The argument of "pro-choice" is bullsh*t.

It’s bullshit.

There is almost no physiological difference between a child one day before birth and one day after. To argue there is a difference is bullshit. To kill the child is infanticide.

However, human life doesn’t begin at conception, either. What pisses me off about “Pro Choice” is that the slogan is morally wrong. No one should have the right to kill a child because it is their “choice”. If a mother chooses to kill her three year old daughter she goes to jail. Everybody knows that.

The heart of the abortion debate is when life begins. The pro-life argument has at least standard moral logic. The logic being: “Life begins at conception and to kill the child would be immoral”. I disagree, but I can’t stand the pro-choice argument because it tries to imply women’s rights issues trump life or death.

The core reason of the abortion debate, and the ONLY thing that matters is when does human life begin? “Choice” shouldn’t even factor in to it.

Note: I support the right to abort (depending that the fetus hasn’t developed too far) it’s the argument that choice trumps life that has me annoyed.

I’ve never seen anyone state that there is. The difference is that the day before birth it’s inside a woman’s body (and as such under her jurisdiction) and the next day it’s not.

“Inside my body” vs. “outside my body” is a pretty bright line. To say otherwise is bullshit.

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP. However, the pro-life movement also begs the question a lot. Sometimes they do attempt to make actual arguments that life begins at conception (which I don’t agree with them on.) But many of them simply make the assumption that everyone agrees with them on when life begins and the real debate is whether or not killing babby is right.

But yes, the pro-choice movement does beg the question slightly more often.

Although Roe technically permits abortion at any stage and although the hardcore feminists resist any attempts to ban abortion even in the final trimester, I think you will find that most people who identify as pro-choice agree with you that after the fetus is a child, or “child-like,” they are squeamish about abortion and won’t fight too hard to have choice trump the life of that child. They (most of them) are implicitly only choice absolutists as to not-yet-child-stage fetuses (with the $64 question being when that line is drawn). For the not quite child stage, they don’t see it as taking “human life” so they are not (again, most of them) saying choice trumps what they concede to be human life. They are saying choice trumps when there isn’t (they view it) yet human life as such.

Not pro-choice here btw.

No, it’s when personhood begins. A fertilized egg (or, heck, even an unfertilized egg or a sperm cell) is unambiguously alive and unambiguously human, but then again, so is a cancerous tumor, and nobody argues that those have rights. Unfortunately, precisely what constitutes “personhood” is much harder to pin down.

When the child is inside its mother’s womb it is literally a parasite. I think that’s a pretty big physiological difference.

If it isn’t your body, then it isn’t your decision to make and you don’t have the right to prevent anyone from making the CHOICE to terminate their pregnancy, if that is what they choose to do.

Now THIS is bullshit.

The core question of the abortion debate is “Who, exactly does my body belong to?” And the answer is “Me.”

Suck it up.

Hey A Monkey With a Gun, you do realize that there are several different ways to be pro-choice, not all arguments for it pursue setting the mark at birth, right?

Outside / inside, whatever. It is not a bright line. If the child is developed enough you shouldn’t kill it.

It’s not an issue of “life”, but of “personhood”. Every cell in your body is alive.

For most of us, the “pro-choice” argument isn’t about whether an 8 month old fetus can be aborted, but about what point during pregnancy should the fetus be considered a person. And most of us think that’s somewhere before or around the time of viability outside the womb.

Keep in mind that something like 90% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester. That’s not a “baby”, even if it might superficially look like a tiny version of one.

Second trimester abortions are rare, and third trimester abortions are almost unheard of, except when the health of the mother is threatened.

Now, there are some rabid pro-choices who will not give an inch on any restrictions whatsoever. But that is not the majority view.

Nice expression of a choice as to when life begins. Monkey with a gun needs to be monkey with a clue.

Have you not participates in any of the dozens of abortion debates here on that very subject? This is nothing new. It is the core of the problem. And the SCOTUS has set different levels of justification needed depending on the trimester. Now, the whole “trimester” thing is a bit outdated, but it’s still a serviceable method and we will probably stop using that and focus more on viability/non-viability.

It would seem that under this philosophy the state should have even less power over a woman caring for her child AFTER she gives birth. After all, it is your body, right? Why should you (or your body) be forced to feed, clothe, and care for the child?

If the woman wants to smoke meth all day and neglect the child, who are you to tell this woman what to do with her body?

Of course I do. I personally support abortion rights. What I can’t stand is the idiocy. The very core of the debate is “where does life begin?” My problem is that that too many on my side won’t address that. “Choice” is a bad argument.

When does a fetus become a child? That should be the debate.

It’s a pretty bright line from the woman’s perspective, and you don’t get to dismiss her as unimportant to the situation.

Don’t be stupid, now, I’m about fresh out of patience with that argument.

We don’t get to tell her what to do with her body. We DO get to tell her what to do with her child, which is either take care of it or have it taken away from you.

I won’t call this a strawman but it’s pretty close.

I’ve never heard anyone argue that there is a significant physiological difference before between a newborn and a fetus the day before birth, or even a few days or weeks before birth. I’ve also never heard anyone argue that abortion should be allowed a day before birth [although I won’t be too surprised if someone takes that position in a subsequent post]. There is, of course, the significant fact that fetus is not existing on its own until it is born and that is significant, but it’s not much of a physiological difference, I guess, if the fetus is viable anyway. Nor have I ever heard of a woman requesting such an abortion or a doctor performing one. I can’t imagine a circumstance under which it would happen. Abortion is generally safer than birth but I can’t understand how there would be any difference at that late stage.

Having said all that, I don’t think you’ve demonstrated why “my body, my choice” is bullshit. I agree with the posters who have said the critical issues here are rights, not personhood.

It’s really a simple matter of it being a choice up to a certain point when the state has some interest in regulating it. Clearly that point (for almost everyone) includes the day before birth. Then we work backwards until we get to the point where the state has no interest, and it’s fully the mother’s choice.

But if you want to argue that the “pro-choice” slogan is simplistic… well, which slogan isn’t?

You don’t need to climb on a pedestal either. If a man kicks a nine month pregnant woman in the stomach and kills the baby, is it just assault? Your bright line says it is, my grey line says it’s not.

The child is either a human being or it is not. Where do you draw the line?