# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![MojoBox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MojoBox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MojoBox)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/441 "2006-07-26T20:48:53Z")
What, you dare impune my logic! Damn you! Our rights are enumerated in the constitution, and it pretty clearly says you must be born (even if the framers never considered this situation). In order for the unborn to have rights, we’d have to ammend it into the constitution. I disagree with the Federal Government making rulings on this (and with the Supreme Court making up new rights, not their job), if we’re going to have laws on it it should be the States job, so the laws can be suited to local beliefs. Oh we’d have people going out of state, but, so what? We have that for gambling too, and on a federal level we could just as easily have people go out of country. Laws are just so arbitrary, they seem ill suited to deal with this situation. And I really dislike the simplification of it by both sides, “It’s my choice, a fetus isn’t alive vs. It’s a life, you get what you deserve”. Ppppbtttt, really not that simple, we need an open and honest debate, and both sides should stop deluding themselves. I know, I know, I live in fantasy world, but I can dream can’t I? To sumarize, I’m technically “pro choice” because I don’t see any good reason to make it illegal, but I am morally conflicted. Oh, P.S. I’m not accusing anyone here of anything, most of you seem to enjoy a good open debate, I’m talking, well, I guess of the mainstream media’s handling of the debate. /Confused and Abused ---
**Author:** ![rainwalker78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb9ed0/32.png) [@rainwalker78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rainwalker78)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/442 "2006-07-26T21:18:17Z")
> [@MojoBox](#): > > Our rights are enumerated in the constitution, and it pretty clearly says you must be born (even if the framers never considered this situation). Would you mind providing a cite, please? I never got that impression, but I never really searched through looking for that. > [@MojoBox](#): > > Laws are just so arbitrary, they seem ill suited to deal with this situation. And I really dislike the simplification of it by both sides, “It’s my choice, a fetus isn’t alive vs. It’s a life, you get what you deserve”. Ppppbtttt, really not that simple, we need an open and honest debate, and both sides should stop deluding themselves. I know, I know, I live in fantasy world, but I can dream can’t I? I understand what you are saying. I am trying really hard to do that. I didn’t mean to impugn your logic. In my post #433 I tried really hard to define what the debate was, and see everyones different perspective. I was trying to see where you fit in. It appears to me that you are saying that the fetus does not have rights. Why? If it did have rights, would you then agree that there should be government protection of these rights? Why or why not? ---
**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 26, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/443 "2006-07-26T21:51:12Z")
> [@rainwalker78](#): > > In my post #433 I tried really hard to define what the debate was, and see everyones different perspective. I was trying to see where you fit in. I can appreciate your effort, but that’s rather like defining black people as those with dark skin and white people as those with light skin and assuming this defines the debate on race relations. ---
**Author:** ![MojoBox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MojoBox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MojoBox)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/444 "2006-07-26T22:34:13Z")
Oh I was joking about impunging my logic. Gosh humor can be hard to get across in a serious debate. 🙂 As for constiutional rights, they apply to citizens of the united states. Who are citizens? Those born or naturalized in this Country. Like I said, somewhat of a stretch and not what the framers had in mind, but it’s the only thing we’ve got to go on. The only way I see to possibly find cause to illegalize abortion is TO define rights of a fetus (such as “The right to the opportunity of independent life” or something). Roe V. Wade seems to have said “The fetus has no rights, as such it’s a violation of a womans privacy for us to get involved.” Part one is just a legal truth, part two, while I agree with, seems to be reading a bit much into the constitution, which I don’t like (if you can justify putting words in the framers mouth for your own cause, whats to stop someone else from turning this on you?) So, again, my biggest problem with the laws as they stand is that Women get 2 chances to choose whether or not they want to be responsible for a kid, but Men only get 1, and they’re expected to decide this in the throes of passion. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/445 "2006-07-26T22:42:18Z")
> [@](#): > > **Mojobox** said: > One of the key issues here is, in fact, the issue of when does a feotus become “alive”? It’s a very weak argument to say that a fertalized egg or zygote is a human being and affords rights, but you’d have to be near criminally insane to say that a feotus just weeks away from birth wasn’t one. I don’t think there’s any possible way that we can have an honest discussion so long as you characterize me as ‘near criminally insane.’ > [@](#): > > On to the idea of “choice”. It’s my body it’s my choice. Fair enough, but why isn’t only women are afforded this decision after conception? Men are only given the “choice” of using contraception or not having sex. Men are always given such scornful rebukes as “If you didn’t want a kid you shouldn’t have had sex / you should have worn a condom.” True enough, but condoms aren’t a sure fire thing, and can even, god forbid, be sabatouged. A Man can do everything he can (short of not having sex) to prevent pregnancy, but if he fails he has no say from > then on and is financially responsible for the next 18 years. Having sex is a calculated risk, and Men are expected to know this and act accordingly, good thing. But why aren’t Women expected to? Because having a child can “affect > the quality of life” they are afforded the right to abort it (yes there are health concerns, but not in every pregnancy). You’re severely barking up the wrong tree if you’re aiming any of this at me. I have numerous times and in numerous locations advocated the right of a man to abdicate all parental rights and responsibilities for a period of three months after he learns of the pregnancy or child, as that would be in keeping with the Roe standard on unrestricted access to abortion. I have even called this ‘male abortion.’ The actual fact of the matter to me is, and pay attention all you who would make abortion illegal: there will be those who have abortions whether you like it or not, and whether it’s legal or not. I’m one of them. You will not stop me from having an abortion if my birth control ever fails me, no matter what protests you hold, threats you shout, or laws you make. You can make it risky, you can make it expensive, and you can cause a lot more women to die for it than there need to be, but you can’t stop it. How long do you think it would take before black market RU-486 showed up? Think about it. There are currently a million abortions a year in the US. You will not stop one million desperate pregnant women. You can’t even stop the high officers from your own organizations from getting abortoins, as the link I posted above demonstrates. Desperate and pregnant, a lot of pro-life true believers become pro-choice **for themselves** in a hurry. > [@](#): > > **Sarahfeena** said: > > 1. Promoting adoption as a better alternative For someone who wants an alternative to being pregnant, adoption is no answer. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2006, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/446 "2006-07-26T22:50:05Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > It IS obvious to me…just wanted to see if it was to you. I’m not sure if you haven’t ben reading my arguments, or are confusing me with another poster? I would have thought it was obvious I knew the difference. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > The “stage of development” thing is what I was going after. The OP had to do with the pro-choice side understanding where the pro-life side is coming from. These threads tend to wander all over the place, talking about sperm and eggs and tumors and whatnot, but none of that is what is at issue. At issue is the fetus (blastocite, zygote, embryo, etc.), which in fundamental ways is completely different from any of these other things, and what that means to the pro-life side. …but in other fundamental ways (location, dependence) \ ***is** \* like some of those things, and that’s something that should be acknowledged too, when it comes to the pro-choice side. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > My point is that if you want to say, “look, I know the zygote is a human life form at a particular stage of development, but to me it **does not matter** , you should have the right to remove it,” then that’s fine. But to counter the argument with comparing it to all this other stuff is just disingenuous. You know it’s not the same as a “loogie,” as someone said back in the thread, and you know it’s not the same as a blood clot. I haven’t made a habit of making those comparisons, though - I fully acknowledge the humanity of the foetus, if not the personhood, and you’ve paraphrased my argument quite well, there, except I’d change the bolded bit to **"does not matter _as much_"** > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > No, that wasn’t what I wanted to ask. I wanted to know how pro-choicers see the biology of the fetus, not the moral status of the fetus. Why does the biology have a bearing if it doesn’t speak as to the “rightness” of eliminating it? Biology is neutral when speaking of whether an action is right or wrong, which is what the whole abortion debate is. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > This is a totally different issue, and if you really think that a fetus has the same moral status as a tumor, then I guess that’s your perogative, Not the same moral status, but also not the same moral status as a delivered baby, either, never mind an adult human. That’s kind of the point. > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > but given that you understand that it _is_ a human organism at a certain stage of development, and that an egg cell, a sperm cell, a tumor, a loogie, etc. are not, I would think that you would consider it to at least be a more complicated issue than what you are making it out to be… …but obviously not. I acknowledge that it’s complicated. What your’e getting from me is the end result of my internal reasoning. I’ve tried to convey, in the last couple threads on this, how I’ve arrived at the conclusions I have (my whole thing about Societal Actors, relative morality and personhood, remember?), but it’s a little bit demeaning for you to say I haven’t considered things. I have, but the arguments I’ve gotten haven’t convinced me. There seems to be a fundamental disconnect, and I think it happens somewhere in the underpinnings of our respective moral frameworks, rather than here, at the endpoint of one particular argument where we’re both assuming a familiarity with each other’s mindset that may not exist. ---
**Author:** ![MojoBox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MojoBox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MojoBox)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/447 "2006-07-27T00:10:33Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > You’re severely barking up the wrong tree if you’re aiming any of this at me. I have numerous times and in numerous locations advocated the right of a man to abdicate all parental rights and responsibilities for a period of three months after he learns of the pregnancy or child, as that would be in keeping with the Roe standard on unrestricted access to abortion. > > I have even called this ‘male abortion.’ I wasn’t directing anything at you, though I suppose I made it look like that by quoting you, my apologies. I’m quite happy to hear you advocate “male abortion”, as you put it. This helps put the laws on equal ground and allows choice for all parties involved, it’s the only thing I’d ask to have changed as the laws stand now. As I’ve said before, me personally, I am morally conflicted, but as far as the legality of the issue goes, I have no arguments against it. Hell, if you don’t want to be a parten, you SHOULD NOT be one, it’s better for everyone involved. Although I have to ask, you consider it perfectly find to abort a child up to the point of birth? This seems remarkable cruel, I mean, if you can do it at that point, why not weeks or months after the birth as well? ---
**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 27, 2006, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/448 "2006-07-27T00:19:38Z")
> [@MojoBox](#): > > Although I have to ask, you consider it perfectly find to abort a child up to the point of birth? This seems remarkable cruel, I mean, if you can do it at that point, why not weeks or months after the birth as well? Hey, if prerson can vote once they turn 18, why not weeks or months before? That’s surely a less significant milestone than the time you moved out of Mom. In practice, though, very few doctors would perform such a procedure, so it’s moot. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/449 "2006-07-27T00:20:28Z")
> [@MojoBox](#): > > As for constiutional rights, they apply to citizens of the united states. Who are citizens? Those born or naturalized in this Country. Wrong there. Constitutional rights apply to everyone, even illegal aliens. The Constitution guarantees the rights of “the people” or “persons.” ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/450 "2006-07-27T00:26:43Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > I’m not sure if you haven’t ben reading my arguments, or are confusing me with another poster? I would have thought it was obvious I knew the difference. Well, I was really trying to direct my question at any/all pro-choicers (I think I said that before, didn’t I?) You were just the only one who answered, so I kind of used you as a mouthpiece for the “other side.” That wasn’t fair, and so I’m sorry for that. > [@](#): > > …but in other fundamental ways (location, dependence) \ ***is** \* like some of those things, and that’s something that should be acknowledged too, when it comes to the pro-choice side. I acknowledge those things. > [@](#): > > I haven’t made a habit of making those comparisons, though - I fully acknowledge the humanity of the foetus, if not the personhood, and you’ve paraphrased my argument quite well, there, except I’d change the bolded bit to **"does not matter _as much_"** Yes, you were the one who spoke of showing the 10-week ultrasound around. Honestly, this is part of my moral issue with abortion. I suspect many, many people have both had an abortion (or, for men, caused a pregnancy that led to abortion) AND shown such pictures around during a subsequent, wanted pregnancy. I can’t resolve in my mind that a fetus is as important as the mother’s desire for the baby. To me, a fetus has inherent worth, or it doesn’t. And, while you obviously are not in this camp, there are many people I have debated with on this message board who do NOT acknowledge that there is an inherent humanity to the fetus. I was attempting to find out if they actually believe this (which doesn’t seem possible if they have any knowledge of biology), or if they just say this disingenuously because they believe that if they admit it, they have lost the debate. > [@](#): > > Why does the biology have a bearing if it doesn’t speak as to the “rightness” of eliminating it? Biology is neutral when speaking of whether an action is right or wrong, which is what the whole abortion debate is. > > Not the same moral status, but also not the same moral status as a delivered baby, either, never mind an adult human. That’s kind of the point. I was attempting to show why some people feel that it DOES have the same moral status, and that it is difficult to deny that there are fundamental differences between a fetus and the other items **Bryan Ekers** gave in his list (what were they…a tumor or a bad tooth?) Obviously, people are not worried about saving bad teeth…the moral status of the fetus is very, very much at issue on the pro-life side. > [@](#): > > I acknowledge that it’s complicated. > > What your’e getting from me is the end result of my internal reasoning. I’ve tried to convey, in the last couple threads on this, how I’ve arrived at the conclusions I have (my whole thing about Societal Actors, relative morality and personhood, remember?), but it’s a little bit demeaning for you to say I haven’t considered things. I have, but the arguments I’ve gotten haven’t convinced me. I’m sorry if I implied anywhere that you haven’t thought about it. I think it’s clear that you have. Likewise, I have my own internal reasoning that leads me to a different conclusion. > [@](#): > > There seems to be a fundamental disconnect, and I think it happens somewhere in the underpinnings of our respective moral frameworks, rather than here, at the endpoint of one particular argument where we’re both assuming a familiarity with each other’s mindset that may not exist. Maybe. I think I’m much closer to relating to your moral framework than a lot of other people on “your side” of the debate, actually. ---
**Author:** ![MojoBox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bbe5ce/32.png) [@MojoBox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MojoBox)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/451 "2006-07-27T00:29:12Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Hey, if prerson can vote once they turn 18, why not weeks or months before? That’s surely a less significant milestone than the time you moved out of Mom. > > In practice, though, very few doctors would perform such a procedure, so it’s moot. Voting at 18 is an arbitrary decision as well, based on I don’t know what. As I’ve said before, the designation of being alive or human is arbitrary as well, but most people would err on the side of trying to ensure no serious pain or suffering was endured by the fetus. But you’re right, it is a moot point. I think I’ve fully expressed myself here, so, no more debating for me. I’m off to greener pastures to torch, muahahhahahahahahha. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/452 "2006-07-27T01:37:05Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Who needs a cite? That would be the person making the assertion–you. Your response is fallacious as well. The pro-life group could be united, every man, woman, and child, in providing support to “unwanted children” and that does not mean the effort would be enough to produce the sort of effect you’re describing. I’m not saying they are united, BTW. I’m just pointing out that you made a statement pulled from your ass, and now you’re trying to justify it by saying, “If what I said were false, then the following things would all have occurred,” when there is no such unavoidable logical consequence. > > You made an unsupported statement. You have no cite. Be a big person and admit you overstated your position. Sorry for the late response, I’ve had no Internet connection for the last few days. Well now. You’re asking me for cites of things that are not being done. Kind of like asking me to prove a negative, isn’t it? Actually, yes I found examples of a few pro-life groups that seem to have some involvement at least with adoption or placement issues. Of course I would. But if the pro-life movement is supporting unwanted children in a big way, I’m afraid the ball is in your court to cite it because I never see evidence of it other than doing a search. Show me the cites where the major pro-life organizations are protecting and advancing the rights and welfare of unwanted children by changing the adoption system. Or how about some where they are fronting legislative attempts remove the red tape? Often poor mothers abort simply because they can’t afford more kids. Where are the pro-lifers in asking for the expansion of social programs like food stamps and education, and daycare assistance to help them? Is there actually a social movement doing this I haven’t heard of? Until you show that, you have no proof against my statement about the disconnect which was “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?” But I still think that both the pro-life and pro-choice sides could do a hell of a lot better at making something like adoption a more viable choice for mothers or couples. But when was the last time something like this, or even day care assistance (which most families could use) came up in Congress and made headlines? ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/453 "2006-07-27T01:56:31Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Can you really be missing the point? How does a simple reading of the word “pro-choice” (i.e., not an understanding of the meaning that people have assigned to it) lead one to assume that it refers to reproductive rights? I can just as easily say to you that “pro-life” refers to those who support the right to life of the unborn. The pro-life sentiment we are talking about is the right to live of the unborn. See?Which I’ve conceded, just as “pro-choice” is a deliberate selection, designed to paint an unfavorable picture of the opposition, since clearly the “pro-choice” movement does not support all choices. This is just silly. There are a whole bunch of places where the pro-choice side is well defined. Here’s [one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Choice) cite for you. And [another](http://www.reproductiverights.org/about.html#mission). And [another](http://www.wordreference.com/definition/pro-choice). > [@](#): > > from the **Center For Reproductive Rights** > > # The right to a full range of safe and affordable contraception > > # The right to safe, accessible and legal abortion > > # The right to safe and healthy pregnancies > > # The right to comprehensive reproductive health care services provided free of discrimination, coercion and violence > > # The right to equal access to reproductive health care for women facing social and economic barriers > > # The right to be free from practices that harm women and girls (such as female genital mutilation) > > # The right to a private and confidential doctor-patient relationship This is simply a matter of you getting on the same page that everyone else has been reading off of for years. These are widely used terms and the only ones who would question it are those who attempt to narrow the definition, to keep people focused only on abortion and not all the other privacy benefits derived from Roe. v Wade and other privacy decisions. Because while abortion tends to be a divisive hot button issue, the other choices she faces tend to be found reasonable by the vast majority of Americans. These include birth control, prevention of reproductive system health risks in women, and her quality of life and ability to bear and raise a(nother) child. Likewise some people don’t like the term pro-choice because it’s opposite would be considered anti-choice, which many Americans would consider a negative connotation, especially those who take umbrage at being told what to do regarding reasonable personal freedoms. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/454 "2006-07-27T02:09:41Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > I’m pro-choice, and I partially agree with the OP here. > > **_If_ aborting a fetus is morally equivalent to killing a baby** , then you can’t justify aborting a fetus to spare a woman an unwanted pregnancy. If abortion involved actually killing a baby (i.e., not a fetus but an infant who’s already been born), then hardly anyone would say it was justified to spare a woman an unwanted pregnancy. If we accept that, then the first sentence of this paragraph is practically a tautology. > > That said, I don’t think aborting a fetus _is_ equivalent to killing a baby. But the _question_ is obviously relevant. Anyone who says that it’s just about a woman’s right to choose is _presupposing_ that abortion isn’t equivalent to baby killing. > > However, that doesn’t mean discussions of a woman’s right to control her own body are irrelevant. If a fetus’s “life” is of _some_ value, but not as much as the life of a baby, then the question is “How much value does the existence of a fetus have, relative to the value of enabling a woman to control her own body?” > > It is interesting that both sides seem to often be having only half the debate. Some prochoice advocates presuppose that a fetus is worth less than a baby, and focus on the argument that a woman’s right to choose is worth more than the fetus’s existence. But pro-life advocates also have a tendency to presuppose that a fetus is equivalent to a baby, and consider the woman’s right to choose irrelevant, since it obviously can’t justify baby-killing. It’s little wonder the subject is so contentious, given that many in the debate seem not to care about finding a common ground for discussion, preferring to demonize their opponents and distort their views. > > It’s also worth noting that there’s a prochoice argument that has nothing to do with whether abortion is morally justified. Namely: People will get abortions whether it’s legal or not, but if it’s legal at least it’s easier to insure that they are preformed safely by qualified medical professionals. Just out of curiosity, what might you describe as a middle ground between the two positions? Is there a meeting point that you see somewhere in there? ---
**Author:** ![rainwalker78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb9ed0/32.png) [@rainwalker78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rainwalker78)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/455 "2006-07-27T02:37:16Z")
> [@MojoBox](#): > > As for constiutional rights, they apply to citizens of the united states. Who are citizens? Those born or naturalized in this Country. Like I said, somewhat of a stretch and not what the framers had in mind, but it’s the only thing we’ve got to go on. > [@Walloon](#): > > Wrong there. Constitutional rights apply to everyone, even illegal aliens. The Constitution guarantees the rights of “the people” or “persons.” What he said. Unless I am mistaken, foreigner nationals visiting the U.S have the same basic rights as U.S. citizens, like due process and what not. I am pretty sure that it is not okay to kill them, even though they are not citizens. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I can appreciate your effort, but that’s rather like defining black people as those with dark skin and white people as those with light skin and assuming this defines the debate on race relations. Be fair. What I laid out was a little more thorough than what you said. I certainly used more words. I acknowledge that it is a complicated issue. Even so, I think I gave a pretty good synopsis of the debate, and pretty much every argument I have seen on this board fits in. I know there are specific examples that people can come up with, like rape or incest, but these specifics are not what the debate is really about. I think the debate is about when a fetus becomes a person, and when that person acquires rights that supercede a parent’s right to terminate it. ---
**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 27, 2006, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/456 "2006-07-27T03:24:00Z")
> [@rainwalker78](#): > > Be fair. What I laid out was a little more thorough than what you said. I certainly used more words. _You_ be fair. I’ve got ten times as many posts in this thread as you. _And_ I was accused of not being succinct. 😃 > [@](#): > > I think the debate is about when a fetus becomes a person, and when that person acquires rights that supercede a parent’s right to terminate it. Well, that wasn’t the debate _I_ was having, but as you see fit. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/457 "2006-07-27T03:26:27Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > _You_ be fair. I’ve got ten times as many posts in this thread as you. > > _And_ I was accused of not being succinct. 😃 Well, just in ONE specific instance! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/458 "2006-07-27T05:48:29Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > Show me the cites where the major pro-life organizations are protecting and advancing the rights and welfare of unwanted children by changing the adoption system. > > Or how about some where they are fronting legislative attempts remove the red tape? • National Right to Life Committee: [Raising Consciousness About Adoption](http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL11/adopt.html). • National Right to Life Committee: [Movement to Establish ‘Safe Havens’ Continues to Grow](http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL09/pierce.html). • Feminists for Life: [Women Deserve Better](http://www.womendeservebetter.com/ECS/index.htm) ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/459 "2006-07-27T05:52:10Z")
> [@MojoBox](#): > > As for constiutional rights, they apply to citizens of the united states. Who are citizens? Those born or naturalized in this Country. **MojoBox** , I am deeply disappointed that you think that non-US citizens have no constitutional rights. Golly gee. I guess they’re just a bunch of stinkin’, worthless foreigners, right? Quick! Let’s issue pardons to everyone in prison who’s been convicted of killing a foreigner. I think we’ve got a constitutional crisis on our hands! ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2006, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118/460 "2006-07-27T06:38:24Z")
• Democrats for Life of America: [Abortion: Wedge Issue, or Reducing the Tragedy?](http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=120&Itemid=2). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-pro-choicers-have-it-all-wrong/365118.md?page=24)