U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-26-2009, 11:26 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
3,057 posts, read 5,235,803 times
Reputation: 4207

Advertisements

I'm looking for a rational explanation of the Pro-Choice stance from anyone who is willing to give me one.

For those who believe that life begins at birth - you're on pretty solid ground, as far as justification goes. A mother's rights obviously take precedent over those of a non-living mass.

I want to hear from those that believe that life begins at some point BEFORE it is legal to have an abortion. If all living things are equal, you are, at that point, giving one person's rights precedence over another person's rights. This honestly seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

I need someone out there to point out the flaw in my argument, because there's gotta be one. Seems too simple.

 
Old 01-26-2009, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Montrose, CA
3,031 posts, read 7,863,957 times
Reputation: 1925
There are ever so many threads on this already, do we need to beat this woefully dead beast again?
 
Old 01-26-2009, 12:03 PM
 
878 posts, read 1,846,070 times
Reputation: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by michigan83 View Post
I want to hear from those that believe that life begins at some point BEFORE it is legal to have an abortion. If all living things are equal, you are, at that point, giving one person's rights precedence over another person's rights. This honestly seems pretty unconstitutional to me.
Read the decision in Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court does not address the issue of when life begins, yet develops a rationale (based on trimester) for the Constitutional right of abortion.

This is one of the most interesting cases in American jurisprudence, and far too few people have read the decision.
 
Old 01-26-2009, 12:35 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,938,535 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by michigan83 View Post
I want to hear from those that believe that life begins at some point BEFORE it is legal to have an abortion. If all living things are equal, you are, at that point, giving one person's rights precedence over another person's rights. This honestly seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

I need someone out there to point out the flaw in my argument, because there's gotta be one. Seems too simple.
Preliminarily, Michigan, no -- all living things are not equal. Next, below is a slightly edited post I once wrote in response to a similar question:

"The characterization of "life" within the context of a debate on abortion is a red herring. Whether a fetus, an embryo or a zygote is a potential life, an absolute life, or no life at all -- whatever the case may be -- it is parasitizing the mother's body and cannot survive without doing so until quite late in the pregnancy. When I describe it as a "parasite", I am not using the word rhetorically, and I am not trying to disparage the fetus/embryo/zygote; rather, I am using the word in its literal sense -- a parasite is an entity that cannot survive except by sapping the host's bodily fluids and nutrients, and utilizing the host's organs. So the question in any debate on abortion should be -- even if the entity is a living human organism, should the coercive power of the State be employed to force the host to donate her body of its benefit?

Before you rush with the answer, consider the following: if a child desperately needs a kidney transplant, there is no legal way to force his father to donate one of his kidneys. If the father refuses to do so voluntarily, we may deem him immoral, heartless, etc. -- but he will not go to jail, and he is in no danger of being dragged to the operating room against his will. A blood donation is a quick, simple, and mostly painless procedure, and yet, we don't force people to submit to it even when blood banks experience acute shortages. In fact, we don't force people to donate blood even in times of war or disaster. Society may moralize, but it will rather let an ill person die than force another to donate even one drop of his blood against his will. Organs and bone marrow are harvested on a strictly voluntary basis, even though people who need them die by the thousands waiting for a donor. And these are not fetuses, embryos or zygotes, but full-term human beings with thoughts, feelings, families, and usually, an acute understanding of the fact that they are dying.

Laws that criminalize abortion are an exception to the general principle that one person may not be forced to make his body available for the benefit of another -- even if the consequences to the donor are minimal, and the one who needs the donor's body is on the brink of death. In fact, even post-mortem organ harvesting is strictly voluntary -- meaning that our culture holds bodily integrity and autonomy so sacrosanct, that even the interests of DEAD people in that regard are put ahead of the interests of someone else's "right to life". Except, of course, that many of the same people who would not harvest a dead person's heart to save another from dying still view a pregnant woman's body as merely a vessel, in which she can expect neither integrity nor autonomy.

Forget the fact that most of the "pro-life" movement is in favor of cavalier warfare and capital punishment. If these people are indeed "pro-life", why aren't they rushing to pass laws that would require people to donate their organs? If the interests of a "person" who needs the body of another to survive are truly absolute and trump everything else, then we should force everyone to donate blood every six weeks and harvest organs from dead people regardless of their or their families wishes. If the "pro-life" movement is to be consistent, it should advocate mandatory registration and donation of bone marrow and other tissues and organs -- except, of course, if that would kill the host (and maybe not even then).

Selfishness, convenience, etc. -- those are all irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of people who refuse to donate blood, bone marrow, tissues and organs do so out of selfishness and for the sake of convenience, and yet we let them. Hell, the idea of forcing biomedical donations is not even on the table -- except when it comes to pregnant women.

Now, isn't that interesting?
"

Zman0 will rush to point out that this is not the rationale the majority employed in Roe v. Wade, so yeah -- it's not. I do believe, however, that it is related to the majority's characterization of abortion as a medical decision and an issue of privacy between the woman and her doctor (for the most part). You should certainly read the decision, and you should also consider the larger implications that the Court had to take into account.
 
Old 01-26-2009, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
5,119 posts, read 12,716,950 times
Reputation: 7205
Pro-choice means just that--it DOES NOT mean "pro-abortion"! It's a choice and most folks make the one that's right for them.

If "abstinence only" wasn't the only thing being taught, and if the insurers would pay for birth control that fits a person's lifestyle, then this entire issue might be moot!

Millions of women unknowingly expel so-called "fetuses" everyday, by having miscarriages that they didn't even KNOW they were having, thinking they were having a period.

This entire issue is NOT a political one. It's a women's health issue and should be addressed by the woman and her doctor.
 
Old 01-26-2009, 06:37 PM
 
9,912 posts, read 12,183,162 times
Reputation: 7257
Redisca, thank you.

I realize that there will be people that pick holes in what you've said but I really think that is probably the single most perfect comment I have read in all the years and all the discussions I have had on this subject.

Really, THANK YOU!
 
Old 01-26-2009, 06:45 PM
 
604 posts, read 1,050,556 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by michigan83 View Post
I'm looking for a rational explanation of the Pro-Choice stance from anyone who is willing to give me one.

For those who believe that life begins at birth - you're on pretty solid ground, as far as justification goes. A mother's rights obviously take precedent over those of a non-living mass.

I want to hear from those that believe that life begins at some point BEFORE it is legal to have an abortion. If all living things are equal, you are, at that point, giving one person's rights precedence over another person's rights. This honestly seems pretty unconstitutional to me.

I need someone out there to point out the flaw in my argument, because there's gotta be one. Seems too simple.
Well one flaw is the premise of your argument. You want to hear from those who believe that "life begins at some point BEFORE it is legal to have an abortion". Well I don't know when that is....I don't know what you mean. I didn't realize there was a point in time during a pregnancy that is BEFORE abortion is legal. I think there's a point during a pregnancy that is AFTER a legal abortion. But when is it too early to have an abortion? When exactly is this point BEFORE an abortion can be performed legally. Cause I didn't know there was one. Ever heard of the morning after pill? That's pretty early.

 
Old 01-11-2011, 07:30 PM
 
12,422 posts, read 14,553,508 times
Reputation: 14112
Redisca, very interesting indeed....
 
Old 01-12-2011, 05:49 PM
 
4,925 posts, read 9,480,658 times
Reputation: 3243
Thread closed. Multiple existing threads on this topic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top