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

Great Debates
421

Pardon me for going out on a limb, but your response here doesn’t exactly give me material for an in-depth analysis.

The limb I’m going on is that the only - only problem you had with the persuasive power of my reply is that I failed to sympathize properly with the “babies”. That is, I failed to scream “OH MY GOD THERE ARE BABIES BEING MURDERED BY EVIL DOCTORS AT THE BEHEST OF EVIL WOMEN!!!1!”

If I am incorrect in my assumption here, let me know.

I do concede that I have a personal failure of empathy for beings that don’t exist. Hypothetical, remember? Yes, I know that the pro-life side is entirely based on empathy with things that don’t exist (starting with God and expanding from there), and that a failure on my part to agree with them utterly on everything means that I will be unable to convince them of anything. But honestly, what do you expect me to do?

422

Distaste for you? Get over yourself, I don’t even know you. Distaste for your arguments, yes probably so.

423

a) you’re right the woman does weigh her options before she decides, however unless she has an m.d. attached to her name, I think she would need a little help in assessing the amount of trauma involved.

b) by dismissing the hypothetical fetus, you are dismissing the religious rights arguments as a whole. not too many people like their beliefs dismissed. look a 30+ week voluntary abortion is rare to non-existent, and you yourself said you would probably be against it. why not just state this?

c) not all guys of women that have abortions are deadbeats, some are responsible. why dismiss all of them, because they aren’t the ones that are actually carrying the baby?

d) well unless a women has a button that says “abort fetus” on her belly, a doctors opinion is going to matter, as well as the health facility opinion, possibly the insurance coverage opinion. I don’t really know the numbers of doctors that perform abortions, but I seem to remember an article about how difficult it is to get an abortion in Oklahoma.

424

Sorry, don’t want to derail. But you actually think that if the civil rights movement hadn’t gained popularity that things would have changed for blacks in America? Interesting.

425

Bingo. You see, some people don’t dismiss the actual carrying of the baby as inconsequential.

426

Then you’re not really pro-choice in the sense that DianaG and Bryan Ekers are, that is, valuing a woman’s choice to do what she wants with her body above any other right another person may have.

427

Do you think that the civil rights movement was “popular” before it started forcing change? Or, for that matter, after? May I point you to some newsreels?

428

Actually, I don’t see many people doing that, even those on the hard right.

429

She’s also going to need to get a little help in getting the actual abortion itself performed. I think that the chance of her getting a doctor to perform it without discussing the medical options and medical outcomes with her is zero, even without any laws in place.

Though you do have a point that women who opt not to abort might come to this decision without accessing a proper medical professional. Perhaps we should legally obligate all women to consult with a doctor about the possibility of getting an abortion, even if they don’t intend to go through with it?

State what? That in an imaginary universe where people kept alligators as housepets, there should be a leash law requiring you not to let your alligators run loose in childrens’ playgrounds?

The reason I don’t state this is because the imaginary hypothetical is being used as a counter to real human rights in real situations. Think about that for a moment - it’s like if I argued “But if we don’t outlaw free speech, people will summon Beetlejuice!”, and then refused to accept that the fictionality of Beetlejuice counted as an argument against my position.

Suffice to say, this is crap argument of the highest order. If the pro-life position wishes to argue that zygotes have souls that’s fine - they should make that argument and accept the fallout. But then they’d lose and zygotes would die, so instead they bait-and-switch their real argument with one that is fictional but more compelling, hypothetically speaking. And then are surprised when we don’t dismiss real-world arguments as a result.

Because the responsible ones will have made sure that the woman actually wants to bear the child first.

You remember those old-fashioned ideas of courting the woman, feeling her out, getting married, building a home, and willingly and as a couple populating it with children, right? They can still work. A responsible man doesn’t have to knock a girl up and then demand that she keep the kid against her wishes, just because he was too ‘responsible’ to suss out her wishes in advance.

Right. However, the question of whether we can find a doctor to do it is sort of a different question from whether the woman has a right to ask. There are debates to be had about how far we should go to ensure that there are sufficient doctors to perform all the desired abortions, but I don’t think they really belong in this thread.

430

[quote=“DianaG, post:427, topic:549037”]

Well, this probably should go into another thread. Of course little changes occurred when people stood for and fought for their rights. But as a whole, if the arguments hadn’t persuaded the masses things wouldn’t have changed much.

431

Yep - I argue for the exact same result as them but from different ideological grounds and different priorities. Is that a problem?

432

a) I thought we were talking about trauma?

b) Like I said, I didn’t think you were interested in changing any pro-lifer opinion.

c) I thought one of the arguments is that accidents happen to responsible people. or I guess I could just say a responsible woman wouldn’t get knocked up.

d) you’re probably right

433

Excuse me if I am repeating something already said. I can’t read the entire thread at the moment.

The term “pro-choice”, imo AS a “pro-choice” individual, refers to a political, philisophical position in which the individual(s), not the government, retains the ultimate right to control their own fertility/reproduction.

It does not mean “pro-abortion”. It does not, actually, indicate a damn thing about someone’s view of abortion, when life or personhood begins or particular variations such as when, if ever, they consider it “too late” to abort.

It is very simply the position that laws should not be passed restricting or prohibiting the right of individual women (and MEN, ftm…human reproduction is not just a “womens’ issue”… in many couples, the decision to terminate an unplanned pregnancy or not is a joint affair) and/or their medical providers to make their own decisions.

Someone can be “pro-life” and ALSO “pro-choice”. I’ve known several who are. They personally oppose abortion on religious or moral/ethical grounds and even do their best to convince others to do the same. But they are equally opposed to using government/force to impose their views on others.

On the other hand, a more accurate description of the so-called “pro-life” movement would be “anti-choice”, since their goal is to eliminate the right of the individual to choose and place the matter in the hands of government by passing laws.

They believe deeply, usually based on their personal religious convictions, that abortion is “murder” and so they seek to ban the practice.

At root, abortion IS a religious/spiritual issue. Some religions/spiritual outlooks believe that human life begins at conception and that any embryo or fetus which is terminated “goes to heaven”. Some believe human life (or “ensoulment”) does not occur until about the time of “quickening” (around 4 mths or when the woman can feel the fetus moving). Jewish tradition holds that the rights and life of the woman take precendence over a fetus. Those who believe in reincarnation typically see abortion very differently from those who do not. And of course, some don’t accept that there is a soul to be concerned with at all or any moral issue surrounding the termination of a pregnancy.

To pass laws restricting abortion based on one religious interpretation and tradition violate the fundamental religious protections enshrined in our founding documents.

Just my 2 cents.

434

Just one note: We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Just because a majority of the population may hold a particular view and even vote to make laws based on that view in no way makes those laws constitutional or even “right”.

Why we have courts who test laws and cases against the constitution/bill of rights and are empowered to strike down those which don’t pass muster.

There are any number of unconstitutional, unjust laws and practices which once had the support of a majority but were ruled unlawful. Mob rule is not how our sytem works, fortunately.

435

I was. Perhaps you could explain what you think the term means, and what you think is included under it.

I’m interested in changing the opinions of rational, sane pro-lifers. You know, the ones who prefer that the arguments they make and believe in to be sound, rather than bait-and-switches based on absurd fantasy worlds. I do concede that the vast majority of pro-lifers might be irrational and insane, but for the sake of humanity as a whole I pretend otherwise, and try to point out where their arguments go completely off the rails in the hopes that some of them will take note and attempt to make their thoughts sensible enough to withstand casual scrutiny.

You could, but you’re missing the point. Abortions are indeed what happens when things don’t go according to plan, or perhaps according to plan-if-there-had-been-a-plan. This can happen to responsible people, as in cases of triple-contraceptive failure or whatever - but in such cases I would expect such people to discuss things rationally. As in, I would expect them to be able to work together to come to a plan of action, and convince one another out of court to an agreement.

So. The only case where the man’s legal rights matter are when the pair are so much in disagreement that they have to take it to court - and where the man wants to use the woman as a brood mare against her will. Um, no. Sorry bud - if you cared that much about your potential progeny, you should have found a woman you could get along with for more than an evening. Because we’re not going to allow you to force a woman to be pregnant for you against her will.

Anyway, back to the woman’s responsibility. As noted, the abortion debate is a discussion where plans have failed - and you could argue that if it ever happens at all, ever, that both parties were insufficiently responsible. (Such an argument would elicit a certain amount of outraged protest, but you could make it.) From this perspective, abortion, like most medical services, is explicity an operation to mitigate the effect of irresponsibility. This is not a reason to ban it - any more than we should ban the setting of broken legs.

You’ll note that this is not a double standard - the woman isn’t allowed to make anyone be pregnant against their will either. The fact that this particular lack of double standard always favors the woman is just a function of biology.

436

I think we’re mostly on the same page, but I live in Houston, Texas… most of the people I work with and live with are religious and pro-life.

Anyway,
a) I thought we were talking about the pain physical and emotional of having an abortion. Maybe, we’re on the same page on this one.

b) I believe public opinion is a bell curve, too hard an argument from one extreme or the other and you will push the bell the opposite direction. No cites, just my opinion.

c) ok. gotcha. I wasn’t looking at it from just the legal perspective. Actually, plan B should be plan B - as in plan B pill. Which some pharmacists don’t want to stock due to religious beliefs. At any rate, you’re right rational adults will have rational discussions, and make rational decisions (most of the time).

437

Enough of a majority and constitutions will be amended.

438

I live in Idaho - not exactly a hotbed of liberal thought. However that doesn’t require me to like it when the people around me use obviously fallacious arguments. They should state their plain idealogically-based religious assertions, and leave it at that (and most around here do - it’s not like there’s anybody for them to argue against anyway).

And the pain physical and emotional of being pregnant, carrying the child to term, and labor. And being an unwed mother at the age of nineteen, if applicable to the situation.

There’s lot’s of pain to go around, really.

I’m not really all that worried about that. Especially since the other side is going to be pushing crazy hard no matter what I do.

Sure. Abortions should be plan C. (You would be hard pressed to find anyone who preferred allowing abortions but opposed plan B-type pills.)

439

I guess this is where we differ.

I can see their point of view, and understand that their pastors/leaders whip up the frenzy of partial birth abortions. So I’ll argue instead for when person hood begins, because honestly I don’t believe in aborting perfectly healthy 30+ week fetus’ by perfectly healthy women, which doesn’t really happen anyway, but provides me common ground.

You may not be worried, and perhaps roe v. wade is safe, that may not last forever. It may also be that abortions remain legal, but if access to abortions is limited, what good is that to a pregnant teen?

440

I see their point of view too, and they don’t give two cherub farts about viability. Personhood is souls is conception - or wherever else they think souls arrive. ('Round these parts, conception.) This is not a debatable point for them and any common ground is just the degree to which you’re conceding the point to them. It’s not a point they’re going to shift their own arguments toward.

Unless, of course, they’re not in it for the dogma alone. Such pro-lifers may exist, hypothetically speaking. In that case the first thing to do is disabuse them of their fallacious arguments, like the almighty hypothetical month-nine elective abortion, and after that we can discuss legal quibbles like whether it’s worth the effort to decide at what point women lose their rights.