but I do not like the ones that wait til they are 6 months along or more because by then the baby has had too much time to develop. But I have been raped before and if he would have gotten me pregnant and I could not abort his child, it would not have been a pretty picture. Do not bring a child into this world if you do not want it, because you are ruining their life and yours.

[Rondel] I have seen too many situations which could best be addressed by terminating the pregnancy, and have myself been through the procedure, including in a situation where the egg, though fertilized, did not develop; without that procedure, the hyperemesis which caused me to throw up every 15 minutes round the clock could not have been stopped -- and I would still have wound up miscarrying, because there was no developing embryo, just a "blighted ovum".
The worst, though, was a situation in which a relative of mine faced a back-alley abortion after an incestuous relationship forced on her by her adoptive step-father, in the days before abortion was legalized in the US. I will never be able to understand *anyone* who can claim that a person in that position should be constrained by law from terminating a pregnancy which has not yet produced a child.
Where there is no brain activity, human life is deemed to have ended, so I cannot consider it to have begun when the brain and nervous system have not yet formed and connected

[Kayne] abortion should be legal , what if you were a crack whore and you got pregnant by accicent ? do you think that child is going to be happy ? no . What if you were 16 and you had a accident ? do you think she will can take care of it ? probably not
abortion = legal!!!!!!!

[Delight] What drives me insane is that fact that the people who don't support abortion and wish to ban it also don't support the health care for the woman when she has her child, or even before. They dont fund the orphanage, or somewhere that can help her raise it. They dont fund the homeless shelters enough because if the woman has a child that she can not handle or afford, thats where she is going to end up. Its an idiodic thing to abolish abortion because freedom requires it, and also because there is nothing to help the people who are forced to have children because of it. The people who dont get to go to school because they had to leave to have and care for their child. When such occurs, if the woman does not marry a rich man, which is even more unlikely because she already has a kid (Atleast statistically), she will become a lower class member of society, whoooooo guess what peoples, is not supported well enough at all by a government that would abolish abortion.
 If a woman were to die, if she would keep the child, or the child were to die. Is that okay? If they were to die of starvation or cold because they cannot now afford heat or food or clothes, is that okay? Is it alright for someone to make a decision for everyone else that makes them, instead of ridding themselves of an unwanted pregnancy, die from hunger or cold? Its an extreme version of the situation, but it does happen. I know that for a fact. So a painful misrable death, or a painless one? If you're personally religious, is that right in the eyes of your deity? If you're not, is that right in the eyes of your morals?
What if the woman was raped? What about keeping the child then. The psychological damages from that would be amazing. For both mother and child.
There is also the thing that the people who get rid of it in the first place are men.
Also, think. If a woman were to find out that she was going to have a child who was seriously retarted or disabled. Such to a point that the kid would not live past birth, or to a point that the kid would be absolutly misrable for their entire life, if they survived that long. Such to a point that if the parent died, they would end up in an institution of some kind. Is that alright? Does that make sense to have a child like that? Does it make sense to create someone who will have a horrible and misrable existance?
Lastly, why do they think that they can make such a decision for the rest of the world. Its amazingly stupid. Those who abolish it could just not have abortions themselves. Do they really have to take control of everone elses choice, or lack of? Do they really have the Right to make it so that no one else could have even the option of having an abortion?
Sorry about the rant, but its just how i feel about it, and was relieved to be able to write it down and get it all out.

This is a touchy subject that is not just black and white, there's alot of grays in it. Sure It's terrible to get rid of a unborn child, but wouldn't it be just as terrible if a child was born to parents who didn't really want them in the first place. They would grow up in a hellish environment with little love and maybe it would of been better if they weren't born. Young mothers are confused and sometimes not able to take care of a child properly as well. I also think women should have a bigger say in this issue, hell, guys don't have to carry the child around in their bloody stomachs. I'm not a religious person and i frankly don't care if you're religious or not, BUT...when peoiple try to bring religion into things like this, it's very irritating to me. If the woman wants the abortion and she's not religous, she doesn't need bloody religious fanatics parading around the abortion clinic. If they're not religious, they DO NOT care about your ideals and whatnot. It's their decision if they want to get an abortion and they have to live with the consequences. Oh well, I'm going to hell now, wait, I've come to that conclusion ages ago...don't mind me, i have a messed up sense of humor. (I'm an aetheist anyways, so i don't care)

[Veltzeh] (founder of Pro-Choice League)
In my opinion, abortion should be legal, offered free in hospitals and encouraged if the woman has the slightest doubt that she wouldn't want to have the baby. In today's over-populated world all children should be wanted and they shouldn't have to spend even a small part of their lives in orphanages living off of the society's money that could be used for something else. Yes, I realize my opinion is very harsh, but there it is.
Finally, a question to think about: Why are those who oppose abortion often religious fanatics who likely have never read even basic biology, while those who are pro-choice are often doctors and other educated people who know their biology, physiology and even ethics?

[Hermes322] I think that it's better to get an abortion done by a doctor, in an office as opposed to a back alley by a creepy guy who offers to show kids puppies.

[Icetigris] I believe that the only people who should even have a say in these laws are women. Men don't have to deal with it so they should stay out of it. Also, I find it ridiculous that people value the life of a 40-celled blastocyst over a thinking, truly living, conscious woman who can feel physical and emotional pain. That ball of cells has no more consciousness than a potato; potatoes don't have rights, so why should something cognitively equivalent have rights, just because it has human DNA? I was at the March for Women's Lives and saw a great sign pointing out an interesting parallel: in China, the government forces abortion, in the US, the government is trying to force women to have babies they don't want. In both situations, it's not whether or not the people want to kill the baby (as anti-choice people are wont to say), it's about whether or not women have a choice about what to do with their own bodies. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

[FireGypsy] I have read over your opinions on pro-choice. I beleive the mother should have a choice. I also beleive that abortion should be legal, under certain conditions. If you were a victim of incest, if the baby has a fatal or developing fatal disease, If the baby HAS aquired a fatal disease from the mother, if either the baby or the mother or both will die during pregnancy or labor. Other than that they abortionist should tell that mother NO! Millions of Women every year have abortions simply because they cant afford the kid, their parents wont let them, they have been raped, or because they simply dont want one. Well if you cant afford shouldnt have had sex. If you dont want shouldnt have had sex. If the mother doesnt want the baby for reasons such as stated above then the mother should have the baby and give it up for adoption. Those doctors should say "No. maam you cannot kill that baby in you. That baby is in no danger and neither are you. You must have the baby and put it up for adoption if you dont want it that bad."

[Arbor] It is simply the choice for which I stand. Give me the CHOICE. If you are against abortion then keep your child. Do not try to make my decision for me; let me deal with the consequences.

[sophomoric] I've debated a long while whether or not I should put up my stance here, but I've concluded that perhaps I should. This is a page about choice, and none should question my stance lest they wish for their own to be put to question. I am in a position where there is significant moral confliction. To begin, I am a vegetarian. What does this have to do with pro-choice? A lot. Just because I have taken a moralistic position against something that I feel is wrong, does not mean that I, or anyone else have the right to impose this position on others. I believe that animals and babies should live, but I do not believe that it is a pick and choose situation. In order to follow an omnivorous diet, animals have to die, and this is a concept that people don't even blink an eye at most of the time.

Pregnant women (I will not call them mothers under such circumstances) that decide they should like to get an abortion are rather inversely viewed as evil and terrible individuals. That carries a double standard from a moralistic perspective. Therefore, it is my stance that I don't respect the arguments of any pro-choicers unless they don't have a moralistic double standard.

That may seem a little cold and heartless, but as I regard animals as highly as I do humans (higher in a wondrous variety of cases) I find it almost comical that people can use an argument of potential. We, as humans, have warped the course of nature more than any other creature, under the argument that this is our earth given to us from any variety of deities. If that is their argument, then fine, mine is that women were given their bodies from any number of deitical figures, and just as we have spoiled the earth, let them do to their body as they will; there are far worse ways a child could die, all of them taking place when they are aware of their own existence.

As for the adoption argument; the world is over-populated as it is, outlawing abortion would cause another massive rise in the population, by millions if previous figures hold true.

Conclusion: It truly IS a choice just as we all, invariably, have choices.

[Tolmeni] I think it's rather telling that most of the anti-abortion zealots are male, who will never suffer through a pregnancy or labor that threatens their life and the life of their child. I don't believe in abortions when the fetus is too far along, but when the life of the woman is in serious danger, or there is no chance of she or the baby having any hope of a positive life, or if the baby will be born addicted to illegal substances...I think abortion is a viable option.

[AbLam] Whether it is the right or wrong thing to do, it is still a choice. No one but the woman who is having the baby should be able to choose. I'm sorry, but there isn't a good excuse for outlawing women's right to choose. Period.

[P(e)Ta] NO-ONE but the woman involved had the right to make a decision as to whether or not she goes through with her pregnancy (especially not conservative twats who are male and will never know the pain of having to choose). However, abortion should not be used as a form of emergency contraception. Girls still have to be responsible, but the choice should still be there!

[bodhranbabe] What I hate are the bumper stickers that say, "Smile, your mother was pro-life!" I'm sorry, but my mother was pro-choice, and she chose to have me. Being pro-choice is just as much about the positive choice as it is the negative. It's about the option

[a faerie tale] When they scream "murderer" at me because I'm Pro-Choice, I feel the panic rise in my throat. I want to run, I want to yell, "Not me! I'm a moral person. I'm trying to help!" Those people have a right, I guess. It's what they believe. So I've got to face it, and be strong-- . POC's, "products of conception", that's what we're supposed say. "tissue" "termination" But when that machine starts, it's not just "tissue" that's sucked out. It's life: potentially human life. And like the Buddhists, I believe in "reverence for life". That's why I'm a vegetarian. But I also believe that conception should be a blessing. My brother's wife: when she's pregnant she sings lullabies, she organizes everything she eats and drinks-- she makes herself a perfect vessel. But you can't order a woman to do that! Not by bullying! What makes those people out there think a person can be frightened into goodness? Oh, give it up for adoption, they say! How can a mother do that? Carry a baby under her heart for nine long months and then give it away? Once it grows and moves it's a part of you. Loved, the way you love your own knees, or your breasts. And does your responsibility end, if you hand it over? What about Lisa Steinberg's mother? Does she sleep nights, now? She thought her daughter was going to be given every advantage, not tortured to death. Even a good adoption-- suppose you're a concert violinist, and your baby goes to a family that's tone deaf, that thinks music is noise....? Who would want to live that life? Who would want to give a child that life?

Add your name to the list of pro-choice people

1. [Vampire Mariam]
2. [Kisama]
3. [brandi_080786]
4. [Kiss_Me_Bum]
5. [Mitsune]
6. [Carol Lynn]
7. [Pale-Suzie]
8. [Blackshire]
9. [sarah l b]
10. [minifer]
11. [Scooz]
12. [dimmu_borgir3212]
13. [Arbor]
14. [Lily~]
15. [Tidd3]
16. [Rondel]
17. [Nukleopatra]
18. [VorpalBlade910]
19. [ei33]
20. [Fallen_Angel_666]
21. [Tehrror]
22. [Project Elysium]
23. [kate katastrophe]
24. [Kayne]
25. [Glorybox.]
26. [Tormenta]
27. [deja vu, mi amor]
28. [Veltzeh]
29. [Your Christ Is Dead]
28. [Mania Rage]
29. [Delight]
30. [Davorah]
31. [x_bubblicious]
32. [Alfirin Lindlea]
33. [Christie Shadow]
34. [// Grace //.And..Bend]
35. [Carol Lynn]
36. [Furr]
37. [Dil*]
38. [Pyra]
39. [Yoruno]
40. [Magic Circle]
41. [sophomoric]
42. [Doormat]
43. [how about no?]
44. [Hermes322]
45. [Icetigris]
46. [Tiezu Star]
47. [Elrohir Elensar]
48. [God called in sick today]
49. [BrokenPromise7x]
50. [Pillowthief]
51. [Blue Raspberries and Grape Juice]
52. [Not Here!]
53. [My Chemical Erin]
54. [Sue Falkenkralle]
55. [Anduraja]
56. [Bullet with Butterfly Wings]
57. [JinXTheMoodieAl]
58. [Morrigon]
59. [tiragon]
60. [Nostradamia]
61. [Jinji-Chan]
62. [Hazel]
63. [to a new?]
64. [jojo-kun]
65. [Anon Y. Mous]
66. [CharlotteCrying]
67. [Lashinnian]
68. [Tolmeni]
69. [Rosie.]
70. [*~A Cure For Contempt~*]
71. [AbLam]
72. [P(e)Ta]
73. [bodhranbabe]
74. [kaomi]
75. [Yiwerra]
76. [Bad Wolf]
77. [I stabbith ye]
78. [Eldanár Oronar]
79. [a faerie tale]
80. [kay-chan]
81. [Hufflepuff Lolita]
82. [deranged-bugosh]
83. [Bad Wolf]
84. [Blue Raspberries and Grape Juice]
85. [Cenyre]

Not the church, not the state, only the women should decide their own fate!

Have a different opinion? Check out pro-life and Against Abortion League.

Username (or number or email):


2005-11-09 [Veltzeh]: [The Pink Panther], maybe you should've said so, then? As far as I see, it's you who's mostly attacking... I still don't see much sense in your comments, though. Would you be offended if I asked you to clarify them and not make some other (irrelevant) comments?

2005-11-09 [The Pink Panther]: Okay, I apologize for making a comment expecting you to understand it. However, I do not apologize for the fact that you felt it as offensive or attacking., because it was far from it. Now, if there is anything you seem needs clarifying, tell me what it is, and I will be glad to erase any misunderstanding.

2005-11-09 [kay-chan]: Yeah, Dilandau, it's a downward spiral, aka sperm as a potential human... I'm just saying some people believe that a zygote has the potential for life. And [The Pink Panther], the 'potential for life' means the potential that it will grow into a human. Life is (usually) defined as the ability to divide and maintain a stable environment, but it doesn't necessarily mean that a zygote is yet human. It is a human cell, but is it a seperate organism by itself? No.

2005-11-09 [Veltzeh]: [The Pink Panther]: Well, it wasn't me who started questioning here. I also thought I was being well not attacking as far as I could see.

2005-11-09 [Dil*]: Question: Would you call the blueprints for a house a house?

2005-11-10 [kay-chan]: Without the blueprints, house has no potential to ever be built, which is exactly what I meant when i said "some people believe that the zygote has the potential for life." I hope you do realize that you're making me argue for a side I don't agree with. I'm just stating a philosophy.

2005-11-10 [The Pink Panther]: Veltzeh, there's no use go on with this. You felt offended? Fine, I apologize, and I guarantee that was not my intention. Done with it. And Kay-chan, biology is nothing like architecture. Mainly because Nature does not use (or need) blueprints. Besides, what do you call a being with rose DNA? You call it a rose. What do you call a being with human DNA? I don't know you, but I usually call it human, not "potentially" human...

2005-11-10 [kay-chan]: Would you call a rose cell a complete rose? No. I do not cut myself and wipe away the blood thinking, "I'm killing humans!" simply because each blood cell has human DNA. By that logic, a zygote is not human because it's simply one cell. Would you call a brick a complete house? See last answer. Biology is very similar to architecture on a few discreet points. Besides, DNA=blueprints, literally, so nature does use blueprints.

2005-11-10 [The Pink Panther]: Well, DNA is present in every cell, I do not think blueprints are present in every brick. I think it's quite a dangerous comparison the one you're doing. And besides... the zygote has more in common with an unicellular being, than with an isolated cell.

2005-11-10 [kay-chan]: Yes, it's quite dangerous to compare building a person with building a house. With every word I compare bricks and cells to, I'm that much closer to just imploding and dying. They're just words, and as a simplistic definition, it works just fine. An isolated cell is specific in the body. A zygote is nonspecific to a body part, a 'stem cell,' and will keep dividing until there are enough cells to specify. Such cells are produced from the marrow, I'm pretty sure. But as you said, a zygote has things in COMMON with a unicellular being (so do all cells); it is not a multicellular organism such as a human. It is not A human.

2005-11-11 [The Pink Panther]: Well.. actually, it has EVERYTHING in comon with an unicellular beign, and since the very moment of conception begins to divide and reproduce... is a two-or-more-cells being enough human for you?

2005-11-11 [kay-chan]: Again, I don't know the specific theories on when a fetus crosses over to a baby (obviously your's is 'instantly'), but even at a thousand cells it's still just a lump of indescript cells; they haven't begun to specify until a ways later in the process. And I hesitate to talk about unicellular beings in comparison to singular eukaryotic cells, seeing as how most unicellular beings are prokaryotic or archaea, bacteria and some-such. But a unicellular being (eg bacteria) can survive on its own, independent from constant support, as a separate human can, but a cell from a human can't, as a zygote or a respective early fetus can't.

2005-11-11 [Dil*]: Without blueprints, no house could be built. True, but blueprints for a house is not a house.

2005-11-12 [kay-chan]: Exactly.

2005-11-13 [The Pink Panther]: Well, Kay, should we mention the fact that an already born baby cannont survive on his own either? Or waht about lichens? They are the "combination", so to speak, of a fungus and an alga. None of them can survive without the other, and still we have two different and absolutely distinctive living beings. And as for my theory, do I really need to explain that when I said "suddenly and magically turns into a living being " I was being ironic? So... just for you to know, this is the las comment you will get from me in this debate, considering this is the third time I have to go back to explain a point I considered understood just because either you (all of you, not you Kay-

2005-11-13 [The Pink Panther]: chan in particualr) didn´t understand, or didn´t want to understand. Thanks for your time, and see you around. [The Pink Panther]

2005-11-13 [Veltzeh]: I kind of find it repulsive that any living being would use another (the mother) as a life-support vessel against the "vessel"'s wishes, needs and risking both of their healths. Of course, no problem if the mother wants to be a life-support vessel...

2005-11-13 [kay-chan]: It's almost parasitic... Okay, bye [The Pink Panther].

2005-11-15 [Dil*]: You haven't even addressed the problem of human rights vs human rights here.

2006-01-07 [Dil*]: american terrorism

2006-01-07 [Morrigon]: gah.....I don't have any words right now -.-

Number of comments: 1479
Older comments: (Last 200)

200 older comments
(0, 0-74):

Show these comments on your site

Elftown - Wiki, forums, community and friendship. Sister-site to Elfwood