Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?
 

I have been reading about the recent filibuster by Wendy Davis which prevented the 20 week abortion bill from passing. What are your thoughts on this? I realise this is a very controversial topic so please try to keep the debate clean and within the MB rules.

Here is a pro-life article on the event

Here is a article showing the difference in protesters (with the ridiculous "Hail Satan" input.

Here is Wendy's take on the event:

Texas state leaders have again taken up a partisan effort to impose severe restrictions on the ability of women in our state to receive reproductive and other crucial health-care services.

Just a few weeks ago, I spent nearly 13 hours filibustering this bill. I stood up to filibuster the bill because Texas Republican leaders would rather pursue a partisan agenda than help Texas women. I stood to oppose the bill because it rolled back constitutional rights and would reduce the number of women's health clinics from 42 to 5, thereby threatening the health and safety of thousands of Texas women.

I know how important this is because as a young woman, the only health care I received -- preventative care, cancer screenings, checkups etc. -- came from a women's health clinic close to where I live in Fort Worth. Indeed, more than 90 percent of the care provided by these centers has nothing at all to do with abortion. Quite the opposite, their services are absolutely critical to preventing unplanned pregnancies and to providing much-needed health-care screening.

So while the "people's filibuster" will go down in history for putting a stop (if only temporarily) to a misguided bill, the filibuster was more than organized opposition or even endurance -- it was an expression of mainstream Texans standing up against partisan power-mongers who no longer act in Texas' best interest or even tell Texans the truth.

These partisans have depicted their bill as an effort to improve the quality of care available to women in local clinics. The filibuster, however, exposed their real intent -- to close clinics all over the state of Texas and deny health-care services to thousands of Texas women.

And now Gov. Rick Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst have rammed these new restrictions through the state legislature in a special session, without concern for health care or constitutionality.

This partisan effort builds on a concerted action by state leaders to roll back access to women's and family health care. In 2011, their budget cuts threw approximately 150,000 women out of a health safety net that, as in my experience, served as their only source of regular, reliable care.

Since then, state leaders have bypassed a nine-to-one federal match in funding for the women's health-care program and saddled state taxpayers with approximately $30 million per year in unnecessary expense, as well as millions of additional dollars spent through Medicaid on unplanned births.

Worse, a vendetta against Planned Parenthood by Perry and Dewhurst has gutted nearly half of the state's women's health-care delivery system. As a consequence, tens of thousands of Texas women may very well have no providers of care despite additional state funding.

A great deal of attention has been given to the portion of the bill that would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, which was added by partisans primarily as a means for whipping up their political base.

But this cynical and dishonest political tactic puts women's lives at risk. Less than 1 percent of all abortions in Texas occur at the 20th week or later. In nearly all of these cases, a family in tragic circumstances has had to make the difficult and private decision to let go of a much-wanted pregnancy because of a major medical concern.

What's more, state leaders don't mention that they opposed and defeated an amendment to allow an exception to the 20-week ban when a woman has been raped or is the victim of incest. This exception is no small matter. Each year, about 25,000 American women -- 30 percent of them minors -- become pregnant through rape or incest.

In the end, the filibuster was a means to continue the fight and stand up to Republican leaders. That fight is not a new one for me.

As a senator from the only true swing district in the Texas Senate, I've been targeted by the GOP for my outspoken criticism of its extremist attacks on public education and voting rights, to name just two examples. My nearly 13-hour stand against the effort to deny women access to basic health care evolved into a people's filibuster opposing a selfish and out-of-touch leadership that refuses to listen to real families with real hopes.

Texas really is the greatest state in the greatest nation. Texans -- and women all over the country -- deserve leaders that care, that listen and that work to protect their interests.

The people's filibuster demonstrated that Texans -- and women everywhere -- are ready and willing to fight back.

Texas State Sen. Wendy Davis, a Democrat, represents District 10 of the Texas Senate. This column was distributed by The Washington Post, where it first appeared.

I would change the title to "Pro-Life or Pro-Choice". Pro-abortion is a bit of a dirty term as it's often used in a smearing manner to make pro-choicers sound like evil monsters instead of decent people standing up for preserving human rights above enforced morality. I think you can probably guess which side of the argument I'm on.

Came here to say this. Same page, my friend.

Done. :)

Heh, me too. I've encountered a lot of people who seem to think that the counter to being pro-life, is to have a careless attitude toward abortion. Basically people who think that if you're not pro-life, you're actively killing babies or something. Quite staggering really.

You should see some of the comments on these pro-life websites. There are some really ignorant people on there.

Pro-Choice for life. Pro informed choices also.

Especially when it comes to those who've been victims of rape or incest.

I'm absolutely pro-choice. I'll even go one further and say I'm pro-choosing-not-to-have-kids-because-the-world-is-in-no-state-for-it, but ultimately, I'll be dead by the time the planet caves in, so my opinion doesn't really matter in that case.

This pseudo-Libertarian, "don't force your morality on me!" nonsense doesn't fly because the issue at hand is the Government forcing people to subsidize abortion.

That actually Libertarian (try looking the definition of the word up before throwing it around) "don't make me contribute towards the wellbeing of others!" nonsense doesn't fly because the actual issue at hand is people actively trying to force the government to ban an important medical procedure for everyone because it offends their personal sense of morality.

We are one. I'm a hardcore antinatalist myself.

I'm pro choice. Even if I was virulently anti-abortion, I still wouldn't be able to tell other women what to do because of my own views. It's their call. Hence, pro-choice.

By the way, I'm not anti-abortion. Do whatever you want I don't care. I do get kind of confused by women that have multiple ones, like my sister's friend who has had three. Have you heard of condoms? Goddamn.

I've never heard of that before. Intredasting. I was always under the impression that we were headed towards overpopulation, but then after some research I actually found the opposite is happening.

My problem with your link is that is mentions absolutely nowhere anything about sustainability of resources.

Yeah. We've already reached the projected maximum population for the amount of resources and land available for crops, and that part is only getting worse. The next 50 years are going to be ****ed up.

The government is currently trying to pass an abortion legislation here and unsurprisingly this has attracted it's fair share of disapproval and protests from the rosary bead clutching brigade. A lot of people seem to think that legalising abortion is going to result in all babies disappearing off the face of the planet when really it won't make any difference, it's a complete over-reaction and what's even worse is that the Catholic church is adding the fuel to the flames.

I think it's more important that women have a choice and not have to bear the burden of a pregnancy that they can't emotionally or physically handle.

serrriooously, I don't know if most people know the story about the death of Savita Halappanavar, (I'm sure you do) but that was so heartbreaking and unnecessary.

But I'm pro-choice as ****

Can you please share it?

Pro-life is a cute name. It makes pro-choice sound more like anti-life.

Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soz, I thought it was pretty well known, I saw it all over tumblr/facebook

but basically she was having a miscarriage and she went to the hospital and she needed an abortion but under Irish law she couldn't have one because the fetus's heart was still beating, she ended up getting septicaemia and got multiple organ failure from that and died. Totally unnecessary.

I just don't really get anyone who's pro-life, I read this great quote from a catholic nun saying

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.".

And honestly, the pro-life movement doesn't care about children after they are born. They don't realise if it were easier to access birth control or to have more childcare and actually comprehensive sex ed (here in America, I don't know about other countries) etc etc then we wouldn't have so much abortion.

I'm all for abortion though, I don't know if I could make that choice myself but that's me and I don't want anyone else to not have that choice.

Also, for anyone on the fence about this matter should honestly read Cider House Rules, because it's got a really great perspective on pro-life vs pro-choice.

That's awful! I can't believe that happened in 2012. I don't know how the doctors and nurses in that situation could just let her die like that. :(

I have read comments by some pro-lifers saying they are against all forms of birth control. It's just so unrealistic.

I am going to order that book from the library, I think!

What's really ****ed up is that people FREAK OUT about women wanting easier access to birth control, when I'm sure you know, that we use it for more than just preventing pregnancy

There was a pro-life march in Dublin a few weeks ago in which an estimated 50,000 people took part. It was preceded by a service at a cathedral with the usual bible-referencing pro-life propaganda. The church is still feeding peoples minds and preventing them from thinking of the continuing consequences of abortion being illegal. People can think of no other reason why abortion should be outlawed other than "it's murder" or "it's a sin". Savita's death is what has triggered all of this here and her sad death would certainly not have happened had abortion been legalised here years ago.

The new pope seems pretty cool, far as popes go, so perhaps an eventual change in thinking is on the horizon.

Exactly! I am extremely grateful for my Mirena which I got through the public hospital, as it has reduced my chronic pain levels dramatically. It has reduced the amount of ovarian cysts I get too.

So this is relevant:

Rick Perry signs wide-ranging Texas bill to limit access to abortion | World news | guardian.co.uk

I'm not even going to say anything about this article other than how it made me furious. I sometimes find it baffling that people in such supposedly modern nations are not only willing to support this bullshit but are actually capable of passing shady laws on it.

yeah, I was going to post about that. The update to the situation concerning what Wendy Davis did was all for naught because they ended up getting it passed anyways and are going to close down all those abortion clinics and be left with something like 2 or 3.

Oh I'm pro-choice btw.

Rick Perry is such a shitlord

An American friend reckons it's going to get shot down in the Supreme Court, which I guess I can hope for. If the dubious statement about 80% of Texans opposing the move is true it could at least harm Rick Perry's political career. That's always a plus.

Pro-choice here.

I think that restricting access to public abortion clinics will not stop women from getting abortions, but those women will have to find more radical ways to do so. Actually, this already happens in Third World countries where women are just too poor to afford a safe abortion, or where religious oppression forbids women from aborting a pregnancy. They often get them in back alleys or at makeshift facilities :(

Edit: if there are votes from Pro Life people, I'd really be interested to hear (or rather, read) their opinions on the subject.

As is the case with so many things in this world, criminalising the action-in this case abortion-will only work piecemeal. It will mean more children are born, but there is nothing to say what sort of life these children will lead among so many other situational variables. Again, as with drugs and prostitution the demand for abortion will exist so long as humanity does, it will only lead to "black market" abortions be they ingested poisons or dodgy surgeries, only these will fund a criminal element that could otherwise be largely avoided, not to mention the harm it will cause to the patient.

There are a few people who take the piss with abortions or who seem what I would regard as worryingly unaffected by abortion, but by and large it is a huge decision in a parents life and a very painful one at that-obviously much more so for the mother. I know three girls pretty well who have had abortions from the 16-22 age range and each one of them goes completely off the rails on the given date or even the month at which they aborted for years afterwards, let alone the period after deciding.

Rarely "quick fix for sluts" which seems to be painted by social conservatives, in my experience.

Oh, I see you largely beat me to the point anyway Burning Down!

I'm Pro Situational. If it's a health risk or otherwise unreasonable for a woman to carry a child to term, by all means. I'll even go so far to say that I support pretty much any reason, assuming the kid couldn't survive outside of the womb by the time of the procedure, which would be rather sadistic if carried out, although I would hope a responsible person wouldn't let it get that far unless they found out about a health risk too late. In which case, again, situational.

However, I don't agree with the approach regarding "I can do what I want with my body" that seems to be pervasive in women's rights movements. At some point, it's not just your body, just as it isn't your body if you kill your 2 year old child (I'm not sure how to sugar-coat ending someone's life). Whatever arbitrary line we draw between conception and "life" is not for me to say, but it's pretty obvious that it has to be drawn somewhere, which I'm sure most of us agree with, and I'm pretty sure we already have laws for it.

While I won't outright disagree with a woman's decision to terminate for any reason prior to that arbitrary line, I do feel as though there should be some expectation of responsibility involved, rather than advancing an agenda that seems to either absolve people of personal responsibility or, on the other hand, deny the decision outright.
This is why I support easy access to contraception and morning-after pills, which I definitely think should be sold over the counter, and even covered on insurance for free.

The right seems to think that we can legislate personal responsibility, and that's definitely a bad assumption. People will make mistakes, and some of us will be outright irresponsible. I think it's important to make it easier for people to then rectify the issue without having to resort to abortion first. And I think it's completely wrong to both place further restrictions on abortion while not accommodating the sort of preventative measures that would make abortion a less relied upon method to begin with, which is what the right seems to be doing.

No one WANTS to have an abortion. They don't go out getting pregnant so they can get an abortion. So if the right wants less abortions, then they should be advocating for more and better access to preventative measures, instead of flinching at policies that would do just that.

I'm all for using my tax dollars to support methods that would, in many cases, not end up with the need for abortion in the first place.

im prochoice because i dont think anyone should be forced to have a child and people should be able to make choices with their pregnancy. one thing i dont understand is the political mindset of a large group of people that are against abortions and widely available contraception while at the same time against government assistance and welfare. that seems weird to me.

people make mistakes and accidents happen. people should be responsible for themselves but bringing a child into the world can be bad for the child and the parents. so many people just arent ready, made a mistake, and i dont even want those people bringing new people into the world.

of course in instances of rape i cant imagine why anyone would be against an abortion.


i am also speaking as someone who got someone preggers and they had an abortion years ago because it wouldnt have been a good outcome otherwise nd even though we dont speak anymore i think our lives turned out better than what woulda happened otherwise so i need no other validation for that decision in my mind

This is a hot topic in Ireland at the moment. A young Indian woman recently died because she was, literally, told by the nurse "Oh you can't have an abortion in Ireland dear: this is a catholic country!" Jesus (and I use these words deliberately) Christ! Is this the effing dark ages or what?

Now we have our govt pushing through needed legislation which will allow LIMITED abortion under EXTREME circumstances in the future, but the pro-lifers can only ever see their own twisted agenda, dead babies and God crying over them. They make me sick. Our taoiseach (govt leader/PM) has received some really hateful mail about it, saying he's killing babies and so on. People need a kick in the head.

So yeah I'm obviously pro-life.
Not.

?

Circe, I'm discussing the actual bill at hand. This bill, among other items, only prohibits abortions from the 20th week on. As stated by Wendy Davis herself in the op, most abortions that occur from the 20th week on occur because of "family reasons", not medical. Mind, again according to OP, this represents all of 1% of abortions in Texas.

Further, I fail to see why the public being forced to fund abortions to appease Liberal morality is any way morally neutral.

By the same token pro-life is fairly emotive but pro-choice is rather sanitised. Why not call it what it is? Anti-abortion or Pro-abortion.

Simply because while pro-lifers are ALWAYS of the opinion that abortion is wrong, pro-choicers do NOT ALWAYS say abortion is the way. Nobody's advocating abortion, not in all cases, but p/c means you have the CHOICE. Doesn't mean you HAVE to have an abortion, just that you CAN have one if you CHOOSE.

Sorry for the caps but I think it's wrong and very dangerous to label people who are not anti-abortionist as being pro-abortion. It sends the wrong signals and is, factually, completely inaccurate.

Fair enough.


My problem with the question of 'choice' is that having seen my own children at 8 weeks on ultrasounds and my niece born prematurely weighing just 550g I can't remove that emotional imprinting from the equation when I consider the question of whether it is someone's right to get an abortion 20 weeks into a pregnancy. I always felt it was a valid choice but my experiences as a father have reframed the question irrevocably. I came to a point where it just seemed like a ridiculously spineless position to take of "Yeah sure you have the right to end that life." Before people start with the sanctimonious tirades obviously you have the legal right to make your own decisions. I am merely stating the reasons for my own personal position on the 'choice'.


Those are choices I support 100%.