Reply #62: There's no inconsistency...

[neoblues]

Pro-Choice is all in favor of making all possible efforts to help women avoid the situation in which they would have to face making such a painful choice. Likewise, they are also in support of efforts to increase the available choices for pregnant women, such as providing mothers with such support that they could viably choose to keep their babies rather than have to worry they won't be able to support their young ones (food, clothing, medical care, etc). So, the Pro-Choice are indeed "pro-life after birth" as well. The need for a Pro-Choice movement arises from the fact that Conservatives/Pro-Birth-Ignore-Afterwards people have used their powers in the past to make the very "Choice" of terminating a pregnancy illegal. So, their most pointed efforts have to address this basic element first--to ensure that it remains legal, otherwise women would face forced birth or go to jail (for "murder").

Is it murder? Is terminating a lump of cells smaller than a sesame seed somehow cruel? When is a developing zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus a "person". For the "Religious", when does the developing mass become infused with a "soul"? That's a meaningless question for non-believers who don't believe there is such a construct as a soul. Whatever the case, then when does it accrue rights? Can these questions be answered or are they just emotional reactions or based on one's own interpretation of non-existent religious texts (they didn't know anything about such early developments and so didn't actually address them). Is it right to make laws to punish mothers who don't want the pregnancy? Pretty much everyone agrees, of course, that once a fetus has reached the point of viability, where it can live without the mother, it's certainly qualifiable as a baby (and even for some undefined period just prior to that point).

We all understand that the "choice" should be one to be avoided as much as possible; both wanted and planned children are most desirable for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that a terrible, painful and stressful decision whether to abort wasn't required. Decisions to end a pregnancy early can result in long term emotional pain. Limits on when a pregnancy can be terminated are necessary (and already exist). Adding improved support for pregnant women, including pre-natal care, is welcome and needed. Improving economic conditions, social acceptance and adding post-natal support options (especially for single mothers) to allow women to continue their pregnancies are welcome and needed. Still, in the end, we must be against criminalizing women should they choose (with perhaps some limitation on later term choices; exceptions must still exist) to end their pregnancies. It is their own body, and a person should indeed have very great control over that.

Of course, this is just my opinion (everybody has one).