Basically, the message I get from pro-choice people is, we’re sanctioning abortions for people who have irresponsible, unprotected, pre-marital ***…and if anyone questions the ethics of this, we’ll just fall back on the **** and ****** arguement, even though we all know the majority of unwanted pregnancies happen as a result of the former methods.
Thank you all for your replies. My post may have had a sharp tone, but I am genuinely interested in the abortion debate, and I certainly don’t want to shut out any opinions.
The strongest arguement made so far was the guy who discussed reproductive rights…he makes a very good point about the government getting involved in this, on its own terms. I guess I view abortion as a social problem…it’s a serious problem that unprotected *** and unwanted pregnancies happen so often, and it sickens me that abortion is presented as a legitimate way to “check out” of such pregnancies especially when there are so many ambiguous moral and ethical issues surrounding an unborn fetus.
In the end, pro-life and pro-choice people approach the issue from vastly different positions and that’s why I don’t think it will ever be resolved. However, I do think we’re focused on the wrong end of the problem. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is something everyone should agree on.
10 responses so far ↓
1 don c // Jan 9, 2009 at 3:20 pm
YOU FORGOT
SOME PEOPLE ARE LOUSY PARENTS AND SHOULDN’T HAVE KIDS
2 coragryph // Jan 12, 2009 at 10:10 am
Those are the best examples — but not everyone in the pro-choice camp bases their argument on those examples.
My strongest argument as a pro-choice advocate is that — if govts are allowed to regulate reproductive choice, and if that choice is no longer a fundamental right — then the govt can mandate abortion just as easily as they can prohibit it.
China is able to mandate abortion, and sterilization, because reproductive choice is not a protected fundamental right. We should not sink to their standards.
But even if the issue is limited to whether people not subject to **** or ****** should be able to have abortions — for example, saying the anti-choice crowd grants those exceptions — the issue is still about personal automony.
Forcing a woman to carry a child — and give it nutrients out of her body — against her will is no different that forcing you to donate blood, or be a bone marrow donor, against your will. It’s still a violation of personal bodily integrity.
It still counts as **** if you say yes initially, and then change your mind later during the process — for the same reason, a woman should always (within reasonable limits) be allowed to change her mind later in the process about whether she wants to be part of the process or not.
And if pro-life advocates spent their efforts on developing medical technology that would allow the unborn to continue growing in an artificial incubator — then the entire pro-choice issue becomes moot, because the woman could still opt-out and the unborn would not have to die as a result.
Sadly, it seems people are far more concerned about forcing people to do things they don’t want to do and denying them their freedom — rather than actually finding a solution to the problem.
3 Heather // Jan 13, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I love your ideas on us crazy pro-choice folks. However, the same can be asked of pro-lifers. Why the same argument? It’s a circular question really.
4 Lisa M // Jan 14, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I always thought the argument we fall back on is that it is a personal choice, and the government should not make it for us.
5 vern7us // Jan 15, 2009 at 10:12 am
imagine what you would feel like if someone came up to you and said that since someone ***** a girl somewhere in africa that you were going to have your skull cut open and your brains ****** out for it. this is what all the aborted babies feel like. they are being murdered for what someone else did.
6 Westhill // Jan 17, 2009 at 5:32 pm
There are various arguments, but you are inflamed about this issue and haven’t listened. You seem to think the only thing that might justify an abortion is if the woman was not “at fault” as in the case of **** and ******. Here are two more. One is that an early fetus is not a human life yet, another is that when legal abortions are not allowed, thousands of women go the back alley route, and many die.
7 Go Blue // Jan 20, 2009 at 5:01 pm
It sickens me….
8 UriK // Jan 22, 2009 at 5:23 am
Are you saying that people are going to stop having unprotected *** when they aren’t prepared for children anytime soon? Pro-lifers live in a world of ideals in which all unprotected *** and pre-marital *** are preventable which is about as realitstic as flying by flapping your arms. People aren’t going to stop having abortions even if it becomes illegal women will go elsewhere or to back alley clinics. I’m not particularly fond of abortion myself, but it is better to have it legal rather than illegal.
9 Chris Cross Christ // Jan 24, 2009 at 6:40 pm
It’s a matter of personal responsibility.
People should not have abortions.
It is wrong.
But it should still be their choice to decide what they will do.
It is not the government’s place to dictate this morality.
If the government wants to get involved, perhaps they could instead educate people in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy instead of worrying about what people will do once it’s too late.
10 archkarat // Jan 24, 2009 at 7:45 pm
As a father I am against it. However in cases of rape,incest or medical emergency it should be an option. Though if it is just a recreational abortion then the woman should be sterilized.
You must log in to post a comment.