A question for Pro-Choice advocates

that is no basis for comparison. We are not trying to legislate their sex life. The issue is Right to Life for the child vs a Right to Choose for the woman.

In fact, there are laws that limit what we can do with our wangs...

 

Go read the stats on this: very few abortions are motivated by the health of the mother-- other than the spurious mental health argument.

Even most pro-Life advocates are moderate about a Choice when the mother's physical health is truly at stake. In that case the Mother's Right to Life should supercede the unborn Child's.

 

so you don't think children come from sex?

 

i'm going to have to give nyquil and bejezuz an F- for their debating abilities and comprehension of the issues at hand in this thread.

 

i think status quo will do for now because people are way too split and too stubborn on the issues for there to be compromise. I think government, naturally, will work in the issue when there are enough people willing to vote for representatives solely on the issue. Women sufferage took a long time, racial integration took a long time and is still in the works, and I don't expect abortion to resolve anytime in the near future.

However, you are assuming that conservatives and liberals actually want to compromise. Francis, just wondering, why do you think there absolutely needs to be a compromise in the near future, and why do you think legislators would actually want to touch a subject that, for the moment, 1) they can use against their opponents that do take a stance and 2) might get their hands bitten by some of their own constituents if they do take a stance?

 

I agree that a compromise is necessary on this issue, but I would probably set the limit at the third trimester. I am adamently pro-choice, but I fully agree that if you are to choose abortion (except in cases of rape, incest, or severe birth defects), you should choose it as early as possible. The GOP could easily have had a limitation on this already, but chose to omit language protecting the health of the mother and the courts struck it down, and rightly so.

"Alive" is a term, which when applied to fetuses becomes political rather than scientific. I personally don't consider a fetus "alive" until it can survive without the biological processes of the woman who carries it. I know that giddy's favorite argument is that the baby, once born, will still rely on someone to live, but the point is that once the baby is born, it can rely on anyone, not just the woman who carries it in her womb. For that woman, the fetus is honestly most analogous to a parasite than anything else, living off of the biological processes of the host (mother) and unable to survive without the host. I know that may sound cold, but for a woman choosing whether to bear a child, that may very well be her mindset.

As such, you have to give the woman the right to choose for herself whether she wants to use her womb to bring the child to term. No matter the reason, even if it is just because she doesn't feel ready for children. Nobody has the right to demand that the woman bear a child that she does not want to bear.

Again, I think there should be reasonable regulations on abortion, but within those regulations, a woman's right to make her own choice is sacrosanct.

 

I wanted to echo and amplify this point.

If pro-lifers really wanted to have an impact, a positive one (note that abortions have gone up since GWB brought his policies to town), they would focus their time and energy on educating people, particularly young people, about sex and making sure that contraception was widely available to people most at risk for abortions. Education and prevention efforts would have far more positive impact than banning abortion.

Need I remind you that we had a prohibition on abortion once and it was an absolute disaster. Women died, were sterilized, were taken advantage of (raped by abortion providers), and suffered a whole host of other ills as a result of this prohibition. Every single medical procedure performed in this country (not just the popular or politically correct procedures, ALL of them) should be condicted by licensed medical personnel in a regulated facility to assure Americans that their health and well being is a priority. Banning abortion would probably not decrease the number of abortions very much, but would exacerbate the existing harms and would bring on an incredible number of additional problems.

 

It could very well be a threat to the way of life she wants to maintain. That is enough in my book to allow her to choose what is done inside her body. She has the right to tell a doctor to go into her body to remove things that she does not want and nobody has the right to make that choice for her.

But once a baby is born, it will not rely solely on the biological processes of the mother and the mother alone. Until the baby can survive on its own outside the womb, IMO it is the mother's choice whether to bring that child to term and bear it. Once the fetus is viable and could survive outside the womb (I think this is generally regarded as the third trimester), I agree that the woman's rights to choose should be limited.

Yes. The rights of the mother to do what she chooses with her body or anything in it are sacrosanct until the fetus becomes viable, IMO.

 

I don't think that any person, male or female, has the right to choose for another. That choice should be left to the mother, period. The only exception might be in the case of teenagers living at home.

 

in other words, you disagree. either that or you are incapable of seeing other sides of the argument. lastly, I don't see you coming in here with enough courage to add anything worthwhile to an hot issue.

 

i am pro-life, but i don't care what side you are on, you and bejezuz have simply made some asinine statements.

pro-lifers should start adopting more people if they're really against abortion? wtf? first, i wasn't aware that there was a shortage of willing adopters. don't people have to wait forever and get on long lists to adopt a child? secondly, i didn't realize people were having abortions instead of carrying to term b/c they were worried no one would adopt them. isn't the adoption option usually pushed as a reason not to do it if you simply aren't ready for kids. how many times is the rational for going ahead with it that i'm not sure there are enough couples willing to adopt? like someone else said, are people that worry about homeless people supposed to take them in?


then there's the "men can't tell women what to do, and how would we like it if they told us what to do with our wangs" statement. i didn't realize the people making these laws and having this debate were all men. and i also didn't realize the issue was 50/50 with men all on the pro-life side and women on the pro-choice side. men and women alike push for pro-life reform. laws aren't made by the specific group every law is meant for.i


bejezuz is going on about overzealous doctors as if this is the norm. i also haven't heard much opposition to the option for abortion if the mother's life is in danger. he also seems to make it sound like the woman's life is in danger all the time or something.



and andymoon's post(s) are the very problem with this debate. for him, it's a victimless crime, an elective superficial surgery of sorts to simple get something out. for the other side, this isn't telling women they can't get a tattoo, get breast implants (or reductions), liposuction, or a mole removed. i don't see anyone arguing over that. it's saying you can't end a human's life. and the "maintaining her lifestyle" side of the pro-choice argument is about as far from the pro-life side as you can get.



they should at least limit abortions to the first trimester if they're not going to get rid of them. i mean, abortion is bad enough, but doing it anywhere in the vicinity of the 3rd trimester seems particularly heinous to me. haven't babies been born before then and survived? is the argument that it's not alive simply that it's still inside the womb and not outside, even if it could survive outside?

it's practically a baby, it's just taking advantage of a few extra months to make it as strong as possible to survive upon birth.

 

When discussing human rights, norms don't matter as much as you are leading people to believe. What matters is how we react in the rare cases when the rights of two or more parties are in conflict. You have to get at the heart of these conflicts in order to work out how one should weigh an issue.

The key to the pro-choice position is that no person should take rights away from a woman to do what she thinks is best for her body. Her right supercede the rights of all others, including the rights of the unborn and the agenda of policy makers.

Francis3422 wanted to know why his compromise didn't fair well with the pro-choice side. All I'm trying to do is say that it conflicts with the core position of pro-choice, and that's why it wasn't successful.

I'm just trying to communicate the core of the issue, because frankly, abortion isn't my bag. I've got other pet issues, and this ain't one of them. You may think my arguments are assinine, but I'm just briefly quoting the basic ideas behind the pro-choice position. I'm sure a true choice advocate could destroy any of the anti-choice arguments made in this thread, but like I said, it ain't my bag.

Personally, I think abortion is a silly issue to argue, because it's never going to change. The Right likes to make an issue of it, just like they do with flag burning and gay marriages, to try to piss ignorant people off and get them out to vote. But do they ever change anything? Of course not.

 

You have the audacity to make this comment to <b>francis 4 prez</b> when this was your response to me: "...so you don't think children come from sex?" C'mon...

 

Aren't you forgetting that special bond that exists between a mother and her newborn child that she just doesn't share with her parasites?

 

<b>Originally posted by andymoon

It could very well be a threat to the way of life she wants to maintain. That is enough in my book to allow her to choose what is done inside her body. She has the right to tell a doctor to go into her body to remove things that she does not want and nobody has the right to make that choice for her.</b>

Now that's a fine argument if we were only talking about an appendix or something, but we're not. We are talking about a human being with unique DNA that clearly marks her as a singular human being.

So is Lifestyle over Life really the foundational value that we want this culture to promote?


<b>But once a baby is born, it will not rely solely on the biological processes of the mother and the mother alone. Until the baby can survive on its own outside the womb, IMO it is the mother's choice whether to bring that child to term and bear it. Once the fetus is viable and could survive outside the womb (I think this is generally regarded as the third trimester), I agree that the woman's rights to choose should be limited.</b>

You have a very clinical attitude toward all this. Most women cherish the unique privilege they have of bringing life into the world while you analogize it to parasitism.

Women who can't bear children are saddened by the fact. Women who bury children, grieve over their loss. Large numbers of women who abort their children are seriously burdened by that short-sighted decision for the rest of their lives.

<b>Yes. The rights of the mother to do what she chooses with her body or anything in it are sacrosanct until the fetus becomes viable, IMO.</b>

Of course, the line where viability begins will constantly be moving forward as medicine gains technological advances... and that's a NIMO, it's a fact.

This is the problem I have with your stance on abortion: it is driven by Safety and Lifestyle concerns rather than Life concerns.

Safety concerns are not an issue if Life is cherished. Lifestyle concerns are short-term inconvenience for the Mother but PERMANENT DEATH for the poor child.

There are a lot of laws on the books that we have to live with for entire lives. Women who have an unwanted pregnancy have to live with a law they don't like for 6-9 months.

I can't think of too many circumstances where people are crying for the triumph of selfish convenience over Life.

It's not the abortionists who are invading their bodies to yank these children. They have been invited in.

 

I would definitely be anti-abortion if aborted fetuses weren't so delicious.

 

What really gets me is where do old white men in congress get the right to be god? Why is abortion even an issue at all?

One Woman, One Body, One Mine. I mean should we start regulating whether women use tampons or maxipads?

Leave it to the women.

 

Besides what do we need more people for ayways?

I'm Pro-Malthus.

 

Between a mother who chose to bring the fetus to term and bear it, I will not deny that there is a very special bond. I see it every day with my son and already see that bond with my as yet unborn child.

However, a woman who chooses to have an abortion does not WANT that "special bond." To her, the fetus IS analogous to a parasite and as such, she and her doctor can choose to remove it if they wish. It is nobody's business but the woman, her doctor, and God.