I am pro-choice because I don't believe it's my right to control another woman's reproductive organs for any reason. I believe that abortion should be available to all women as a safe, practical medical procedure to terminate an early pregnancy before the stages of birth outlined in the law. I believe it is necessary also to avoid at home abortions and unwanted rape pregnancies as well as out of country abortions. It is a fact that an early fetus is alive in that it is a group of living cells that maintain homeostasis, however I do not believe an undeveloped fetus is a person or is a human being with rights similar to my own and certainly it'not with more rights than the woman it's dependent on and the uterus it's in.

I've been waiting for this debate to pop back. I am a person in favor of life, and an adult woman's choice of what to do with her body.

The biggest issue with abortion is this, people say it's a kid inside of her, and we're opting to kill it. I say okay, it's a life form, not necessarily a kid, but a life none the less and we *are ruling that she can kill it if she wants, but here's why.

A two second old pile of goo living inside a person is hardly a thing we should be trying to save, if the thing we could be losing is an already established person.

I began as believing it's not a life, but I was fooling myself, then I switched to it is a life, and it's okay to end it in some cases, but then I thought how one sided that is. These babies get to live because they weren't harming their mother, but these babies don't because they were. I've finally decided, in my own personal opinion, that all fetuses are worth less than that of their mother until birth, or at least an age where they can be removed. If they can't live without being attached to her, and she doesn't want to deal with that, as crude as it may sound, she shouldn't have to deal with that.

First trimester = YES

I don't have any problems with abortion, provided that it's not past the 2nd trimester...

Of course I wouldn't call myself "prochoice" as it inaccurately describes my political views, and I don't personally believe that abortion is simply a matter of whether or not you support "choice".

I certainly am in no position to tell another person their plight is not as bad as they think it is or what they should do with their body. Valuing the fetus over a womans' choice is valuing 'chance' at life over womans current life.

A fetus of a certain stage is not a person. It represents possibilities of uncertain futures, it might not even make it to birth due to natural causes, it cannot feel it has no bran activity at a certain point. This is why we have a current timeframe that the abortion procedure can be preformed in. Once achieving brain functions though I feel it is reached a point where person hood has started or should be considered.

Opponents to abortion bring up late trimester abortions as if they are common place. However abortions after a certain point are pretty rare and are due to circumstance. Sometimes a persons rights or liberty can infringe on another persons if an inequality due to circumstance is imposed.

If Terry Schiavo (too soon?) and a healthy functional 20 year old needed a liver transplant it is a no brainer to who gets it.

If a healthy 20 year old and a healthy 30 year old both need the liver the choice gets a little more difficult.

We can easily see that the decision in one is easier than another. We should respect the living and functioning persons well being and future over the other who is merely a possibility.

In the following I will argue primarily from a utilitarian perspective.

Any position in the pro choice / pro life debate must take the into account the benefit and suffering associated with itself in relation to other positions. My contention is that a fetus, if taken care of early and taken care of compassionately, won't suffer when aborted. The fetus is indifferent since it doesn't have the faculties needed in order to experience its death. Therefore one should consider the parent in question, not just the fetus.

The pro life decision does a great deal harm to a parent who wants to abort. I don't want to imagine how it must be like to have a kid and not want to have it. The pro choice position only hurts pro lifers, and it does so by simply contradicting their belief. If we estimate that the suffering done to the fetus is negligible, it is blatantly obvious that the pro life position brings much more suffering into the world through immediate causes as opposed to the pro choice position. In relation to immediate causes, the pro choice position wins.

The pro choice position appeals extensively, if not exclusively, to the notion that human beings have intrinsic value. We may argue all we want about whether a fetus constitutes a human being, but I doubt such a discussion will ever be fruitful. I won't argue either way, I will simply take for granted that human beings as a matter of fact have intrinsic value. I will show how this principle implies that pro life is wrong.

then it seems beyond insanity to allow a child to be born that would otherwise have been aborted. What is life like to a child that would have been aborted? Are they generally loved as much as children who were never unwanted? I don't know any studies asking about the psychological consequences of being a child 'that would have been aborted', but I don't doubt that these children in general fare as good than those children who were always wanted. I do believe that they fare worse. If we accept that a fetus does have worth I don't see how that somehow implies that we should not treat it with compassion. If anything, this principle of worth implies the accept opposite. If a fetus has intrinsic value we must care a great deal about what is going to happen to it. If it is aborted it will experience no suffering, if it isn't aborted it has a certain risk of living a terrible life as an unloved child. Does this look like something we would do to anything we place a lot of value in?

If this is recognized as correct then immediately follows that the pro life position is cruel, doing harm to both the parent who doesn't want the child, and the child that isn't wanted. The pro life position simply harms by contradicting the beliefs of pro lifers, not resulting in anything but minor emotional obstacles. The pro choice position in fact isn't simply harmless, if the right to abortion becomes the consensus, abortion may be institutionalized and therefore safer than in countries without abortion rights such as Argentina, where teenagers will get their abortions on the black market by what may or may not be non-professionals. We know from the illegality of drugs that people won't stop taking drugs; similarly, people will continue getting abortions even if it is illegal.

Therefore, prolife brings great harm and possible physical danger to people, while prochoice prevents this physical danger as much as possible. For these reasons, I think prolife is much less humane than it initially seems, and should not be favored over prochoice. The prochoice position is the path leading to least suffering for everyone involved.

As long as it is early on in the pregnancy. I do not believe that a tiny lump that has a heart but no brain activity can be considered alive. However if it is possible for the baby to survive on the outside if born prematurely then it is wrong.

This is a dumb debate. Why don't we just say abortions are okay until the fuzzy period (I think it's somewhere around the third trimester) and be done?

Honestly though, do what makes you happy. Your country cares more about you before your born then after, at least the government. They only care about you after your born if your strong enough to join the military and be a soldier. That's what I think really matters.

Regardless of BEFORE your born, I think what people should really care about if AFTER your born. Obviously, a baby who just came out is a human being. So, if abortion is an issue, sure.

Why can't a woman abort a kid, especially if the girl is 16. A sixteen year old girl will probably give that kid away. Then, that kid will grow up wondering who their parents are. Then that kid will be miserable. Often times, they become drug abusers.

I know because I know one and he's a mess, just like a lot of other people who have that same problem. Is it always the case, no? Is it usually the case, yes. Very few of them are like Steve Jobs in any way.

Most of them are the emo/goth types who grow up to abuse drugs out of their misery of not knowing who their parents are.