LostQuartet wrote...
Pro-choice.
Taking care of a child is a huge responsibility. The parent(s) need to be able to support all of the child's needs if they plan to keep it. Looking at just the child's sake, choosing to bring a child into a world where you can not take care of it is more irresponsible than getting pregnant in the first place.
Also, the woman may simply not want to have a child. Maybe she's too young and wants to live her life. Maybe she's selfish and doesn't want to worry about a child and what the pregnancy will do to her body.
Men, you donated 50% of your genetic material, but the woman carries it around, having the baby literally attached to her body, for about 10 months. She has more of say in the matter than you do. Granted, it sucks if you want to keep it and she doesn't, but it's her body and her child, too. You can't force her.
However, when women use abortion as a form of birth control and abort even in the late second or third trimester, that's when I have a problem. Also, I hate when people say that the thing is a human being from the time the egg is fertilized, therefore it's murder. That's such bullshit. It hasn't developed nerve cells, a heart, etc. You're not killing a human being when it's so early in the pregnancy.
Your post pretty much sums up my own opinion on pro-choice. This pro-responsibility is bullcrap.
Some points for the pro-choice side that I believe in:
- It's the woman carrying the fetus, and therefore it's her body; what she does with it is her choice.
- Being pregnant from rape or after having sex with preventative measures should be able to be aborted.
- If the mother's health is at risk due to health complications from carrying the baby, an abortion should be allowed.
- If there is some sort of congenital defect detected in the fetus where there is a high probability of stillborn, an abortion should be allowed.
- If the financial situation of the mother is not suitable for raising a child, (running debt), a abortion should be allowed.