“I’m pro-choice, but I would never have an abortion!”
This is insinuating that legalising abortion is a necessary evil. In other words, it is a pity to give people the freedom to have an abortion or to perform it.
If you considered abortion good or morally neutral then you could never point-blank say that you would never have one. Abortion must be bad if you would never see yourself as having to have one. How can you know that you will not have an abortion if the foetus has grave abnormalities? Or if your life will be threatened by the pregnancy being continued? If you would not have an abortion to save your own life then clearly you should not be pro-choice if you consider abortion to be that evil.
Some say you are implying that you are too virtuous, or perhaps holy/religious, or smart to end up in a situation where you need an abortion. Perhaps you are too lacking in imagination to think of circumstances bad enough where you would have to consider an abortion. If you have not thought it out properly, you could turn out to be a danger to the pro-choice cause. You could decide you are not pro-choice.
The truly pro-choice person might say, "I am pro-choice but I would prefer never having one. But I don't know what would happen if the circumstances were serious enough."
To say you would never have an abortion implies that if you are pro-choice you don't really want to be. It shows a poor commitment to a human right, the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or not. It paves the way to such evil doctrines as that performing a caesarean in the hope that the baby might survive even if it is unlikely is better than to abort. Here it does not matter how much the "baby" suffers as long as it alive.


An early abortion is a small deal for many so there is nothing wrong with them using abortion as birth control.

Can you believe that abortion is wrong and murder and still support its legality?
You can if you believe that you have no right to force your belief that the embryo is a human person from conception on others for it cannot be fully proved.


Religions and some other sources say that abortion is not a reproductive right for reproduction has already taken place. To say the women have reproduced is to say they have got the rights and obligations and responsibilities of parents. They are accused of violating these rights and responsibilities if they elect to abort the foetus.  But reproduction is a process.  The unborn child is growing.  She has the right to assert her reproductive choices by ending the process.  There is no reproduction until the baby is viable.  This is important for saying reproductive rights is nonsense is going to ruin legal recognition for reproductive rights.
You can if you believe that saying the embryo has the same right to life as a fully grown person is based on the idea that it has a human soul for the soul is a religious hypothesis and religion and politics cannot be legitimately mixed. The Church by campaigning for no votes in abortion referendums is interfering in politics. The Church does not like abortion legalised for then the numbers having abortions will be known and it will be known that there are many in the Church who pretend to be pious members and who go and commit what they believe to be murder.

The Roman Church excommunicates for having an abortion or procuring it which shows that calling yourself a Catholic cannot mean a thing when you have millions of Catholics who because of excommunication are not Catholics at all. Logically since voting for abortion does more to bring it about than anything else this vote must bring on the sentence of excommunication. About half of Catholics would vote for it so they are not real Catholics and yet the Church has the nerve to use the appearance of being a huge corporation to get its way. That’s devious.
Many believe that if you believe the unborn child has the right to life which is the supreme right then there is no way you can tolerate the legality of abortion for you have to do what you believe in and it is your right to. This is the official view of the Roman Church. They would say that you can’t let somebody kill a mentally handicapped person even if they believe the person hardly knows they are alive and so if you believe an unborn child to be a human person you cannot allow the killing of the child.
The Catholic Church officially teaches in its vicious and notorious Dictionary of the Family that any democracy that allows abortion is not a democracy for it does not respect the lives of its unborn citizens. This teaching then urges Catholics to force the law of the land to forbid abortion no matter how many want it legalised. We will not stand for such interference.
The Humanist view is that there is good reason to understand how people can say the unborn child does not have the right to live that its mother has. It is a possibility that they are right therefore liberal abortion laws should be brought in even if they mean abortions will happen outside the boundaries that Humanists believe in. We ought to believe in abortion on demand in the early stages and only to save the mother’s life after that.
The Humanist recognises that not everybody agrees with her or him on abortion. So whose opinion should be enshrined in the law? Should it be the Catholic one that always forbids abortion or should it be the opinion of women who believe abortion should be carried out even at a late stage just because the woman finds it convenient? Should it be the more moderate stance of Humanism? As the adult is more certainly a person than even a foetus at six months in the womb the women's opinion should come first.
The Church says that a child is a gift from God. This means that the suffering of having an unborn child is a gift from God too. To say that suffering is a gift from God which you have to say if you believe in an all-powerful God who lets suffering take place for a good reason is to discourage people a lot from fighting suffering. We will not take orders from believers in God about whether abortion should be legalised or forbidden.
Abortion is such an important human right that it should be provided free to all at the tax-payers expense.
2014, re people who think giving the five day after pill out is murder not being allowed to qualify as doctors
Very few people would give their own lives to save the babies allegedly killed by the five day pills for no matter what we say, we do not really feel that what is killed is as valuable as a newborn baby. If we think it's discrimination to force medics to prescribe the pill because they believe it facilitates murder, then where do we draw the line? What if some new form of Christianity appears that says that each communion wafer is really a duplicate Jesus and should be awarded human rights? It is the principle. Do the medics really believe that the five day pill can murder? They might say it is because you get a soul at conception but that is not something that science can prove. The law has to put science first otherwise there will be worse chaos than there already is. In other words, doctors who will not give out that pill on the grounds that it allegedly murders should not be doctors.


Re abortion in Ireland
The pro choice people stand up for a fundamental human right. Abortion on demand is fine as long as it is performed as early as possible. Nobody sane regards an embryo at a few weeks as having the same right to life as an adult human being. And if we lived in a world where the huge majority of women needed abortions to save their own lives the Church would still be against them. Not only that but it incites hatred against them by accusing them of murder and refuses to take any responsibility if some nuts go and shoot staff at abortion clinics.


No Copyright