Question for pro-choicers

g r i n d said:
im not trolling, I am trying to get some understanding where the core of a pro-choicers belief stems from. Many people talk past each other on this issue because the argument is never framed correctly, people for example end up spending time talking about the viability of the fetus. but it ultimately comes down to the sovreignty of the woman's body vs. the individual rights of the child and which one ultimately wins out. It seems, even in this thread that for seemingly ardent pro-choicers, they believe there is a point at which the baby's life trumps the womans bodily autonomy. Which ironically is the same thing pro-lifers believe, they just have an earlier line drawn in the sand.
Click to expand...

This is the big deception.

"It's her body, her choice."

It is not her body. A fetus is an individual with its own blood type and DNA. Also, if the majority of women were not sluts, abortion wouldn't even be an issue.
 
g r i n d said:
I don't understand the rape argument. Would we abort a living 1 year old child that was the product of rape? People would say no, it's a kid and not its fault that one of its parents were raped. So why wouldn't that same logic apply to a 9 month old viable baby in the womb?
Click to expand...

Excellent question.
 
g r i n d said:
This is a hypothetical, obviously, because its not realistic.

Lets assume that upon conception, there is no developmental stage of the fetus. It's just "poof" and then there is a fully formed baby in the womb right off the bat. However, the baby would still need to be in the womb for 9 months before birth.

Should abortion still be allowed in these cases? :thinking:

If so, why. If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Nearly all states including liberal ones ban third trimester abortion. This is because the fetus can be successfully recovered alive. So in your hypothetical since this fetus is fully developed and can be successfully recovered, simply recovering the fetus is vastly preferable to aborting it.
 
Flash said:
Why would she be forced to? Abortion is legal.
Click to expand...

For now. And before 1972, it was illegal. Many girls/women were forced to be parents before they were ready.... and so were their male partners. There are plenty who would take us back to those bad old days.
 
Gonzomin said:
Nobody is in love with abortion. That is stupid. If the left wins, they will not make abortion mandatory. It will be us to the individual woman and her family. We do not want the state and government power to be absolute like the right does. You seek more government police power and more power over people's lives. You want more bureaucracies to examine and police women. More penalties and more pain for women in desperate circumstances.
Click to expand...

I wonder how our forced-birther male friends would feel if we set up a govt. bureaucracy to oversee vasectomies? After all, isn't a sperm just a pre-baby? A male wishing to be rendered infertile would have to go through a battery of tests and questions, including an ultrasound wand in his rectum to check his prostate health. Then a panel would decide on whether or not to grant him the procedure. The panels would be made up, of course, by angry old women who want grandchildren. lol
 
Flash said:
Isn't taking care of Paula one of the purposes of those welfare benefits made available by both parties?
Click to expand...

Yes, but welfare doesn't go nearly far enough. Right now welfare does the bare minimum, it keeps people alive and poor. It doesn't give them the same opportunities as the rich.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
For now. And before 1972, it was illegal. Many girls/women were forced to be parents before they were ready.... and so were their male partners. There are plenty who would take us back to those bad old days.
Click to expand...

It was not illegal before 1972 but a matter for each state. In some it was illegal, in some it was technically illegal but the "health of the mother" exception was very liberally interpreted, and in others it was legal. I seem to remember reading that abortion was legal for a majority of the population.

For now is all that matters. Most of those states restricting it will have those laws struck down.
 
Flash said:
It was not illegal before 1972 but a matter for each state. In some it was illegal, in some it was technically illegal but the "health of the mother" exception was very liberally interpreted, and in others it was legal. I seem to remember reading that abortion was legal for a majority of the population.

For now is all that matters. Most of those states restricting it will have those laws struck down.
Click to expand...

it is very hard to justify not letting each state decide. It would go along way towards easing the bitter divide in this country. the truth is some politicians prefer to keep the bitter divide.
 
zymurgy said:
it is very hard to justify not letting each state decide. It would go along way towards easing the bitter divide in this country. the truth is some politicians prefer to keep the bitter divide.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Although I favor keeping abortion legal I do not think Roe was a good decision. It was really a stretch; especially to claim the Constitution creates different law for three different trimesters--certainly that has no constitutional basis.

We don't have to like a court decision just because we like the results.
 
Grugore said:
This is the big deception.

"It's her body, her choice."

It is not her body. A fetus is an individual with its own blood type and DNA. Also, if the majority of women were not sluts, abortion wouldn't even be an issue.
Click to expand...

let me ask you this hypothetical

lets say you are in the hospital for some routine thing. All of a sudden someone comes in for an emergency and they need a blood transfusion or they die. It turns out you are the only person in the entire hospital that has the matching bloodtype. By doing the transfusion, you save a life, if not, they die.

Should you be legally obligated to give blood in this scenario?
 
distraff said:
Nearly all states including liberal ones ban third trimester abortion. This is because the fetus can be successfully recovered alive. So in your hypothetical since this fetus is fully developed and can be successfully recovered, simply recovering the fetus is vastly preferable to aborting it.
Click to expand...

true, but my non realistic hypothetical also specified it would still have to be in the womb for 9 months. So the real question is, should a woman be forced to go through with a pregnancy if the baby is viable, and what is more important, bodily autonomy or the life of the child once it reaches a certain point.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
For now. And before 1972, it was illegal. Many girls/women were forced to be parents before they were ready.... and so were their male partners. There are plenty who would take us back to those bad old days.
Click to expand...

i became pro choice mostly out of self interest, because I was absolutely terrified about being in a situation where a girl got pregnant and me getting completely fucked over for the rest of my life lol. I do not want kids, at least right now.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I wonder how our forced-birther male friends would feel if we set up a govt. bureaucracy to oversee vasectomies? After all, isn't a sperm just a pre-baby? A male wishing to be rendered infertile would have to go through a battery of tests and questions, including an ultrasound wand in his rectum to check his prostate health. Then a panel would decide on whether or not to grant him the procedure. The panels would be made up, of course, by angry old women who want grandchildren. lol
Click to expand...

aren't you a "forced birther" when the baby becomes viable?

you hold the same logic, do you not? you just draw a later line than gonzo
 
g r i n d said:
true, but my non realistic hypothetical also specified it would still have to be in the womb for 9 months. So the real question is, should a woman be forced to go through with a pregnancy if the baby is viable, and what is more important, bodily autonomy or the life of the child once it reaches a certain point.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets say that recovery of the fetus was impossible. Then a woman should be allowed the right to not use and harm her body for that fetus, just like I shouldn't be forced to donate a kidney to you if you need one for survival.
 
distraff said:
Ok, lets say that recovery of the fetus was impossible. Then a woman should be allowed the right to not use and harm her body for that fetus, just like I shouldn't be forced to donate a kidney to you if you need one for survival.
Click to expand...

could you rephrase your comment? your wording was confusing.
 
g r i n d said:
I don't understand the rape argument. Would we abort a living 1 year old child that was the product of rape? People would say no, it's a kid and not its fault that one of its parents were raped. So why wouldn't that same logic apply to a 9 month old viable baby in the womb?
Click to expand...

With you pro birthers, sex is a contract? Do dogs have contracts when they hook up? We are animals procreating and having sex. These nuances are your creations. However, a rapist is ignoring the niceties that your imagination conjured. It is not over at birth for a woman who had no choice in the deal. You are making a decision that will impact her entire life for her and not permitting her to have anything to say. You think that is right?
Perhaps men should have vasectomies at birth and have then changed when they have a woman's permission. Then they are deciding for themselves about their bodies. Men should have no input.
 
g r i n d said:
could you rephrase your comment? your wording was confusing.
Click to expand...

My answer is she should be allowed to abort the fetus if it can't be safety recovered. This is because she shouldn't be forced to use her body against her will for the life of another. In the same way, I shouldn't be forced to donate my kidney to you even to save your life.

So here is my tricky question for you. Lets say that sometimes pregnancies happened randomly without any sex and produced a fully formed 9 month fetus immediately. These fetuses prevented the woman from ever walking, having sex, or independently urinating again. Surgically removing this fetus would fix all these problems but would kill the fetus. However, the fetus will never be born and will exist in her belly for the rest of her life. Should she be allowed to abort it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top