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

[DianaG]

@A Monkey With a Gun

It’s the all too common fault shown here:

The all too common fault with your argument is that it comes from a place of thinking that you should get to decide for anyone who isn’t you. You don’t. THAT is what choice means.

[begbert2]

@Chronos

If you didn’t want to be pregnant, then you shouldn’t have gotten pregnant.

And if you go walking in New York, you deserve to be mugged, robbed, and killed. Therefore attempting to escape from a mugger should be illegal.

I’m afraid that I’m not impressed by this sort of holier-than-thou-you-deserve-what-you-get sort of argument.

[DianaG]

For that matter, when you got into that car, you ***knew ***an accident was a possibility. Why should anyone trouble themselves to keep you from bleeding to death?

[chorpler]

@Heart_of_Dorkness

And FWIW, I’m seven months pregnant.

Wait, WHAT?!

Oh, wait, Heart of Dorkness. I get you and Left Hand of Dorkness confused sometimes, and this one was a doozy.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@A Monkey With a Gun

@Whack-a-Mole

Again I ask…

Please provide a cite to a mainstream organization that actively advocates on the pro-choice side and put on display this lazy logic you speak of.

I wasn’t trying to address a mainstream organization. It’s the all too common fault shown here:

@DianaG

The fetus’s body is its own, and it’s welcome to take itself elsewhere.

You’re the one ranting about the wrongness of the argument of those on the “pro-choice” side and why “choice” is an awful stance to take on the issue.

You have been shown why it absolutely is about “choice” at the root of it. If you outlaw abortions you will force any woman who becomes pregnant to carry the baby to term (and a whole raft of scary issues arise if we go down that road).

In short, you have denied her of any choice in the matter.

You have yet to spell out where these idiots are misusing choice as the argument since that really what it is. DianaG has been expressing that.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@begbert2

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

The difference (well, one difference) between the two cases is that in the latter one, nobody demands a catch-all demarcation line; the justifiability of ending life in one of its manifestations is highly dependent on context, and most people don’t seem to see anything wrong with that. The question then is: should this be different when all the life involved is human? Is it reasonable to ask for a clearly delineated border between protection-worthy and protection-unworthy life?

This is not a difference - there are cases where killing full-fledged, fully-developed, sentient and preumably intelligent human is a-okay. For example, in states with castle doctorine a man has a right to kill people for the crime of being on their property. I gather that this sort of law finds itself popular among the same sort of people who oppose elective abortion, ironically enough.

I get that, but states without the castle doctrine don’t consider states that have it immoral to the degree that pro-lifers consider pro-choicers immoral, or at least that’s my impression. There’s the difference: the tendency seems to be that you can arrive at the castle doctrine rationally, yet also oppose it rationally; that’s not generally acknowledged with pro-life vs. pro-choice.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@A Monkey With a Gun

Outside / inside, whatever.

I was going to weigh in until I saw this and realized it would be even more pointless than usual.

[Der_Trihs]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

There’s the difference: the tendency seems to be that you can arrive at the castle doctrine rationally, yet also oppose it rationally; that’s not generally acknowledged with pro-life vs. pro-choice.

Because there is no rational value to the anti-abortion side; a fetus is not a person, and trying to treat it as one goes against the rest of our system of law.

[Polerius]

@DianaG

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

That is not always the case. In some situations, the government can decide to take away your choice of what to do with your body, “for the greater good”. One such example is when men are drafted for war. Even though it doesn’t happen today in the US, men still have to register for a possible future day when a draft may be necessary.

If you think the government NEVER has the right to tell you what to do with your body, then you must also think that the government NEVER has the right to draft anyone for war.

One might say, “but during war, our whole society is at risk, whereas during my pregnancy not that much is at risk, so it’s OK to have the draft but not OK to tell women what to do when they are pregnant”. In that case, though, you are entering a conditional, something that makes the ’ “Who, exactly does my body belong to?” And the answer is “Me.” ’ argument not universally true.

[begbert2]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

I get that, but states without the castle doctrine don’t consider states that have it immoral to the degree that pro-lifers consider pro-choicers immoral, or at least that’s my impression. There’s the difference: the tendency seems to be that you can arrive at the castle doctrine rationally, yet also oppose it rationally; that’s not generally acknowledged with pro-life vs. pro-choice.

This is mostly because you cannot arrive at the pro-life position rationally - or at least, not without being mired up to your eyeballs in ignorance or (irrational) religion first. Simply put, babies don’t pop into existince at the moment of conception. Fetuses are life, but there is no rational argument that supports making a one-day-old fetus legally equivalent to that one-day-from-birth baby A Monkey With A Gun keeps going on about, much less a post-birth child.

[Der_Trihs]

@Polerius

If you think the government NEVER has the right to tell you what to do with your body, then you must also think that the government NEVER has the right to draft anyone for war.

I expect that quite a few people, including me, are quite happy to take that position.

[AClockworkMelon]

@Der_Trihs

@Polerius

If you think the government NEVER has the right to tell you what to do with your body, then you must also think that the government NEVER has the right to draft anyone for war.

I expect that quite a few people, including me, are quite happy to take that position.

I’m down.

Edit: And by that I mean I agree with Der.

[Polerius]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Third trimester abortions are a minute fraction (less than a tenth of 1%) of all abortions anyway, and the ones that are performed are not elective, but performed for medically necessary reasons (usually after the fetus is already dead or dying).

The “one day before birth” scenario is a red herring in the abortion debate, since elective abortions of healthy, full term fetuses never happen in actuality. 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester.

I agree that discussion of the “one day before birth” scenario has no practical implications, but I think it is useful as a means to show the philosophical underpinnings behind some people’s pro-choice stance.

That is, even though for many people in the general population there does seem to be a central issue of when the fetus becomes a person, many people (e.g. here on the SDMB) think that when the fetus becomes a person is irrelevant and that a woman should be able to abort even one hour before birth, for any reason whatsoever. (I’m not sure if DianaG and the others in this thread hold this view, but as I recall from past threads Bryan Eckers does)

Even if this will never occur in real life, once you know that someone has this opinion, you know that it is useless having the “when does personhood begin” discussion with them, since that is irrelevant to them. If you are anti-abortion and want to discuss abortion with this person you need to take a different angle.

[Chronos]

@Whack-a-Mole

@Chronos

First of all, it’s clearly and absolutely not a parasite.

Seems to fit the definition of a parasite:

(n) parasite (an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host)

If you’re pregnant, it’s a result of your own actions. If you didn’t want to be pregnant, then you shouldn’t have gotten pregnant.

• Accidents happen (condoms break, the pill is not 100% effective, etc.).

• Women get raped and become pregnant.

First of all, it’s not a parasite because a parasite provides no benefit to the host, and a fetus provides tremendous benefit to the host, in biological terms. If a species would go extinct without a “parasite”, then it’s not a parasite.

Second, the fact that condoms and other birth control methods sometimes fail means that you should be more selective about having sex to begin with.

Third, while rape does occur, and we obviously need to do whatever we can to prevent it, that’s not really what this debate is about. When someone says “women have (or should have) the right to have an abortion”, they don’t mean just rape victims. Most pregnancies do not result from rape.

For the record, incidentally, I do not hold that personhood begins at conception, and I see no moral objection to abortion before the time when personhood begins. If a woman who had been raped asked for my advice on the matter, I would recommend that she take Plan B or a similar treatment. But I would advise her to act quickly, because if she waits too long before taking action, the consequences become more severe.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Polerius

That is, even though for many people in the general population there does seem to be a central issue of when the fetus becomes a person, many people (e.g. here on the SDMB) think that when the fetus becomes a person is irrelevant and that a woman should be able to abort even one hour before birth, for any reason whatsoever. (I’m not sure if DianaG and the others in this thread hold this view, but as I recall from past threads Bryan Eckers does)

“Many” people here hold that view? I recall one (forget who it was).

Those who are pro-choice here seem to support viability as a good demarcation between when it is ok or not ok to have an abortion. Personally I am fine with it up to 14 weeks then get less so after that.

Granted that is still a bit arbitrary but, in theory, if the woman wants to be rid of the baby it can still be delivered and then put up for adoption or something once viability has been achieved.

In my view the woman has her choice in the first trimester (barring some few women who seem to be clueless but the majority of women realize they are pregnant in that time). Once she makes her choice she needs to live with it. We make choices all the time and once made you are beholden to that choice which is fine and appropriate.

In short, she gets a choice but she needs to make a choice in a reasonable time frame and then live with the consequences of her choice.

[Polerius]

@Heart_of_Dorkness

I had a philosophy professor once who put it this way: Imagine you wake up one day and find that doctors have attached a 60-year old man to your body. His kidneys aren’t functioning, you see, and so yours are being used to filter his blood along with your own. They had to do this because you are the only person in the world who matches his very rare genetic whatever, so otherwise, he’ll die. Do you have the right to say, “I don’t want my body used to support this guy’s life anymore?” That’s the choice.

There are several problems with this analogy

1. To be analogous to pregnancy, you take a 60-year old man and attach him to your body, and make him dependent on you to survive. Neither the 60-year old man nor the fetus who has reached personhood* asked to be connected to you.

2. Also, to be analogous to pregnancy post-viability**, you take a 60-year old man and attach him to your body, and make him dependent on you to survive, and then after a few months, when his body is able to survive on its own, you have the legal option to surgically cut ties in a way that will kill him instead of going through an induced separation that will enable him to live.

• For this post I assume that the fetus has reached personhood, since for people like Heart of Dorkness it doesn’t really impact their pro-choice stance.

** I also assume that people like Heart of Dorkness don’t really care if the fetus is viable outside the womb. The woman should still have the choice to have an abortion instead of inducing labor.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Chronos

First of all, it’s not a parasite because a parasite provides no benefit to the host, and a fetus provides tremendous benefit to the host, in biological terms. If a species would go extinct without a “parasite”, then it’s not a parasite.

We may see that as desirable (continuation of the species) it is not a benefit to the host. At least I am hard pressed to see how my existence today benefited Julius Caesar.

Second, the fact that condoms and other birth control methods sometimes fail means that you should be more selective about having sex to begin with.

As noted earlier car accidents happen. Maybe if you were more selective about when to drive you’d be safer but still…accidents happen. Since you chose to drive if an accident happens we should consider you SOL?

Third, while rape does occur, and we obviously need to do whatever we can to prevent it, that’s not really what this debate is about. When someone says “women have (or should have) the right to have an abortion”, they don’t mean just rape victims. Most pregnancies do not result from rape.

The rape angle is important in this debate. If someone really truly believes there is a human life at stake from the moment of conception then does how that conception occurred really matter? I know some anti-abortion people hold this view and to me it is the only consistent view you can hold if you believe in full-blown human life as worthy of protection as you or me occurs at the moment of conception.

[Polerius]

@Whack-a-Mole

@Polerius

That is, even though for many people in the general population there does seem to be a central issue of when the fetus becomes a person, many people (e.g. here on the SDMB) think that when the fetus becomes a person is irrelevant and that a woman should be able to abort even one hour before birth, for any reason whatsoever. (I’m not sure if DianaG and the others in this thread hold this view, but as I recall from past threads Bryan Eckers does)

“Many” people here hold that view? I recall one (forget who it was).

Well, there’s also Heart of Dorkness in this thread:

@Heart_of_Dorkness

When life/personhood begins is frankly irrelevant. If I don’t want my body to be used as a support system, then I have the right to make that choice.

@Whack-a-Mole

Those who are pro-choice here seem to support viability as a good demarcation between when it is ok or not ok to have an abortion.

I don’t think the more vocal pro-choice people chiming in to this thread hold this view (i.e. they don’t want to impose any limit or threshold on when a woman can choose to abort), but I could be wrong. They should correct me if I’m wrong.

[Polerius]

@AClockworkMelon

@Der_Trihs

I expect that quite a few people, including me, are quite happy to take that position.

I’m down.

Edit: And by that I mean I agree with Der.

So, the Russians are invading, and the future existence of the USA is in doubt, and you still would not support the draft, even if that would help defeat the invaders?

[AClockworkMelon]

@Polerius

@AClockworkMelon

I’m down.

Edit: And by that I mean I agree with Der.

So, the Russians are invading, and the future existence of the USA is in doubt, and you still would not support the draft, even if that would help defeat the invaders?

Oh, well if it’s the Russians…