I'm not quite sure where to put myself, largely due to semantics. I don't think that there is such a thing as an extreme pro-choicer: if you support the legality of abortion and consider it to be an issue decided solely by the female involved (in other words, you don't feel women should have to give a reason to justify their termination), then you can't really get any more extreme, even though that view itself is not extreme.

I guess it all has to do with the nuances of the word extreme. It is generally considered to be a very bad thing, but if my own stance, which is based 100%, unexceptionally on choice, is considered "extreme", then I view it as a great thing. You define "extremist" as someone who doesn't consider the views of the other side. Well, I do. I do so because of choice. Because I respect it and I believe that every woman can choose what she desires for her body and her pregnancy; this not necessarily being abortion.

However, as I say, I don't really think there is such a thing as an extreme pro-choicer in the same way as we have extreme pro-lifers.

I don't know if pure is the appropriate word, either. I'm not attempting to turn this into some politically-motivated semantics war, I just don't see the need for the re-branding of fine, existent terms. I'm a pro-choicer, and that suffices for me. I don't have to (and certainly shouldn't have to) explain 'what kind' of pro-choicer I am; I'm just pro-choice. I support the right of every female to choose what exists inside her body. It's a very generic description, but it covers all corners of the debate and the pro-choice values I espouse.

I agree with Kypros that being absolutely in favour of the woman's right to choose isn't exactly "extreme" , and it does of course consider the "other side" since it allows any individual to be absolutely opposed to abortion for any reason, for themselves.

But instead of "extreme pro-choice" why not have something more similar to "extreme pro-life": I actually think that abortion should be much more strongly encouraged and promoted, so I would describe myself as "pro-abortion" . In my view, there are way too many unplanned pregnancies carried to term. While obviously these pregnancies should be stopped before they happen by better use of birth control, I think that the option of abortion should be much more readily available and encouraged. The "choice" of women to have babies they cannot care for or afford to look after should be made more difficult.

I think I can add "Pro-Abortion" to the list, and I'll use your definition if you don't mind!! It's right on the number!

Oh whoops, should've edited before I posted lol. Oh well.

Moderate Pro-Lifer..I think everyone knows my opinion and why by now.

I'd consider myself a pure pro-choicer. I don't have any specific reason why, other than that's the definition I find most fits me, and I appeal to the most.

Clarify anyway! Are you ok with abortion in the early months? For rape/disease/harm? Teens?

i am against abortion, because it kills a child. If the woman did NOT have an abortion, in nine months she will have a little child in her arms. Isn't that sad? When you have an abortion, it is obvious it kills a child. I wouldn't kill any child, human or unborn.

Yes, it is sad, but sometimes it is the best choice.

How about asking another question, how much of her own body does a woman own? A man owns 100% of his body.

Fantastic. I'd like to have that framed.

It's not a simple issue and you cannot simplify it like that. When you do so you are as bad as a pro-lifer saying that all abortions kill full term fetuses.

A woman owns all of her body - but a fetus is not HER body. "It doesn't have a right to control her body whine!". It's not. HER body is supporting IT. Her MIND may not be, but her body IS. "It doesn't have a right to be inside of her!" Why are we even discussing such a weird concept? It's a pregnancy; not a full grown human. Again, a pregnancy is SUPPOSED to be inside of her - I'm feeling that this supercedes any "rights" one would place over a normal born human - because a fetus is NOT born.

I'll try to rephrase. A born human wouldn't be able to hole up inside of a uterus. It would be violating the woman's rights. A fetus is MEANT to live inside of her uterus, thus it has a right to be there.

Abortion is still the right choice in many cases. But I really prefer to look at it from the point of view of "How fair would life be for the child"? rather than "Waah, my body is doing what it's made to do I hate it kill the parasite!"

A fetus is IN her body and like any other foreign entity draining her resources, she has the right to expel it just like a man has the right to expel a tapeworm. If men were the ones to incubate offspring we wouldn't even be having this debate. It would be an unquestioned right from puberty until death.

Does a woman own her uterus?




How do you justify early term abortions?



Having never faced an unwanted pregnancy, you feel free to mock those who have with these comments flavored with whininess. I think Jesus' bootcamp is not going well for you. Perhaps his followers will be better served than Siddhartha was, anyways.

Birch I have to say, you're a cool customer. I run into difficulty with people when they insist on attempting to rape me (and yes as a survivor I say now this is accurately how I feel) with their "morals". I admire you. I tend to view those who attack my bodily rights as rapists and the tortures I'd like to put rapists through don't bear repeating here.

You are awesome.

Darkmoon, there is no such thing as "rape". A man's penis is "supposed to be" inside of your vagina.

Darkmoon, praise from you is highly valued! Thank you!





Touche'!!!

ok this is simple science: the fetus's body isn't her body! She does too, but she has no rights over someone else's.

If I own my uterus that means I can control whether or not it is full or empty.

And if it is simple science that the fetus is not part of her body, lets see a scientific explanation. Don't bother with the "unique DNA" argument, because every single egg cell in a woman's body has unique DNA. Also, there are people who have two sets of DNA, the are called chimeras. Finally, since twins, triplets, etc. have the same DNA, does that mean they aren't really more than one person?