# Most pro-choicers have it all wrong. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118 "2006-07-19T02:50:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/321 "2006-07-22T01:37:29Z")
> [@godzillatemple](#): > > And a fetus, just like a baby, has a right to life. > > At the same time, it is crystal clear that a woman (or a man, for that matter), should have the right to control what happens to her own body. > > The only real question is which of these two potentially conflicting rights should take precedence. Actually, I’d say that those two rights are by no means in conflict. If the fetus has a right to life, then it is a human being that is distinct from the mother. Ergo, [even if we grant that a woman has the right to control her own body](http://www.l4l.org/library/rightbeg.html), the fetus is not part of her personal anatomy. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/322 "2006-07-22T01:49:01Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Because killing unwanted children is NOT an acceptable solution. That didn’t answer his question. So there’s 500,000 to 1,000,000 extra children in the U.S. each year, born to women who didn’t want them. What’s your plan for dealing with them? As for issues of “personal anatomy”, is the umbilical cord hers or is it the fetus’s? If it’s hers, she can certainly have it severed if she wants. If it’s not hers, she can have it disconnected from her uterus, which certainly _is_ hers. If you’re going to acknowledge that she has control over her “personal anatomy”, I don’t see why you can deny her right to disconnect herself from someone else’s anatomy. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/323 "2006-07-22T01:50:07Z")
Oops, her question. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Bam\_Boo\_Gut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8c91f0/32.png) [@Bam\_Boo\_Gut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bam_Boo_Gut)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/324 "2006-07-22T01:51:33Z")
**Dont Ask** “I usually avoid the abortion debate for possibly obvious reasons but I think I see where the OP is coming from. I am a male and have had two partners have terminations and two others think they were going to have to. In each case I agreed and offered all the support I could (including attending).” Could you please look into other forms of birth control??? Please. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/325 "2006-07-22T02:01:13Z")
> [@Bam Boo Gut](#): > > **Dont Ask** “I usually avoid the abortion debate for possibly obvious reasons but I think I see where the OP is coming from. I am a male and have had two partners have terminations and two others think they were going to have to. In each case I agreed and offered all the support I could (including attending).” > > Could you please look into other forms of birth control??? Please. Could \*YOU? \* ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/326 "2006-07-22T02:20:06Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Could \*YOU? \* I didn’t mean that to come across the way it did. The subject of birth control is a two-way street, for sure. But when it gets down to it, you can only protect yourself. If you’re not certain that you are doing everything YOU can to absolutely prevent a pregnancy, the other person’s shortcomings in the birth control dept are don’t really matter. If you’re offended by the prospect of abortion, _don’t have sex_. Having sex with someone who would opt for abortion is sure to upset you. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/327 "2006-07-22T03:13:29Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Because killing unwanted children is NOT an acceptable solution. **Bryan Ekers** beat me to it, but… what is? What is an actual, viable solution to this problem? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/328 "2006-07-22T03:55:16Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > That didn’t answer his question. So there’s 500,000 to 1,000,000 extra children in the U.S. each year, born to women who didn’t want them. What’s your plan for dealing with them? Before I answer that question, are you suggesting that it’s okay to kill human beings on the grounds that they are (ahem) “unwanted”? After all, that is the reason which was given for allowing women to kill their unborn. I won’t pretend that taking care of these allegedly “unwanted” human beings would be easy; however, the difficulty of this task does not justify ending their lives. There are a great many elderly and disabled people who are also burdens on society. Should we decide to take their lives as well? Now, there are certain measures that we could take. The adoption process is hopelessly convoluted, for example. According to some acquaintances of mine who work in that field, this discourages many who would otherwise seek to adopt children. Increasing public awareness is likewise something we should pursue, as well as striving to prevent these pregnancies from occurring in the first place. (Pro-lifers and pro-choicers often disagree on the precise tactics that one should use, but most will agree that this is a laudable goal to pursue.) But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that nobody was willing to adopt a pregnant woman’s unborn child. How does this justify killing the fetus in question? That would be like an abusive single father saying, “These children are a tremendous burden on me, and I don’t want them. Unless you are _personally_ willing to take care of these kids, I am going to toss them out onto the street. If you are unable or unwilling to care for these children, you should just shut the heck up!” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/329 "2006-07-22T04:52:22Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Before I answer that question, are you suggesting that it’s okay to kill human beings on the grounds that they are (ahem) “unwanted”? After all, that is the reason which was given for allowing women to kill their unborn. No, but I should point out that I’m indifferent to whether or not fetuses count as human beings. A tumor is made of human tissue as well, and if someone wants one removed, I don’t see any reason to try to stop them. > [@](#): > > But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that nobody was willing to adopt a pregnant woman’s unborn child. How does this justify killing the fetus in question? That would be like an abusive single father saying, “These children are a tremendous burden on me, and I don’t want them. Unless you are _personally_ willing to take care of these kids, I am going to toss them out onto the street. If you are unable or unwilling to care for these children, you should just shut the heck up!” I don’t think the killing _has_ to be justified, beyond the recognition that a woman’s rights are at stake. Your example is unconvincing. I’d say improving the adoption system and increasing access to birth control are good ideas, though. Maybe they can reduce the number of abortions, though I doubt they’ll eliminate them. Accidents will happen, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/330 "2006-07-22T05:22:19Z")
> [@godzillatemple](#): > > Once you strip away the labels and the desire to win the argument, I think it becomes crystal clear that yes, a fetus (at least at some stage in its development) is just as much a human being (leaving aside the legal definition of “person”) as a newborn baby. Neither can survive on their own for any significant length of time, and the only real difference is one of location… Not quite. A fetus that becomes ill can affect the mothers health, even to the point of killing her while she is carrying it. Likewise, it is even more dependent on her while in the womb as it cannot yet breathe on it own, it doesn’t have it’s own circulatory system and so on. So long as she is carrying it, it is part of her body. It is not a child at that point. Even though it has the potiential to be an independent human being, it is is part of the mothers body and just as the mother could be endangered by a failing heart, or an infected appendix, a sick or dying fetus can, and sometime does, endanger her life. Even a healthy fetus is clearly part of her system and as part of her body she gets to make whatever decisions she chooses to. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/331 "2006-07-22T05:48:29Z")
Interestingly, from the link provided in post #321: > [@](#): > > To be sure, the unborn child lives inside the woman’s body. But an entity does not necessarily become the property of an individual because it is in or on that individual’s property. (Even a trespasser on someone else’s land does not thereby become the landowner’s property, in the sense that the landowner may do whatever he will with the trespasser.) The question remains whether the unborn child has a right or privilege to live within the woman until its birth. If it does, it cannot be the woman’s property to dispose of as she sees fit. I don’t recall any law compelling a landowner to _feed_ a trespasser, nor one that made the landowner helpless to escort the trespasser off the owned land. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/332 "2006-07-22T13:45:19Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So why’d you reply the first time, then? > > Repeat of the question: > > Is there _anyone_ here in this thread who’s pro-life but _not_ for religious reasons? > > We’ve already established **kanicbird** doesn’t count. The majority of people are "pro-life.Yes,even the people who are pro -choice,The word should be just pro-birth, Many pro-choice people care a lot more about the already born over the choice of a few cells that may become a person later on. One cannot murder cells. If this is true then if a man masturbates or has sex with a woman who he knows is sterile, he kills many human lives. Just as many so called pro life people such as our president who thinks nothing of going into a needless war where there are many innocent lives being snuffed out every day,then talks about how some embryos became children and were adopted,even though a majority of the( now) cells may never grow into a person but will be disgarded. Look at the lives that would have been saved had he not invaded Iraq. Had he kept the war on terror to Afghanistan perhaps the man power used to go into Iraq we may have had Bin Laden and other terrorists by now , as it stands we are fueling the hate to create more terrorists, the very thing his Father didn’t do because he was warned in the Desert storm that this very thing would happen that is going on now. Of course Jr. talked to a higher father,now he can blame it on God! Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2006, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/333 "2006-07-22T14:47:43Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > The majority of people are "pro-life.Yes,even the people who are pro -choice,The word should be just pro-birth, Many pro-choice people care a lot more about the already born over the choice of a few cells that may become a person later on. The term ‘pro-life’ was chosen by conservative think tanks because who could not be ‘pro-life’? The implication is that they must be evildoers who are ‘pro-death’. In fact the idea of the movement is to make Roe v. Wade sound as if it’s only about abortion when RvW is actually about allowing a woman to make _all_ reproductive choices and for her doctor to advise and assist with them as needed. The term is a lot of bullshit when so many of the people who support it have problems with caring for the unwanted offspring not aborted (see **kannicbird** ). Love the fetus, hate the child. It’s standard conservative philosophy which, at it’s core, centers around the idea of “but what’s in it for me??” They say that “You shouldn’t be able to do it because I think it’s wrong. But if I force you to do what I think is right, I’m under no responsibility to protect the child you didn’t want.” Of course, this a using the broad brush. As seen here by a couple posters, it’s not always the case. But it’s true for the vast majority and a real disconnect. How can you be ‘pro-life’ when you do not want to also ensure that the lives of unwanted children have at least as good a chance at success as kids born into loving families? What about their lives? To which they might respond “But that will raise my tax rates. What’s in it for me?” Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2006, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/334 "2006-07-23T05:08:12Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > The term is a lot of bullshit when so many of the people who support it have problems with caring for the unwanted offspring not aborted (see **kannicbird** ). Love the fetus, hate the child. It’s standard conservative philosophy which, at it’s core, centers around the idea of “but what’s in it for me??” > > They say that “You shouldn’t be able to do it because I think it’s wrong. But if I force you to do what I think is right, I’m under no responsibility to protect the child you didn’t want.” Miss the point much? A slight hijack: IMHO, conservative philosophy is that a person is responsible for their actions and ALL their choices in life. One of those responsibilities is to follow the law (law = making you do things that you many not want to because others feel it is right eg. I want to drive at 120hm/h but the law says I can only do 100hm/h, so I get a ticket). So, if by your own actions you screw things up, just what obligation would you think others have to you? ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2006, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/335 "2006-07-23T06:51:56Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Miss the point much? A slight hijack: IMHO, conservative philosophy is that a person is responsible for their actions and ALL their choices in life. One of those responsibilities is to follow the law (law = making you do things that you many not want to because others feel it is right eg. I want to drive at 120hm/h but the law says I can only do 100hm/h, so I get a ticket). So, if by your own actions you screw things up, just what obligation would you think others have to you? I didn’t miss the point at all. I was expanding on the statement I quoted by **monavis**. I’d suspect that we are more in agreement on the general point than not. As I see it liberal philosophy is that we have responsibilities not only for what we do, but also to the community as well. Modern civilization is based on many people working together, not on individuals mostly wanting to do their own thing. Yes, we must obey laws, but liberalism is based on the ideal that to be a citizen is not just some God-given right. We have to throw our ante into the pot, and put something back into the community, not just take advantage of it. When people pool resources, watch each others backs, and assist a bit everybody prospers. If not, it begins to fall apart. IMHO, conservative philosophy is more concerned only with the personal responsibility aspect, and not so much about the larger responsibilites to the community. It’s like, if they have a little extra left over they’ll donate to charity, but they resent having to pay to play. Or they’ll demand this person be responsible in a way they deem fit, such as ‘don’t remove that embryo’, but if their demand impacts the community then they don’t want to be responsible for THAT outcome. Not my responsibility = not in my interest. I don’t see an unwanted pregnancy by someone trying their best not to become pregnant as ‘screwing up.’ In fact, it is the law that provides a woman with the right to make this reproductive choice as well as the others she might make. Such as her attempts to not become pregnant in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2006, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/336 "2006-07-23T07:20:17Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > I didn’t miss the point at all. I was expanding on the statement I quoted by **monavis**. I’d suspect that we are more in agreement on the general point than not. I agree with what you have posted here for the most part. Part of the reason why I’m pro-choice. I just get tired of painting of the other side as a boogey-man. I also don’t see a whole lot of difference between ‘I’ve got mine, so screw you’ and ‘You will pay whether you want to or not, whether you believe it is right or not, because we say it is necessary’. Somewhere in the middle should be the reality. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2006, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/337 "2006-07-23T07:40:55Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > I agree with what you have posted here for the most part. Part of the reason why I’m pro-choice. > I just get tired of painting of the other side as a boogey-man. I also don’t see a whole lot of difference between ‘I’ve got mine, so screw you’ and ‘You will pay whether you want to or not, whether you believe it is right or not, because we say it is necessary’. Somewhere in the middle should be the reality. As a former conservative, I agree that it sucks the way both sides talk at each other rather than to each other. I hope that we can all try to listen more. Some philosophical boundries have been really stretched the last few years and it makes it tough right now. Because one side has minimal say in a process that’s been seen by them as out of control. And another side is seeing the process they had a handle on slipping away, some finding buyer’s remorse, and trying to understand what’s going on. So everyone is on edge. At least here in the forums we communicate somewhat. Overall I wish more people would visit places like this. Also I actually think that the middle gound between the two camps is the reality more than not in terms of how things actually work. It is most of the time anyway. I simply see things going way too far towards one side right now and would like to see it back towards the middle. Take note however in doing so the ‘middle’ is often a moving target. It moves slowly, but it moves. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2006, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/338 "2006-07-23T12:44:27Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Who here is a pro-lifer and \*doesn’t \*believe the foetus has a soul or some such thing. I am pro-life, and I am completely uninterested in whether the embryo or fetus has a soul. And, you know, unless you don’t mind being called “pro-abortion” or “pro-death”, don’t use terms like “anti-choice”. Unless you believe that abortion should be allowed for any reason up to the moment of birth, you’re “anti-choice” too. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2006, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/339 "2006-07-23T13:21:30Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Incidentally, lower crime rates is not the goal of abortion, but it’s irresponsible to refuse to recognize that _higher_ crime rates may be one result of _banning_ abortion. Summary execution of the poor will have a similar effect, I’d posit, given the strong correlation between poverty and crime. But it’s not irresponsible to set this hypothesis aside so much as it is a recognition of its irrelevance. Same with abortion and crime rates, even if we concede the relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2006, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/340 "2006-07-23T13:27:05Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > But it’s true for the vast majority and a real disconnect. Cite, please? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=18)