Most pro-choicers have it all wrong.

Great Debates
361

You’re taking two separate points and assuming I’m incorrectly linking them. The breakdown is fairly straightforward:

Point 1: A woman’s right (indeed any person’s right) to bodily autonomy. If she doesn’t feel her rights are being impinged, good. If she feels they are, she should be allowed to seek remedies.

Point 2: If you disregard Point 1 (or at least the aspects that relate to abortion, to forestall any recreational drug-use tangents, which deserve threads of their own) and ban abortion, there are consequences, one (but by no means the only) of which is increased crime 15 or so years down the road.

Personally, I think Point 1 stands on its own and by itself justifies access to abortion. Point 2 need only be employed to address arguments to ban abortion made by people who have not considered or are deliberately indifferent to the consequences.

Well, the equally plausible counter-position is that abortion access is either supportable based on the rights of women, or they are not. Trying to compare the rights of a woman to that of a fetus is not at all a hard choice for me.

I don’t see it as a dodge to point out that you are dodging, refusing to acknowledge the consequences of your actions, but I’ll play along for the sake of argument. Let’s say the label “child” applies from the instant of fertilization to the age of 18. Let’s also say that “child abuse” refers to the deliberate infliction of injury or death on a “child”. It’s my position that “child abuse” is acceptable for the first nine month of the “child’s” existence, with birth being the point at which this stops because for those nine months, the “child” is not an autonomous entity; there is another entity, the mother, involved. Ignoring this serves no useful purpose that I can see, and birth is a useful benchmark. Heck, even the onset of the third trimester would be an acceptable benchmark, with the usual caveats about the woman’s life/health.

When we have medical procedures that can easily (i.e. as easily or more easily than a D&C) move a fetus from a woman who doesn’t want it to another woman who does or to an artificial womb of some kind paid for by someone prepared to adopt the fetus, I’ll gladly revisit the issue.

362

I understand this.

This is the same non sequitur. If one accepts your premise then we need some compelling argument (that doesn’t contradict your premise in point 1) to support an abortion ban. Again, this requires something irrelevant from the perspective of someone who does not hold #1, and it’s a complete disconnect from your perspective (why would someone hold that no justification is required for abortion, then seek to restrict it?). It’s completely irrelevant from both perspectives. And you certainly seem to be linking the two, I think.

But you’re being inconsistent here. According to your logic, you’re on shaky grounds opposing post-birth child abuse, so long as you don’t take these children into your home or otherwise provide for them. After all, you said this:

Am I misunderstanding you?

363

I don’t understand what you’re not understanding. I don’t expect everyone to accept my Point #1. I know, in fact, that many don’t, so I wouldn’t expect them to accept anything that follows from it.

Well, yes, in the sense that #2 follows a rejection of #1, in my opinion.

I pay taxes and such to pay for social services and police and whatnot. I’m not actively seeking to make the problem worse, which is the result of #2, after abortion restrictions increase the numbers of unwanted children. If you don’t accept #2 (or even #1), then we’ll just have to disagree.

Possibly. From my perspective, mine is the morally best approach. It’s not surprising we can’t reconcile on this issue.

364

I think that pro-choice and anti-choice are the best, most complete descriptions of the sides of the debate. The opinions held by pro-choice people on the sanctity of life vary considerably, and the same is true for those who are anti-choice.

There are pro-choice people who think that a late term fetus is just as human as a baby, and think that abortions should only be performed in the first trimester. There are pro-choice people who don’t think that infants are truly self-aware until several hours after birth and that infanticide should be allowed in special circumstances (i.e. discovery of certain defects after birth). I’ve known pro-choice people who were also so pro-life that they were vegetarians and opposed all forms of war and the death penalty, and I’ve known pro-choice people who did not believe in the sanctity of human life. What they all have in common is they believe that women should have the right to choose to end their pregnancy.

Likewise, there are anti-choice people who think there should be exceptions based on rape or incest, are pro-war, pro-death penalty, and whose beliefs on abortion have nothing to do with the rights of the fetus and are based on other factors, like regulation of sexual behavior o religious commands to be fruitful. They have little in common with the people who truly respect all life and are trying to preserve the lives of the unborn, but what they share is a belief that women should not have the right to choose to terminate their pregnancy. They are all anti-choice.

I think those that fight this label and insist the movement should be called pro-life are hurting their cause. They open the debate up to distractions like “Do you suport the death penalty” or “Do you think it’s OK to drop bombs on civilian populations?” that have little to do with many’s reasons for their opinion.

365

Please explain how the description “pro-choice,” by itself and without any explanation, best describes the the position of those who support abortion rights. For example, explain its advantages over a term like, “pro-abortion rights.” And I’m sure you won’t mind if I refer to the pro-choice position as “pro-baby killing,” right? From the perspective of a pro-lifer, this is a reasonable and accurate description, correct? :rolleyes:

366

There isn’t a lot of research available, but what polling on the topic exists shows that people with anti-abortion viewpoints are more likely to be against the death penalty. And those with pro-choice viewpoints are more likely to be for the death penalty.

Go ahead, dismiss the poll because you disagree with its findings.

367

Really? Then why do you seem to demand justification that assumes a belief in point #1? Let me remind you that this entire exchange was triggered by my response:

…which was in response to this:

So, which is it? Is it irresponsible to disregard this effect (for its irrelevance) or not? If it is not irresponsible, then your original statement was flat out a misstatement. If your original statement stands, then your point #1 / #2 syllogism continues to appear illogical.

368

Well, I should point out that when your responses ask in various ways why, since I support abortion rights, don’t I support infanticide as well, I’m disinclined to argue since the question is baiting. Do I have to prove that I’m not eager to kill toddlers, or something? Please.

You can accept or not accept point #1 at your pleasure. I’m simply pointing out if you want to deny point #1, I hope you’ve taken into account the consequences at point #2. I don’t see a lot of evidence that the various pro-life organizations have. I may be wrong, of course, and if you have cites that National Right to Life (for example) is dedicating as much effort to improving social programs and education as they are to anti-abortion legislation (i.e. they’re helping to build a social safety net that will protect and nurture the unwanted babies their legislative efforts, if implemented, will force to be born), I’d like to read them.

For that matter, what effect have increasing barriers to abortion in states like South Dakota, North Dakota and Mississippi had? Is it a positive one? Do you think this is a silly question to ask? Is it critical to preserve life no matter the consequences? Is that last question “baiting”? I can see why it might be viewed as such, so I don’t demand an answer.

And again, I don’t understand what you don’t understand. There’s point #1, and if you disregard point #1, you’ll have to deal with the issues raised in point #2. It’s the disregard of point #2 that I feel undercuts many anti-abortion arguments; the idea of imposing a (to them) self-evident moral standard and then being indifferent to the result.

If you want to counter it, I suggest coming up with an alternate point #2, a point #2-prime as it were, which lists the positive effects you anticipate after a widespread abortion ban, preferably using real-world examples drawn from the states mentioned above. I’d like to see if they’re sufficient to make me rethink my support of point #1.

369

As an afterthought, I’m trying to follow your argument and came up with this. Forgive me if it seems simplistic or strawman-ish and I won’t be offended if you choose to ignore it:

Bryan: Dairy products taste good, and the calcium helps prevent osteoporosis down the line.

Response: If preventing osteoporosis is your goal, why don’t we force everyone to drink a gallon of milk every day?

Bryan: I didn’t say it was my goal, I said dairy products taste good (which by itself is a good reason to consume them, in my opinion) and the calcium is a useful side-benefit. Besides, making dairy products available isn’t the same as forcing people to consume them.

Response: I don’t understand. If preventing osteoporosis is at all relevant to your support of the consumption of dairy products, why you don’t support mandatory gallon-a-day programs.

Bryan: You’re misreading my point, and since your agenda is to ban dairy products, I should point out that if nobody consumes them, the incidence of osteoporosis will increase, among other negative effects. Those who advocate banning dairy products should take this into account.

Response: So which is it? Irrelevant? Irresponsible? Your logic makes no sense.

Bryan: ??

370

Just a thought, but I wonder who would look at a petri-dish and say about the just dividing cells: Oh what a cute little baby?

Monavis

371

No, but a few weeks later, people have ultrasounds done and show the pictures to their friends & family, and say “here’s a picture of the baby.” It happens all the time, and it happens easily by the middle of the first trimester.

372

Too true. I’ve done this myself, hell, I published the scans on the 'net. That was, what, week 10?

373

Whether they’re cute or not is irrelevant. I happen to think that human beings are worth protecting, even when nobody thinks they’re cute.

374

I worked with a woman who passed photos of her dead fetus around the office. I believe he was a 5 month gestation. Sad, but off-putting nonetheless.

375

That’s probably about right. I had early ones done, since I had an early miscarriage the time before. Week 6, I think. Could see the heart beating on the monitor, too.

376

But not every pro-choice person is pro-baby killing. Some don’t beleive that it’s a baby until it’s born. Some believe it becomes a baby at a particular point in the pregnancy and are against abortions after that point. Some believe it’s a baby all the way through, and see the killing of the baby as a necessary evil to prevent women from being forced to give birth. None of those could be described as “pro-baby killing”.

If you called me pro-abortion, we’d get in a big argument about semantics, what constitutes a baby, whether accepting something something is the same as being pro-something, etc. If you called me pro-choice, nobody could argue with that. Likewise, if you call someone who is against abortion rights pro-life, then you get into the distractions about defining life and what life deserves to be preserved. Call them anti-abortion and you lump them together with people who are against abortion but see it as a necessary evil. Anti-choice is clearly the most conclusive and accurate descriptive term for this position.

377

“inclusive”, not “conclusive”. Sorry, brain fart.

378

Given that fewer than 10% of Americans believe that abortion should be allowed at any time of the pregnancy for any reason, that makes 90% of all Americans “anti-choice.”

So much for propaganda terms.

379

No one asked me, but I think that the truly accurate description of the respective positions would be “pro (or “anti”) abortion availability”. Not just “pro-abortion”, because that implies that you’re rah rah for abortions in and of themselves, and that’s probably only true of the most lunatic fringers.

Everything else is just spin.

380

But what type of access to abortions makes you “pro-abortion availability”? Just how “available”? No restrictions? Which restrcitions?