If you are pro-choice, would you still be for abortion if it were proven that life begins at conception?

Question

I am not surpirsed, some people will still have abortions even if the baby would look into their eyes and say no please don't (and yes, I know that will never be possible, but I'm just saying). Some people will do anything because it is their own physical body.

Answer 1

If God appeared before me and told me that the soul enters upon fertilization of an egg, and that abortion was the equivalent of killing a newborn infant, yes, I would change from pro-choice to anti-choice. I don't know if that's what you mean when you say it were proven that "life begins at conception".

It is because I do not know, and neither does anyone else, that I think the abortion decision is one for the woman to make.

Answer 2

yes

Answer 3

I don't understand how people can be so callous about abortions. I know women who have miscarried as little as 1 month into the pregnancy but they don't say "Oh no! The cell fetus-like thing just died." they are extremely sadden and depressed that their BABY died. Their child. Another human being that was growing.

As a woman myself I cannot figure out for the life of me why a woman would willingly kill her child just because she couldn't take care of him/her properly in the future. What is it that has made us women so cold?

Bring on the thumbs down! I love 'em. =)

Answer 4

Lasata, Most of the women here at GWS are not Christians. It is obvious that they will always serve their own needs and choose to be pro-choice no matter what evidence is provided to them.  

Answer 5

Life does begin at contraception. When cells begin to multiply life has begun.

A random quote:

"I do not know why these concepts are so hard for you pro-lifers to understand. Pro-choicers do not support abortion. We support the government NOT being able to tell us what we can and cannot do when it comes to our reproductive choices. That's it, plain and simple."

It is illogical to support something you would never do. Pro choicers do support abortion. The fact there is a euphemism for their stance shows how ignorant they are to the facts. Abortion is the only stance liberals or as I call them "dEMOcRATS" support non interference from the government.

Answer 6

As long as abortion is legal, I'm for it.  If it becomes illegal, I'd be for going to a country where it is legal.

Answer 7

Yes.

Answer 8

Doesn't interest me in the slightest.

Answer 9

, however.  If it was proven that life began at conception I would continue to be pro-choice anti abortion.

Answer 10

It IS life at conception, but it is not yet a human life. That comes much later.  

Answer 11

Yep

Answer 12

Yes

because ,it still isnt a human yet,its only a clump of cells,and the women should have more value,simple as that because she is a full grown human who has goals in life,or may already have a career.

Also I see people freaking out when they hear a fetus was killed,but dont care when animals go to the slaughter house.

Answer 13

Yes, I would and I do.  Life has been proven to begin at conception.

Answer 14

These people are saying if we can prove life begins at conception they'd still go through with it?  

I never knew we had such cold-hearted freaks on here, more interested in their own convenience than protecting life.  Maybe a few people are having trouble understanding what the question's really asking.  I sure hope so.  I'd hate to think people really think this.

Spuddy (and others who say this)- Murders, rapes, etc. will continue to happen no matter what.  Why aren't we advocating to make them legal?  Bad argument.

Answer 15

Yes I would. Although I don't think that a fetus has thoughts, even a born baby doesnt' recognise it's mother for the first few months (I think I read that).

It may sound harsh but my life, my family and my pets that are all living and alive come first.

Answer 16

I would not, but the fact is that it cannot be considered anywhere near a human life for many months, at which point, most states have very strict limits on abortions.

It is not nearly the "Gee, I don't feel like being pregnant anymore so I think I'll abort at seven months" free for all that a lot of anti-choicers like to make it out to be.  

Answer 17

After reading some of these answers I have officially become convinced that we are a society of self-serving nitwits.

While I do not agree abortion should be illegal because I see more harm in making it illegal than I do in keeping it legal, I can't for the life of me fathom why people take such a cavalier attitude to ending a life.

It's sickening to me.

Answer 18

Yes. Absolutely. Simply being alive does necessarily make something valuable. I think that the lives of born people who are in the middle of living their life are more important than a cluster of cells that has not even begun to get started to think and do things and care about things and have friends and responsibilities and interests and goals.

If having a baby is going to ruin the life that someone is in the middle of living, and having a baby would ruin their goals and dreams and plans, and the baby would be brought into a world where it is unwanted, and there is already an overpopulation problem on earth... then who cares if a tiny lump of cells is technically alive? A weed growing in your lawn is alive too. Does that make it too valuable to kill for the sake of maintaining your lawn?

Answer 19

The question of when life begins cannot be answered, or "proven" by science. It is a philosophical question. With that being said, my decision to be pro-choice is based around the belief that it is unacceptable for the government to make legislation dictating the reproductive choices of its citizens. It has nothing to do with whether aborting is ethical to do or not. I believe that an individual should make that decision for themself. If you think making abortion illegal makes it go away, you're a damned fool. All making abortion illegal does is:

*make women who are deadset on aborting often seek out a back-alley abortion where often times not only the fetus is ended, but they are, too

*travel to place where it is legal

*abandon the baby once it is born. Do you think there are too many babies being left in dumpsters right now? Think how many we would have if we made women carry unwanted fetuses.

*overcrowd orphanages/foster care systems. When Romania made abortion illegal, they saw the number of infants being abandoned and handed over to orphanages increase 9 fold. There is now a whole generation of teens/early 20 -somethings who grew up in orphanages with minimal care, not developing a relationship with a parental figure. They call them "the lost generation."

Also, the US foster care system already has around 5 million adoptable children without permanent homes. Think how many more it would have if abortion were illegal.

I do not know why these concepts are so hard for you pro-lifers to understand. Pro-choicers do not support abortion. We support the government NOT being able to tell us what we can and cannot do when it comes to our reproductive choices. That's it, plain and simple.

Answer 20

You're missing the entire point of the argument.......the definition of human life is too complicated to even begin to address here, but would naturally include the physical ability to be totally self sufficient (capable of breathing/eating/drinking) without being attached to a fully grown human and totally dependent upon that being to sustain life systems..........so unless you're able to "prove" that, upon conception, the fetus does not depend at all on the woman to sustain its life, it remains the possibility of life

Answer 21

It's about consistency, you can't deny a percentage of humanity fundamental rights without diluting any reason to have rights to begin with. And let's be honest the pro-choicer needs to show that a fundamental right to act to abort exists or else the law is perfectly entitled to criminalise them in the same way that it criminalises most homicides except where it was committed in self-defence because perhaps the right to act in self-defence is universal, who knows...

Assigning rights to persons only works in society since there is a responsibility attached to persons who are granted rights within society. IF there is a such a thing as universal human rights they will apply to all that is genetically human logically.

Now having said that ppl have ridiculous analogies like "we don't give cells or amputated limbs rights so why does the embryo get them".

My response:  are amputated limbs different human entities? No they're part of the same human. An embryo has human genetic material but its not a part of the mother, it's an inhabitant so the cells argument is also fallacious unless of course you can somehow prove that different human genetic material is a literal part of the mother.

@ valerie "but would naturally include the physical ability to be totally self sufficient (capable of breathing/eating/drinking) without being attached to a fully grown human and totally dependent upon that being to sustain life systems"

So a person on a feeding tube isn't human life?

"so unless you're able to "prove" that, upon conception, the fetus does not depend at all on the woman to sustain its life, it remains the possibility of life"

So a baby isn't human life since it needs someone to sustain its life

@ spuddy, you're absolutely right its a reality just like all homicides are. Should we just make homicide legal because even though its illegal (at least to murder) it will happen regardless of the law's position. Consistency anyone?

Edit: the rest of your points spuddy are ways you rationalise committing the act of taking life. I could do the same. Oh but this person was in the way of promotion so I had to kill him lol Having to rationalise an act based upon the circumstances under which you commit it proves it isn't fundamentally a right.