Debate Forums
> Abortion Debate Forum
> Questioning My Pro-choice Beliefs (Page 1)
TOPICS
DOCTOR QUESTIONS
Q: Questioning My Pro-choice Beliefs
asked by:
Kypros
Experienced User
Pro-choicers argue that foetuses are not persons. OK, as a pro-choicer to all others of my ilk out there who can hopefully provide me some constructive arguments, I ask a) what exactly is a person then? As far as I have ever come across in life and in the dictionary, person and human are not discriminated between. Please show evidence that not all human being are persons; b) even if a foetus is not a person, how does this justify the intentional killing of an innocent human?
I guess the thought that, if foetuses deserve equal rights to born humans, a mass butchering and infanticide has been woefully and apathetically carried out for absolutely years, and considering that this may be true, I just got shocked.
Also, despite the fact that I admittedly disregarded it previously, pro-lifers argue fairly that born humans, by the same logic that foetuses can be aborted due to their parasitic nature, should not have any rights if they are being kept alive because of a life-support machine. As pro-choicers, could you please point out the dichotomy and why the latter is not justified?
Why does the foetus's undeniable parasitic status mean that it should be legally terminated? It is still human regardless.
If foetuses, admittedly humans by pro-choicers, can be aborted because they are the result of a rape, then why should born humans born of a rape have rights? Please don't answer "just because they are born". It's crucial to being a simple operation every woman should be permitted to choose or the violent, bloody, and murderous discrimination just for being unborn.
Please don't get me wrong. I have not turned pro-life. I am simultaneously of the belief that bigotry is close-mindedness and that I can remain very firm in my opinions, which I view as correct, whilst being open-minded to the idea that there may be something better that could change them. If I were to ever become a pro-lifer I wouldn't feel hypocritical in the slightest as only a bigot would say that one has to stick by the same views when faced with something more propitious. I just think that I have accepted certain integral pro-choice beliefs that were countering pro-life beliefs, when in fact there are still pro-life alternatives to attack those attacks (do you get that
I've never been good at explaining) 
I actively encourage all pro-choicers to explain and answer my questions.
Some of these I may have kept secret, some you may know of, but here is a list of...
COMMON PRO-CHOICE ARGUMENTS I DON'T SUPPORT
1. "Making abortion illegal is wrong because women are going to do it anyway, so it is better that they have the legal, safe, and healthy choice to do it"
OK, this is unadulterated rubbish. The exact same logic means that murder (I'm not saying this is what abortion is, just for the record) should be legalised because "killers are going to do it anyway and should have a healthy, safe, and legal right to do so in a building specialised for that". It's just doesn't stick.
2. "You cannot enforce your beliefs on anyone else's body but your own. Have your personal views but stay out of my vagina"
Firstly, as a libertarian, I believe that one has the freedom to do whatever one wants with one's body and property as long as one doesn't interfere with the freedom and rights of another person (which is why I currently support voluntary euthanasia, although I haven't studied it too in depth), but this notion cannot be applied to abortion, since foetuses scientifically are not the body of the woman. They occupy it parasitically, but they are not part of it. I currently remain pro-choice and equally of this view. Whether or not parasitic humans should be able to be aborted is another issue I have mentioned above, but they are not a part of the woman's body. In fact, that fact could even go against that libertarian thought, as women are attacking the right of someone/something else's body.
Secondly, if there is substantial evidence or reason to prove that foetuses are human beings frequently immorally and unjustifiably murdered, then I think the Law has every right to intervene, just as it has the right to stop you from killing any other human being. I am a libertarian and feel that the Government has no right to intervene in many things, but the nature of the discussion and the possibility that our country faces infanticide is a totally different issue.
3. "The foetus has no rights whatsoever - it is a parasitic entity occupying the body of a born, sentient woman who has rights. However, abortion is just wrong in x circumstance"
OK, if there is scientific and logical evidence to prove that the pro-choice view is of worth to be implemented as the Law, then the popular saying on #2 can be applied. Ostensibly, as pro-choicers, you believe that the pro-choice arguments should be legally binding. If this is the case, then it is utterly nonsensical to oppose abortion because of a "certain circumstance" or gestational period. If foetuses are rightless, then they categorically should be allowed to be aborted regardless
In such a case, the idea of "you cannot place your semi-pro-choice morals on my uterus" can be applied, thus suggesting that there is no LEGAL reason why abortion should be restricted to certain conditions. I am of the (rare) absolute approach to abortion - it doesn't matter how the foetus got there, whether it's disabled or healthy, how old it is - it either has legal rights to life or it doesn't! If not, there is no logic behind the opposition to a late-term abortion* and the support of a first trimester termination. Viability is so important to many people, but to me it's as significant as George Bush frying in a giant Iraqi-made human pisspot - I really don't care what the foetus COULD POSSIBLY do outside of the womb; the fact is that it IS STILL IN THE WOMB and therefore remains rightless and parasitic (for those skeptics, actually yes it is a parasite because if the mother stop eating it would die. Essentially, any foetus requires feeding to survive - it is a parasite).
*There was a documentary on here in England a few weeks back discussing abortion (pictures of terminated foetuses were shown for the first time on British TV. They were the "main ones you see on pro-life websites". I think you'll have a pretty good idea of which I mean). There is no consensus for when foetuses feel pain, however a few scientists said the 'movement' they make is supposedly just reflexes and the nerve or whatever it is (I was **** at science
and I'm knackered) in the brain only connects to the response of pain at birth. If the most common view is that foetuses are sentient at 20 weeks, then to be on the 'safe side' I feel that foetuses could be given numbing anaesthetic before the abortion.
Please pro-choicers, answer my dilemmas! The Pro-Life Alliance's documents on abortion and euthanasia are really getting me thinking and requiring just a refreshing thought - just why is pro-choice justified?. Hopefully, my question can be adequately answered and I can write a letter to tackle the Pro-Life Alliance and show just why choice is better
.
Thanks.
From a confused, tired, sleepy, rambling pro-choicer who needs re-assurance.
|
Replies(261)
Gu£st
Active User, very eHealthy
|
Jude-Love
Active User, very eHealthy
|
Rodge
Active User, very eHealthy
|
Kypros
Experienced User
| Gu£st wrote: |
| your possition on the nature of the unborn child (fetus) as being a parasite or of a parasitic nature is incorrect regarding dictionary deffinition of scientific understanding. |
I disagree with you also based on the dictionary's definition of parasite:
"1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others."
These obviously cover what you said about it, but to support the reference to foetuses as parasites:
"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"
Pedanthood regarding whether the host is the same organism as the parasite is not really necessary. All foetuses are parasitic - they live in and off, in order to survive, another entity without contributing to the host's survival. Irrefutable scientific evidence is only dehumanising if you blindly associate parasites exclusively with non-humans.
| Gu£st wrote: |
| Scientifically a member of the same species which is nourished both before and after birth by the parent is called "offspring" not a parasite. |
Foetuses are offspring and parasites. Being the former does not mean it cannot be the latter.
| Jude-Love wrote: |
| Um, no. Unless one thinks women who want abortions are the same as murderers. Then that kinda makes them a waste of time. |
As I said, I was not calling women who abort murderers. The example does not even have to be murder. Let's generalise: I believe that the notion of "x should legalised because people are going to do it anyway" is just nonsensical and does nothing for the pro-choice argument. x here could be murder, stealing, rape, fighting et al.
| Jude-Love wrote: |
| To say that women are "attacking" embryos is implying that they are malicious. Which is outlandish. |
Unless there is a good argument to say why a certain type of human (in this case an unborn baby) should have no rights and be allowed to be killed if desired, then abortion is malicious and a lot worse! Again, I must re-iterate that this is not my current view (I am pro-choice), but I am speaking from a scientific pro-life platform.
| Rodge wrote: |
| What exactly do you want us to say? |
I want you to answer my questions.
| Rodge wrote: |
| Pro-choice is justified by believing that women have a right to decide what happens to their bodies, and that includes carrying a baby or not. If you don't believe that, then what's the point in being pro-choice? |
It certainly is not justified if it cannot constructively show why some humans can have rights while others have none at all. This would equate discrimination, holocaust, and mass infanticide. Once again, I am going to say to those who will probably have read my earlier comments and ignored them that I do not believe that. I am speaking from a pro-life viewpoint. I just want to be refreshed by the cleverer minds here why parasitic foetuses, admittedly humans, can be terminated but those in a coma, a vegetative state, or on a life-support machine cannot, despite their states being extremely similar, if not identical.
Rodge, there is MUCH more to pro-choice than believing "a woman should have the right to control her body and whatever is inside it", it is why she has that right. It is complex and subtle yet equally clear once understood. What I am having scruples about is why should foetuses (humans) not have rights? Why should being a parasite mean you do not have rights? Why should those alive by a machine not be killed on the same basis that foetuses are aborted?
N.B. the meanings of human and person:
Person = "1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person.
7. the body in its external aspect: an attractive person to look at.
8. a character, part, or role, as in a play or story.
9. an individual of distinction or importance.
10. a person not entitled to social recognition or respect.
11. Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.
12. Grammar. a category found in many languages that is used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and those to or about whom he or she is speaking. In English there are three persons in the pronouns, the first represented by I and we, the second by you, and the third by he, she, it, and they. Most verbs have distinct third person singular forms in the present tense, as writes; the verb be has, in addition, a first person singular form am.
13. Theology. any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
Human being = "1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
[size]2. a person[/size], esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species: living conditions not fit for human beings; a very generous human being."
The terms person and human being can both be used to describe the foetus and are interchangeable in most circumstances. Generally, I render human being as a more scientific term and person to refer in a more everyday, mundane manner to express individuality. The pro-choicers who argue that a foetus is human but not a person are either lying or ignorantly professing something that it not true. The best policy in the whole abortion debate is to uphold integrity, honesty, and truth, not creating discriminations that do not exist to back their view.
I am particularly interesting in a response from Cari, Eiri, Birch, Jules etc. whom I have debated with more extensively in my presence here
.
Kypros.
|
Rodge
Active User, very eHealthy
|
Kypros
Experienced User
|
Rodge
Active User, very eHealthy
|
Kypros
Experienced User
|
meblonde01
Extremely eHealthy
|
Rodge
Active User, very eHealthy
|
Birch
Extremely eHealthy
First let me just say that I do not think you have to be on board with any of these reasons you've listed to justify your prochoice position.
I am prochoice because I recognize that there is a absolute need for safe abortions in this society. If we lived in a complete Utopia, I would think more about becoming prolife.
Why I am prochoice:
*Birth control is not free, readily available, healthy, and 100% effective
*Therefore, having sex does not mean you are consenting to forced parturition.
*I do not recognize conception as being a singular, miraculous event; therefore, I do not view a fetus or embryo as nothing much than a biological organ with potential, but not there yet
*Our society is not (in a nutshell) friendly economically or psychosocially towards women, especially single mothers, especially the impoverished
Now towards your particular questions, and forgive me if I miss any but your post is lengthy and my attention span is not.
It doesn't matter to me personally if it's a person or not, a label does not change what it is. I simply do not view a fetus, which I do recognize as a human being, as anything of extrodinary value- only something of great potential but isn't there yet.
Although this is not one of my 'reasons' I think the dichotomy lies within the concept of an involuntary versus voluntary life support system which consists of a person, not a machine.
I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking that if a person is born of rape, is their right to life forfeit because of the circumstances of their conception?
I think to answer that, I would have to defer to a prolife advocate who is prolife except for circumstances of rape. I have never understood how to a prolife person a fetus conceived of rape has any less "value" to them. This seems clear to me an issue of mother's consent versus preserving life.
I think I've answered what I can. I have not responded to the reasons you have listed because I can't really rebutt them because I generally agree with you. I would also add to your list The Psychic Hotline theory; the one that the kids born will have a miserable life in an orphanage and grow up never knowing the taste of love or whatever.
I am prochoice because I recognize that there is a absolute need for safe abortions in this society. If we lived in a complete Utopia, I would think more about becoming prolife.
Why I am prochoice:
*Birth control is not free, readily available, healthy, and 100% effective
*Therefore, having sex does not mean you are consenting to forced parturition.
*I do not recognize conception as being a singular, miraculous event; therefore, I do not view a fetus or embryo as nothing much than a biological organ with potential, but not there yet
*Our society is not (in a nutshell) friendly economically or psychosocially towards women, especially single mothers, especially the impoverished
Now towards your particular questions, and forgive me if I miss any but your post is lengthy and my attention span is not.
| Kypros wrote: |
|
Pro-choicers argue that foetuses are not persons. OK, as a pro-choicer to all others of my ilk out there who can hopefully provide me some constructive arguments, I ask a) what exactly is a person then? As far as I have ever come across in life and in the dictionary, person and human are not discriminated between. Please show evidence that not all human being are persons; b) even if a foetus is not a person, how does this justify the intentional killing of an innocent human? |
It doesn't matter to me personally if it's a person or not, a label does not change what it is. I simply do not view a fetus, which I do recognize as a human being, as anything of extrodinary value- only something of great potential but isn't there yet.
| Kypros wrote: |
|
Also, despite the fact that I admittedly disregarded it previously, pro-lifers argue fairly that born humans, by the same logic that foetuses can be aborted due to their parasitic nature, should not have any rights if they are being kept alive because of a life-support machine. As pro-choicers, could you please point out the dichotomy and why the latter is not justified? |
Although this is not one of my 'reasons' I think the dichotomy lies within the concept of an involuntary versus voluntary life support system which consists of a person, not a machine.
| Kypros wrote: |
|
If foetuses, admittedly humans by pro-choicers, can be aborted because they are the result of a rape, then why should born humans born of a rape have rights? Please don't answer "just because they are born". It's crucial to being a simple operation every woman should be permitted to choose or the violent, bloody, and murderous discrimination just for being unborn. |
I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking that if a person is born of rape, is their right to life forfeit because of the circumstances of their conception?
I think to answer that, I would have to defer to a prolife advocate who is prolife except for circumstances of rape. I have never understood how to a prolife person a fetus conceived of rape has any less "value" to them. This seems clear to me an issue of mother's consent versus preserving life.
I think I've answered what I can. I have not responded to the reasons you have listed because I can't really rebutt them because I generally agree with you. I would also add to your list The Psychic Hotline theory; the one that the kids born will have a miserable life in an orphanage and grow up never knowing the taste of love or whatever.
|
Birch
Extremely eHealthy
|
Verizon-y
Extremely eHealthy
|
Jincks013
Extremely eHealthy
|
Gu£st
Active User, very eHealthy
|
Tylanas
Especially eHealthy
|
Moo
Extremely eHealthy
|
Cambion
Active User, very eHealthy
|
