Its because we value all life.

none of the above. Its b/c the unborn baby is a human life and abortion is the murder of that baby.

Religious reasons. Believers want to impose their beliefs on everyone including pregnant women.

Between Religious beliefs, how people were brought up (morals etc). And I agree- the fact that a baby is a baby- but I am not passing judgment just stating my opinion. +3

I'm pro choice but I used to not be- because of the way I was raised. I do think that the pro lifers can be quite controlling and that the result is enforcement of beliefs against others, but consider this: they honestly believe that abortion is murder. Most people do not approve of murder and will do whatever they can to stop it. Again, I'm pro choice, I'm not trying to excuse the pro lifers/anti choicers, but having been raised Catholic, I clearly remember the concern being one of is it murder, they think it is, they can't morally allow it. Now, if you were to ask me about the Catholic Church's stance on birth control, that'd be another matter...

We are simply against the murder of innocent life...how terrible of us!!

What's the difference? ;-)

I think everyone has their own reasons however for me it doesn't have to do with either. I believe life begins at conception, abortion is not the answer. I think prevention is key. Abortion is the distruction/murder of an innocent life and that is plain wrong!

It really seems like far too much of a coincidence that the pro-lifers that I've seen pretty much all fall into the religious conservative category. And I used to be a clinic escort, so I've run into a lot of them. I really don't think they care about exerting influence over women, except in as much as organized religion seems to be about exerting control over the population. I think they just do what their preachers and parents tell them to.

i have to agree with the majority on this one, not everything in life is based on religious beliefs, i think you mean christians which is about God. whereas the definition of religious - adherence to both a belief and practice not necessarily about God.

They don't like seeing humans killed. At least that's my reason.

Top be fair, I think there are some good, decent people who simply feel life begins at conception and oppose it for non-religious moral reasons. That said, I think that a great many are manipulated by their faith and it's leaders to march lock-step in the righteous crusade against liberals, gays, uppity women and other sinners. I kinda doubt there are too many who are primarily out to limit womens' rights. +5

I don't know if they are completely motivated to religion. I think also their own personally morals and character also play into their reasons. But as 23Skidoo said I do believe the church does manipulate people. They do crusade against anything that they may not actually agree with. This probably is something I should say but I think I am going to say it. But I do find it quite funny about how, ( no offense), many religious people are like abortion is horrible, its against the Bible, and blah blah blah...but isn't it funny that the Bible and Jesus both talk of forgiveness?? Not judging others. But No I don't think it has anything to do with womens rights. I believe it is religion, personal morals, and now days a " political controversy" ( ha ha..not really big related to a lot of other stuff, but what ever)

They see fecundated eggs as being something similar than human beings. This view seems to be supported by some religious organizations or churches.

Both.

The same people who want war in the middle east to go for 100 years and say 'those people' should be wiped off the face of the earth? NO it's all about power. If it were'nt they would support birth control. They have twisted logic that leads to more and more death.

I've had this argument hundreds of times with hundreds of people. It can not be resolved rationally. It comes down to a fundamental hypothesis: Whether the fetus a fully human life deserving of legal protection. One side starts with the premise that it is, the other side says it is not. If you attempt to integrate two conflicting hypotheses, the resulting logical system will be corrupt. What is interesting is that the belief that the fetus is fully human, an "unborn child" comes from the church. And the church keeps flip-flopping on the issue. For a long time, abortion was permitted until the "quickening", movement was felt in the uterus, something like 80 days. Then Pope Sixtus V banned it altogether, briefly, then it was unbanned for another 300 years until Pope Pius IX banned it again in 1869. I doubt that it had anything to do with either religion or control over women. It probably had more to do with church politics, as well as the clergy not wanting to deal with issues where the father (the property-owner) wanted to abort a fetus against the wishes of the mother (the property).

I am a bit of a strange Pro-Choice person. I do believe that none of us can decide for another person that they must, or must not, keep a child. However, I do believe that once it has a central nervous system, it does feel pain. At that point, is it morally just to destroy that life? I can't say for sure. I would personally say no, it isn't, but then it falls on again, you can't decide for someone else what they must do with their bodies. I used to be a strong, strong pro-choice, and didn't even consider the fetus/baby/whateveryouwanttocallit, but if I wouldn't eat anything with a central nervous system, how can I condone the death of something with a central nervous system? But, not condoning is not the same as denying someone their rights. So what I am trying to say is, I can see both sides of it, but most people are hypocrites about it anyway - they value that 'life' and then eat a plate of death. Anyway, I do think a lot of people do want to just put their beliefs on others and exert control.

I am opposed to abortion because I believe that an unborn fetus is still a living person. I dont have to change that belief because others think I'm wrong. It's not to exert control over women. I dont believe in killing an unborn child unless there is a good reason to. I know some people who abused abortion just to excape from responsibility so the can have fun and party. Not all women do that so dont assume that that is what I believe.

I oppose ALL victimization of the old, the young, they sick, the poor, and the otherwise vulnerable. I find th ekilling any such ones to be reprehensible.

Some people may be opposed for religious reasons ; BUT others like myself do not like the idea of an innocent baby being Slaughtered by its mother ...

6-17-2017 I think most people say what they think without thinking, and then hunt up something to support it, even if it makes no sense. They can't change it because it hurts to admit they said a stupid thing.

Yes to both. They want to force their beliefs down the throats of everyone else. Instead of letting people make their own decisions they want to stick their nose into other peoples lives and make their decisions for them.

What makes you think that it's only one of those two options? Aren't you being a little close-minded?

i think they just dont like to see babies being killed like that

They are the religious right conservatives.

In response to both points, not necessarily because this topic is related to ethics. And again, not necessarily because some feminists are against abortion. I'll leave the link and quote the contents below:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/against_1.shtml Women's rights arguments against abortion. Not all who support women's rights support abortion, and many of them are active in trying to promote practical solutions to the causes that drive women to abortion. Some join other pro-life advocates and say that the right to life should always outweigh the right of an individual to equality or to control their own body. But others raise arguments that are specifically related to women's rights: Abortion does not free women. Some argue that abortion does not liberate women, but allows society not to cater to women's needs. They say that what women need for equality is not free access to abortion but to be given what they need to survive financially and socially as mothers: •inexpensive, readily available childcare •a workplace or school that acknowledges the needs of mothers, •e.g. providing flexible scheduling and maternity leave, •state support that helps to reintegrate a woman into the workforce. They say that if women couldn't have abortions so easily, governments would have to invest more money in supporting mothers. Abortion sidesteps oppression of women. Others oppose abortion because it provides a way of side-stepping other real issues that should be addressed. One writer put it like this: There are women who are raped and become pregnant; the problem is that they were raped, not that they are pregnant. There are women who are starving who become pregnant; the problem is that they are starving, not that they are pregnant. There are women in abusive relationships who become pregnant; the problem is that they are in abusive relationships, not that they are pregnant. Megan Clancy. Abortion damages women. Some people oppose abortion because it can damage the long-term physical and emotional health of women who have an abortion. Abortion violates feminist principles. Some feminists oppose all forms of violence, including abortion, because they are inconsistent with the core feminist principles of justice, non-violence and non-discrimination. We believe in a woman's right to control her body, and she deserves this right no matter where she lives, even if she's still living inside her mother's womb. Feminists for Life. Abortion is a male plot. Yet another group object to abortion because they see it as a male plot. (In fact many of this group don't object to abortion; they want people to be aware that men often support abortion for a thoroughly bad reason.) They argue that men see the risk of pregnancy as something that stops men having sex when they want it. If men are to achieve full sexual freedom (i.e. the freedom to have sex without responsibility) it is essential that abortion be freely available to backup contraception. So abortion on demand is vital if men are to be able to have women on demand, and thus men are arguing for abortion so that they can continue to exploit women. This was one of the reasons that 19th century feminists opposed abortion: they regarded it as a way for men to have sex with women without having to take responsibility for any resulting children by getting the women to risk their lives in what were then dangerous operations in order to prevent the child being born. This point of view is cogently argued in chapter 3 of Right Wing Women by Andrea Dworkin, the relevant part of which is online.