# What am I, pro-life or pro-choice? Can you be both?



## Summertime Mommy (Dec 5, 2003)

This issue has been really bugging me for awhile and now that I keep getting this "you can't be Catholic and be pro-choice" crap thrown in my face, I really don't know how to reply. I really don't know why I care if people question my faith, because I feel more agonstic than Catholic most of the time, but that is besides the point. Let me tell you my view on abortion and please help me understand my view. I believe that abortion is wrong, I consider it killing, and I don't think I could ever do it, (I even have a problem with d&cs) although I won't say I'd never do it because I could see some circumstances where it would be hard to choose, but I would not support anyone doing it, unless their life was threatened. At the same time, I don't feel that the gov't has any right telling women what to do with their bodies. I think that abortion should be legal, because I don't think outlawing it would solve anything, more likely it would just hurt thousands of women. So, I feel really torn, can you be both pro-life and pro-choice, or am I just a walking contradiction? I don't know why this bothers me so much, but it does. People always act like this is such a cut and dry issue, but I just don't see it that way. Can someone help me understand?


----------



## sadness (Oct 23, 2004)

I don't know if I can help you understand, but I do understand how you feel.







It's perfectly legitimate to feel the way you do -- you hate abortion but know nothing good would come of banning it.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

I am right in the same boat (up to, and including being a lapsed Catholic who is really agnostic, lol).

When I was Catholic, though, I felt the same way (pro-choice). I felt that G-d gave us free choice and we should not legislate morality, we should leave it for individuals to decide.








Please don't be bothered by people saying you can't be Catholic and Pro-choice.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

"I felt that G-d gave us free choice and we should not legislate morality, we should leave it for individuals to decide."

Firstly, I am both pro-life and pro-choice. However, we legislate morality all the time - it is all we have to legislate. I can't go up to someone and blow their head off with a gun - it is illegal. We accept that - you can't take life if it is breathing. However, a perfectly viable life inside a woman is fine to take. I am uncomfortable with it, but I don't want laws placed on it either. God gave us free will, which includes the choice to kill - except in the ten commandments, in which God never specified the life should be breathing.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

I don't think you're necessarily confused at all, Summertime Mommy! The matter is quite complicated, ethically, and not cut and dried at all.

Personally, I'm pro-choice. That being said, I think that anyone with an ounce of integrity who's considered the issue will admit that a fetus is in fact either a potential or an actual human being (depending on the point of gestation that it's at).

While that's enough for many people who are ardently pro-life, it certainly doesn't end the matter. All children need a parent to care for it and love it; it's not as if the child would be ok if it were somehow able to gestate in an artificial womb until it became viable. Contrary to what many in the pro-life movement often imply, the child doesn't emerge from the womb able to care for itself as a functional adult. We all know what's required, in time, love, effort and money, to make that happen.

Many, if not most, of those who obtain abortions in this country are not able or willing, for a wide variety of reasons, many of them very good, to do what it takes to care for a child, if they were to bring the fetus to term. Moreover, there simply are not enough adoptive families to take in all the unwanted children who would be born. Also keep in mind that a significant number of these children would also have substantial health defects (due to congenital issues, nutritional or drug-related issues, among others), thus decreasing their chance of adoption.

Whether a woman is able and willing to care for a child is an intensely personal decision. It's not one into which the government should be sticking its nose. This is particularly the case when the government presently does so horribly little to support mothers and children. Right now, the administration's ostensibly "pro life" rhetoric is jarringly askew from its actual actions with respect to supporting and promoting the interests of the most vulnerable among us who are, in fact, alive and born.


----------



## KoalaMama (Jan 24, 2004)

I think you can definitely be pro-choice and pro-life and I don't see the least bit of conflict between that. I am strongly pro-choice for the simple reason that I couldn't possibly make that decision for another woman. But I'm also strongly pro-life for myself, the only person I'm qualified to speak for on the subject.

The problem is with the labels. Most people assume pro-life means pro-abortion, and that's simply not true. It would be more accurate to say it's pro-choice vs. anti-choice or similar.

mtnsunshinemama... Thanks for posting that article! Some very good points there!


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

Firstly, I am both pro-life and pro-choice. However, we legislate morality all the time - it is all we have to legislate. I can't go up to someone and blow their head off with a gun - it is illegal. We accept that - you can't take life if it is breathing.
No, Calm, that is not legislating morality--- that is legislating infringement on another's rights. As a fetus is not acknowledged as having rights seperate from the woman, it is legislating morality. We do legislate morality all the time, though--- pornography, prostitution, drugs--- and I also feel that is wrong in a society that claims to be "free."


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I guess it comes full circle then, back to whether we consider the unborn has individual rights apart from the mother. There's the rub. I am with you, no doubt. I don't like legislation on drugs, etc, either. People should be free to do with their life as they choose.

And then that one comes full circle again. Because families of a murder victim are now suing the murderer as though they had the right to the dead person's life. The wife of a drug addict whose husband has bankrupted them has rights, and drugs therefore infringe on her rights. It depends on how deeply you look at it. But in this instance, it is the age old argument - does the unborn have the same rights as the newborn? If we terminate the life of a newborn/child/adult, we have infringed on their rights - therefore we feel we can legislate this. The unborn don't have these rights, it is then considered a "moral decision".


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marlena*
Many, if not most, of those who obtain abortions in this country are not able or willing, for a wide variety of reasons, many of them very good, to do what it takes to care for a child, if they were to bring the fetus to term.

Actually, one of the most common reasons women go through with an abortion is because her boyfriend/ husband pressures her to do so, and/or threatens to end the relationship.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marlena*
Moreover, there simply are not enough adoptive families to take in all the unwanted children who would be born.

I don't know about this one-- right now couples must wait years to adopt white domestic newborns. I think with the birth control technologies available today, we would not see any 1800s-type orphanages. There are so many couples desperate to adopt.

To the OP: it is very possible to be pro-choice but not pro-abortion. In fact, it sounds like you are exactly that. You don't want any legislation that "forces" a woman's hand. Having pro choice legislation does not force any woman to have an abortion. Having pro life legislation, however, would forces women to carry to term against their will. The former allows women to CHOOSE. The latter deproves them of CHOICE.

Also, keep in mind that the country with some of the strictest pro life laws/ culture also has the highest number of abortions... Chile.


----------



## wasabi (Oct 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee*
I don't know about this one-- right now couples must wait years to adopt white domestic newborns. I think with the birth control technologies available today, we would not see any 1800s-type orphanages. There are so many couples desperate to adopt.

I agree. The lists are very long for infants. Fortunately abortions are declining but as far as I know the number that are aborted could well be covered by the number of infertile couples waiting for infants.

This is not a cut and dried issue. It just isn't. I'm a birthmom but htat doesn't mean that I mistakenly believe everyone faced with an unplanned pg could or should place their children for adoption. Honestly I would like to see it just be a personal choice that the government would stay out of totally (the Libertarian view on abortions) but that's never going to happen in this country. Don't feel bad for being ambivalent. It's just not an easy issue.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I don't know about this one-- right now couples must wait years to adopt white domestic newborns. I think with the birth control technologies available today, we would not see any 1800s-type orphanages. There are so many couples desperate to adopt.
I cannot take adoption as a serious replacement for *all* abortion (even given that the woman wants to go through the pregancy) given that there are approximately 1.3 MILLION abortions a year, many of which would result in "damaged" children. There are approximately 136,000 (1998 numbers 110,000 domestic, 16000 international) adoptions yearly---- I just don't see the call for approximately 10 times the number of adoptions.


----------



## huggerwocky (Jun 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
I guess it comes full circle then, back to whether we consider the unborn has individual rights apart from the mother. There's the rub. I am with you, no doubt. I don't like legislation on drugs, etc, either. People should be free to do with their life as they choose.


I see no problem there. No one would be forced to donate a kidney for example even if this is the way we could save someone's life, right?One can't force people to donate bone marrow, right? Unless this becomes the law I don't want to see abortion banned by some men who wouldn't have to deal with it anyway.

One person's right over his/her own body exceeds the right of someone else to live.That's how I see it.


----------



## KoalaMama (Jan 24, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meowee*
I don't know about this one-- right now couples must wait years to adopt white domestic newborns. I think with the birth control technologies available today, we would not see any 1800s-type orphanages. There are so many couples desperate to adopt.

What about the babies that aren't healthy, white newborns? I understand there isn't as long a line-up for those.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *huggerwocky*
I see no problem there. No one would be forced to donate a kidney for example even if this is the way we could save someone's life, right?One can't force people to donate bone marrow, right? Unless this becomes the law I don't want to see abortion banned by some men who wouldn't have to deal with it anyway.

One person's right over his/her own body exceeds the right of someone else to live.That's how I see it.


huggerwocky, that's an excellent comparison. I think abortion is a grievous thing but frankly in this society, it is something that must exist for women to choose, legally, as an option. The prolifers, instead of fighting abortion through legislation, ought to work harder to create a world where no women has an abortion out of desperation or coersion.

To the OP, I think the best way to think of yourself is "politically pro choice, personally pro life." That is a legitimate stance to take, and it's the one I take.


----------



## littlest birds (Jul 18, 2004)

Huggerwocky, I never thought of that. Thanks.

I am in between because I am pro-life and pro-choice too. I think it's common position.

This thread has gotten right to the central issues with abortion.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Hey, Meowee, that's perfect! I am "politically pro choice, personally pro life." Good one!


----------



## wasabi (Oct 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaToFallon*
What about the babies that aren't healthy, white newborns? I understand there isn't as long a line-up for those.

For what it's worth the adoption agency I placed my children through had waiting lists for people who were willing to accept all kinds of babies--mixed race, special needs etc. I think you would be surprised at how many people just want an infant.









Are there really still 1.3 million abortions in this country annually? For some reason it seemed I had heard a much lower number than that. If it is that high then no I wouldn't imagine that adoptions could replace all of them. It could help reduce them though and maybe good sex-ed and access to birth control could help more. That's what I'd like to see.


----------



## PikkuMyy (Mar 26, 2004)

"When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease)."

-from "Pro-Life? Look at the Fruits" written by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen, a Christian pro-lifer who has a child with severe disabilities after choosing not to abort when his wife had Rubella during her pregnancy.

Sojourners Magazine - a non-partisan Christian Magazine dealing with cultural and political issues. See the entire article here, including reasons why abortion is going up (like unemployment)

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action...issue=041013#5


----------



## marilynmama (Oct 20, 2003)

I am pro-choice but I do not think that anyone thinks abortion is a "good thing" and everyone would like to see the number decline.

The #1 reason I am pro-choice? Is I belive that if a women is raped and got pregnant or any other force upon her that leads to pregnancy (incest, etc) she should not be forced to stay pregnant. I was raped at the age of 13 by 3 boys and I can *not imagine* if I would have become pregnant and have been forced to become a mother; that is absolutly my right and not those boys who forced their rights upon me. Think about it, some people belive abortion should only be in cases of rape, incest, etc but you can not seperate those cases from all the others-- women would then have to prove they were raped?! That is insane!

I think there are women getting abortion for ridiculas reasons though (the baby is a girl and they wanted a boy, etc) but I think abortion for most women is something very very difficult to decide upon, no one knows (even if you think you do...) what the different situations are (maybe a severely deformed fetus) and I absolutly do not belive it is the governments buisness to make choices for our families.

One thing (among many...lol) things that bothers me about the Bush administration is the condradiction with abortion and birth control. He is pro-life (and I respect others beliefs with abortion very much) but he also has cut funding for family planning clinics, birth control, etc with in turn leads to more unwanted pregnancies and thus more abortions....and NO ONE wants more abortions.


----------



## littleaugustbaby (Jun 27, 2003)

Summertime mommy, I think you raise a really important question.

I think that the big problem is that a lot of people assume that pro-choice and pro-abortion are mutually exclusive, when in fact, they are not. You can absolutely be pro-choice, but at the same time hate abortion. The issue isn't as black-and-white as many would like to believe.


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

"he also has cut funding for family planning clinics, birth control, etc with in turn leads to more unwanted pregnancies and thus more abortions...."

That is INSANE. Can I use this in another thread?


----------



## Summertime Mommy (Dec 5, 2003)

Thanks for all your replies. I really like this description,

Quote:

"politically pro choice, personally pro life."
I think it describes me perfectly.








:


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
I cannot take adoption as a serious replacement for *all* abortion (even given that the woman wants to go through the pregancy) given that there are approximately 1.3 MILLION abortions a year, many of which would result in "damaged" children. There are approximately 136,000 (1998 numbers 110,000 domestic, 16000 international) adoptions yearly---- I just don't see the call for approximately 10 times the number of adoptions.

You're assuming that if abortion were made illegal, women would stop having abortions, and that's not true. If abortion were not available in the US, middle and upper class women would travel to countries were it is legal to have the abortion (it's already a trend to have certain kinds of operations overseas, where it is cheaper, and the procedure is not covered by insurance here).

Poor women would try to perform the abortion themselves or have an illegal one.

So if legal abortion disappeared in the US, there would still be many, many abortions. There would likely be a moderate decline in the number, and a likely increase in the cautious use of birth control, but the women who are bullied and cajoled into abortions by their families/ boyfriends/ husbands will just be bullied and cajoled into having an illegal or overseas abortion.

There is hardly any stigma attached to unmarried motherhood these days, so women who may have considered abortion but won't have an illegal or overseas one would probably just become single/ unwed moms.

So after the illegal/ self/ overseas abortions, after all the women who become single moms, I doubt there would be a million babies crowding orphanages in this country were abortion made illegal. Women with unwanted pregnancies would just be made to suffer in different ways.

Anyway, I think it smacks of condescension and disconnect when prolifers present adoption as a reasonable alternative for mothers considering abortion. If 50% of women who part with a non viable fetus have PTSD symptoms, how much worse it would be for those women to part with a full term viable baby. It is simply not an option for most women, however rosy that option may look to the prolifers.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

meowee---

I am not suggesting that abortion would actually disappear if it were made illegal (Just talk to 1971 GWB about that







). What I am saying, is that just on a numbers basis, Adoption *cannot* replace abortion in the US.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PikkuMyy*
-from "Pro-Life? Look at the Fruits" written by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen, a Christian pro-lifer who has a child with severe disabilities after choosing not to abort when his wife had Rubella during her pregnancy.

Thanks, that is an interesting site and a good article. I liked the closing paragraph.

Quote:

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers.
I sent it to someone I know who is undecided because of the pro-life issue. The reality is that the promoting a culture of life entails more than limiting or banning legal abortion.


----------



## whimsy (Aug 6, 2004)

Quote:

The reality is that the promoting a culture of life entails more than limiting or banning legal abortion.

ITA


----------



## Quindin (Aug 22, 2003)

I always felt confused about abortion because I cold never make up my mind about it. And then I realized I could be both!!! So yes, I am both:

**I am Pro-Life for myself because I feel that if I terminated a healthy pregnancy I would go against my conscience and beliefs. That's also why I believe in educating young people about restraining from sexual activity until a commited relationship and also teach them about how to avoid pregnancy just in case. The open talk would keep abortion rates down.

**I am Pro-Choice because I don't think you should impose your beliefs on other women. Nobody knows how it feels to find themselves in a teen pregnancy situation until they have tried it. And what if the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest or what if the mother of baby are in serious risk of dying. This issue has a lot of gray areas... Havinng said that, I am against partial birth abortions unless the mother's life is in danger


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I was actually prolife up until last week. That's when it all really "clicked" for me.

The thing is, upper-middle and upper class women will always be able to have an abortion. If you can pay enough, you can get one, whether they are legal or not. It is incredibly classist because the only people that will suffer (even MORE than they do now) are poorer people. Again, the rich will be able to ignore the law and only the poorer women will be affected. So by legislating this particular piece of morality, the poor women will be punished EVEN FURTHER by either being forced to carry the child to term... sometimes wrecked by drug addiction... or by trying to abort themselves.

That's the key thing that has changed my view on the legislation of morality. HTH!


----------



## awnja (Sep 1, 2004)

wow. some great points! What a civil and intellectual conversation for such a loaded topic.

I've always considered myself pro-choice and anti-abortion.

I agree that morality shouldn't be legislated. rape is wrong and fanticising about rape is probably sinful, but its not illegal because its in your head-- and a fetus is in your uterus. bad comparison, i know, but I'm just thinkin'.

If we gave fetuses rights, then babies concieved through rape or incest should not be treated as lesser human beings, so exceptions never settled well with me. ALL life is precious.

I used to say, "I've never been pregnant, so I can't tell and its none of my business." Nice cop-out, eh? It was true. I didn't know, so I wasn't about to support any restrictions based on a guess.

Well, I've been pregnant...
loved being pegnant.
Had a little girl.








I was SURE there was someone in there. She even did things that she still does. I talked to her, called her "the baby," not "the fetus." But I STILL can't bring myself to be "pro-life" politically. I just want all babies to be as wanted as mine was. As cherished. But that's not the case.

Its a life, but its different than life in the outside. That SHARED life is different. That life is a partnership. A VERY intimate partnership that's more personal than religion (not talking faith here, but religion) or law or whatever. If the fungus didn't want the algea, how could you force it to be lichen?
Its still just not my business.

Then there's the door that banning abortion could open. If that embryo's got the law in it's side, shouldn't it be the law that we take prenatal vitamins? Could I be arrested for serving to a minor when I have a glass of wine while pregnant? What about after they're born? Lets legislate breastfeeding. Make it mandatory. Its the best thing for that little one and by golly the little ones need protection from mamas' poor choices.

Nope, folks don't seem to go there. Just get em born, is all...

I have pro-life friends and I totally respect their view. But I can't support it. I also know a LOT of catholics on birth control. btw, so you CAN be catholic and pro-choice. I'm reformed and pro- gay marraige.. of course that's not really my business either.









Just tell those folks you're catholic AND can think for yourself!

julie


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Nice post Julie, very thought provoking.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I was actually prolife up until last week. That's when it all really "clicked" for me.

The thing is, upper-middle and upper class women will always be able to have an abortion. If you can pay enough, you can get one, whether they are legal or not. It is incredibly classist because the only people that will suffer (even MORE than they do now) are poorer people. Again, the rich will be able to ignore the law and only the poorer women will be affected. So by legislating this particular piece of morality, the poor women will be punished EVEN FURTHER by either being forced to carry the child to term... sometimes wrecked by drug addiction... or by trying to abort themselves.








I felt John Kerry did a good job of bringing that point up in the second debate. A person asked him if he would use tax money to pay for abortions and he replied that he did not think that the choice of to have an abortion or not should be a financial decision (therefore, for those on medicaid it should be covered if that was their choice).


----------



## wildmonkeys (Oct 4, 2004)

I am in agreement with the thought of being personally against abortion but supporting the legality of choice.

I am constantly wondering about how making abortion illegal would impact not only women with unwanted pregnancies but also women/families seeking out innovative and aggressive fertility treatments? Would it limit the ability of physicians to perform ivf and other procedures? What about limiting the use of fertility drugs? I don't know that it would but I just can't help wonder what would happen to the ability to access medical treatment that deals with pregnancy & the unborn if this conutry moves in the direction of limiting choice.

BJ
Barney & Ben


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

Well, you sound pro-life to me. But you also sound like you are concerned about women's health, and you think making abortion illegal would be dangerous. You sound totally reasonable to me. It is a real issue - if abortion were illegal, it would definitely raise issues about what to do if the mother doesn't want the baby, like in the situtation of rape, or what to do if the mother's health were in danger. I don't think the fact that you are concerned with women's health means you are doing anything immoral or even "uncatholic". Caring about what happens to people isn't wrong.


----------



## whimsy (Aug 6, 2004)

That breastfeeding point sure is a good one. I'm going to be using it!

Another one that's been on my mind....
IF it is decided that life begins at conception at that life has legal rights, wouldn't most forms of birth control also be illegal? One of the ways that some BC works is by making the lining of the uterus non receptive to implantation. If conception has occured, but BC makes in unable to implant, wouldn't that be considered an abortion?


----------



## Annie (Feb 14, 2004)

I feel you can be pro-life and still want abortion to remain legal, and be prochoice. ITA with what you said about making it illegal doesnt solve anything, after all, abortions were done looonggg before it became legal. IMHO the only and best way to reduce and stop abortions is to support moms and families, so that women are free to make that choice, yet never have to. A friend said that was pie in the sky and never going to happen but I honestly think it could happen, and that in trying to do so, we'd make society a much better. Keep in mind i'm not saying all abortions would be eliminated with this, but I honestly believe if given a real choice, and given the support they need, maybe more women would choose life, yk? Also more research into better contraception so women wouldnt have surprise/unwanted pregnancies is needed, of course.

Sheeesh I sure can ramble,sorry, and thanks for listening.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Oh wow,
I am a Catholic who has had the "Pro Life" showed down my throat for about 4 weeks now.

My DH and I consider ourselves Pro-choice. Being, we are Catholics we have no right to judge anyone's decisions about their life, abortion icld. Besides we are all sinners when you get right down to it.
As parents we would CHOOSE life over any option. But that is our family. When I was pregnt w DD, the OB offered all kinds of screenings to determine if there was any problems etc. We declined and said what would we do with these results anyway? The Dr stated what issues, problems etc they would look for and then stated "I guess termination is not an option for you then anyway, is it? " We said no and that was the end of it. We went on to have our DD healthly etc.

But again, this is us- we have no right to tell anyone that they should not use these tests or exercise termination if they are not what they wanted. This is not for us, but we would support our friends and family in their decisions to do so and have.
So yes, I am pro-choice but I choose life which is the most important thisng- CHOOSE.


----------

