PRO-CHOICE is not synonymous with PRO-STUPID

Do not deny her choice. Do you want it clearer?

I am tired of people telling what my wife has to do.

While the examples you picked out are a little silly you have to look at the flip side. Pro-lifers want rape babies carried to term (not all but most), blow up abortion clinics (killing people), degrading women walking into PP (assuming that they ALL are there for abortions). Sorry but I think a couple of stupid comments on a news forum is quite a difference then killing people in the name of life. Sounds a little stupid doesn't it?

People just need to mind their own damn business. Pro-lifers, if you don't want an abortion, don't get one. You're not Jesus and you aren't helping people change their minds. And it's still legal no matter how much you hate it.

Pro-choicers, if you want the choice, make the choice. The law is still on your side. Just don't spout stupid sh!t, it makes you no different then the ones who oppose your choice.

Woody, you're so off base. I'm kinda sorta pro-life. What that means is I believe it's wrong to destroy a life because its inconvenient. I have never had any involvement with blowing up anything, I have never protested women going into abortion clinics. I realize there are always extinuating circumstances, which is why I'm "kinda sorta" pro-life. I've seen so many people go out of the country to adopt because there aren't enough babies for adoption here. People wait on lists for years for a baby, people that can't have their own and many times, they never get a baby. Now, if there's a medical reason for abortion, fine, if the woman was raped and can't deal with it, fine. There are women who use abortion as birth control. Yes, there are, as ridiculous as that seems. Women who've had multiple abortions because, and this is a weird one, one actually said birth control pills are dangerous. She apparently thinks abortion is no big deal, but the pills are really dangerous. So yeah, people like that need to learn some basic birth control options, and maybe grow some common sense. Adoption is an option many times.

I've seen so many people go out of the country to adopt because there aren't enough babies for adoption here. People wait on lists for years for a baby, people that can't have their own and many times, they never get a baby.

So one woman should be forced to endanger her life so that another family can take her child? No one has a right to a baby.

I've seen so many people go out of the country to adopt because there aren't enough babies for adoption here. People wait on lists for years for a baby, people that can't have their own and many times, they never get a baby.

That really has nothing to do with a woman choosing what will and will not happen with her body. A woman's body does not exist to incubate a fetus for sterile strangers. Every living, breathing human has sovereign rule over their own bodies.

Yet that is a natural function of the female body. It is the reason sexual dichotomy exists in the first place. The procreation and thus further existence of a species. It makes no nevermind that we have decided our bodies are in fact amusement parks and rage at the natural outcomes of acts that exist for the afforementioned natural outcome.

I've seen so many people go out of the country to adopt because there aren't enough babies for adoption here. People wait on lists for years for a baby, people that can't have their own and many times, they never get a baby.

Really? not enough children to adopt, oh wait sorry BABIES, because once a baby is no longer a baby, they are no longer worth adopting,

or ask, how many white people are willing to adopt black or mixed race babies. Hmmm

There are plenty of children to adopt in the US.

Adoption is an option many times.

Unless, of course, the woman doesn't want to gestate the pregnancy. Then, no, it's not an option.

What do people not GET about a woman find out she's pregnant when she doesn't want to be (for whatever reason). This idea of, "Well, lah de dah, just stay that way so you can have a baby for someone else" is mind-boggling to me.

Barb

What do people not GET about a woman find out she's pregnant when she doesn't want to be (for whatever reason)

I think the scenario you describe is the result of religious belief - the sanctity of life, etc. You are looking at it logically but that will not explain something rooted deeply in religious beliefs.

I agree with you, by the way, up to the point of viability.

Yet that is a natural function of the female body.

And??? What's your conclusion to that statement?

@Pat-#@!&!#@:

Here you go. Though you really should've just read past that point. :)

It is the reason sexual dichotomy exists in the first place. The procreation and thus further existence of a species. It makes no nevermind that we have decided our bodies are in fact amusement parks and rage at the natural outcomes of acts that exist for the afforementioned natural outcome.

@Moby's ManCave:

Neither of which have anything to do with my statement except in the sense of the acts talked about. Extreme examples, I have noticed, grasped for to further muddy the waters of a already muddy subject.

Allow me to pose a question to you sir. Is forced sex "rape, incest" the same thing as consentual sex "a fling lets say" in any sense conceptually?

I'm kinda sorta pro-life.

You're either pro-choice or pro-life there is no kinda sorta. I now being a married man have to admit that my wife and I wouldn't result to an abortion if she got pregnant, but I'm still pro-choice. I get that there might be a few women that use abortion as birth control but that is not the usual example and it's disgusting to suggest such. Having an abortion is no piece of cake or way to pass time when your bored (so I've heard). See the thing is YOU yourself should never be able to tell someone what they can and can't do with their bodies, period. Even if they used abortion completely as birth control. I have been with someone when we decided to get an abortion and it was no easy decision, but we made the right one in our minds. We knew at that time that we weren't ready to be parents and I don't think either of us were in any financial shape to bring a child into this world. But that's the thing, that decision we made has NOTHING to do with you, never has never will. That's why you don't get to say anything about it. It's not YOUR decision. Great you have an evoloved enough brain to realize that sex crime victims shouldn't have to bare the child of their attacker. Guess there is hope for you yet. Now if we could get you over your God complex that makes you think you should have a right to voice your opinion in someone else's life choice we'll be good.

It is the reason sexual dichotomy exists in the first place.

I would say, Wraith, that it's the reason that sexual physiological/biological dichotomy exists. But not every female of the species wants to, or can be, a mother. We're not just physical beings. There's far more to a human being than just his or her biology. I don't believe that it's an assumption that the main purpose for girls being born into the world is to facilitate reproduction. It's just one capability of hers, and one choice. There are many, many others.

My body, my decision. Period.

@Truth Sleuth:

I would say, Wraith, that it's the reason that sexual physiological/biological dichotomy exists. But not every female of the species wants to, or can be, a mother. We're not just physical beings. There's far more to a human being than just his or her biology. I don't believe that it's an assumption that the main purpose for girls being born into the world is to facilitate reproduction. It's just one capability of hers, and one choice. There are many, many others.

And you are breathing volumes of meaning into my statement apparently. If I wanted to be a misogynistic a-hole I could have worded it quite differently thank you very much. But, it's okay, because I understand the defense mechanism for what it is.

What is with people expecting novels worth of all encompassing comments? Not that I think even that would help. Because then people wouldn't read it for wordiness......

Lib, that argument also ignores the fact that there are many areas where the government says you don't get to make the decisions for your body. See drug & alcohol, suicide, prostitution, and organ donation laws. The government dictates your decisions with regard to your body in all those instances. Plus, many of those are areas where no other life is at stake. I'm not advocating for pro-life, just expanding on Moby's theme that simplistic arguments don't work.

See drug & alcohol, suicide, prostitution, and organ donation laws.

I will note that I don't believe there is any jurisdiction in the United States that mandates organ donation. It is my understanding that most, if not all, places are like Maryland. When you get your driver's license, you check a box. If you check 'yes', you agree to donate your organs. If you check 'no', your organs will not be donated.

That being said, you are right, there are places where the government regulates our bodies and illicit drugs, alcohol, suicide, and prostitution are included in that. (Alcohol is mostly included insofar as you become a threat to others via drunk driving.)

However, the origin of most of these laws come from the conservative side of the spectrum. For the part of "small government", Republicans sure do like to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies. On the other hand, the progressive / liberal side of the political spectrum typically tries to stay out of those personal decisions. This is why you typically see extremely conservative areas with prohibitions on liquor sales while liberal areas end up with more open medical marijuana laws.

I was referring to the fact that we can't sell our organs is a restriction of our right to do with our bodies as we please. But, this article is about the simplistic arguments used to advocate pro-choice, not who came up with said restrictions. I was merely pointing out why the "my body, my choice" argument is easy to shoot down because it over simplifies a complex issue. I made no value judgement on right or wrong, merely pointed out the inconsistency as it pertains to laws already on the books.

I was referring to the fact that we can't sell our organs is a restriction of our right to do with our bodies as we please.

Ah, my mistake.

...merely pointed out the inconsistency as it pertains to laws already on the books.

And it's a valuable contribution to point out that inconsistency. However, that inconsistency generally stems from the fact that we have one party in favor of government control over citizens' bodies (but not corporations, who are apparently people) while the other party is in favor of citizens having control over their own bodies.

I was referring to the fact that we can't sell our organs is a restriction of our right to do with our bodies as we please.

Except that the reason that people can't sell their body parts is that it would open up the possibility of some people (notably those that are poor) being coerced into selling their body parts. It's just too easy for something like that to be open to abuse.

I think they class it under murder, which the Bible does speak about. I wrote an article earlier about abortion and my wife and I were discussing it. I don't necessarily agree with abortion if it's being used as birth control and if I were a woman, I'd probably not have one unless there were extenuating circumstances (rape, incest etc) but I DO support their right to make up their own minds and I do think the womans right to her body and health come before that of the fetus. I do think the woman carrying the fetus for up to nine months should have more say over the matter than the man as well.

It's a sticky subject that I tend to avoid if I can. I'm happy with the way things are now with women having the choice. After all, whether it's legal or not, some women will abort the fetus anyways. I'd rather it be done in a sterile, safe medical facility than in an alley with a guy with a dirty coathanger.

I often say keep your hands off my uterus. I also state keep your hands off my uterus and I will keep my knee off your nuts.

I say this because I am tired of complete strangers thinking they have a right to tell me what I am to do with my body. I am tired of complete strangers thinking they can legislate whether I should be allowed access to abortion, birth control, or abstain from pregnancy. I do not need anyone to pick out my sexual partners, positions, or preferences. I am quite capable of choosing on my own. I am the owner of my orgasm, and I am responsible for controlling my sexual behavior.

I choose to live in a monogamous (often we jokingly call it monotonous) relationship with one man. He and I have been together since college. We have never cheated on each other, and we live in the same house and share the same bed. We have decided not to get married until our gay and lesbian friends enjoy the same right. However, after 17 years together, we are very much in love. We have the financial opportunity available to us that is not available to many. We do not need the fiscal benefits of marriage. We have made the necessary legal arrangements to protect ourselves as a couple and as individuals (in the event of sickness or death). We have also decided that our lifestyle is not conducive to children. We both travel with our jobs, and our jobs require a lot of our time in order to be successful. I am going to England this week, and my partner is leaving for a business trip as well. If we were to have children, it would be unfair to the child to travel like we do. Also, we like to travel for play time. Again, it would be unfair to a child.

Here is the thing... if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. If you don't believe in birth control, don't use it. If you don't believe in equal rights for women, too damn bad. I am a human. I am not an incubator with a pulse, designed to "birth babies" until I drop dead. If I want children, that is my choice (not something to force upon me). If I want to pursue a life that does not include children of my own, that is my choice.

Keep your hands off my uterus, and I will keep my knee from striking your nuts.

Keep your hands off my uterus, and I will keep my knee from striking your nuts.

Ha ha! Well said, Truth. That part made me chuckle.

My breasties have gotten me into more trouble than your testes. BUHAHAHAHA!!!

I am not pro-choice because of any particular belief that abortions are beneficial or any other matter; I am pro-choice for two reasons:

1. First, I believe that the Justices who wrote the opinion in Roe v Wade had it right; whether or not you believe that the fetus is a person who has rights to protect, one person's rights must be subjugated to the rights of another. So, do you subjugate the right of a fully grown woman or a fetus that is entirely dependant upon that woman for all of it's life's functions? For me, the logic is unmistakable and correctly addressed in the decision.
2. The second reason is simple; I am not a woman. I will never have to carry a baby; I will never have to suffer mood swings (I sort of suffered from them, but not actually suffered them...and, I always had an escape if I couldn't take it), along with what I called the "attack of the killer hormones", didn't have to take a pee every five minutes only to drain less than a leaky faucet during the same time frame, didn't have to worry about looking fat (ladies, you never do...please trust me), engorged breasts, uncontrollable lactation, and the myriad of other "fun" things that pregnancy brings upon a woman. I never had any of these (or more) and never will; I am not a woman. But, I can appreciate how hard it is and respect those who do more than have a stupid grin and an afterward cigarette in the name of procreation.

The reason to be pro-choice, for me, is sublimely obvious. 99.99% of procreation falls upon the woman (hey ladies, give us a little credit), so it is her right to decide for herself.

I wonder sometimes if they realize no where in the Bible does it mention that abortion is wrong… I'm not sure if abortion is mentioned at all.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

My interpretation: The fetus is not considered human.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

My interpretation: Children under one month old have no value.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

My interpretation: Children under one month old do not count.

I could go on, but you get the gist.

My breasties have gotten me into more trouble than your testes

Only fair. Your breasties have probably helped you out in life more than my testes helped me.

Your breasties have probably helped you out in life more than my testes helped me.

Well, in a way. They help fill out my bras, and make my bikini top stay in place. In the event of being dropped out in the middle of the ocean, I can use my breasties as a flotation device. And they give my partner a place to put his hand.

hmm somebody been watching too much 'big bang theory'?

Uhm, we all have our burdens to bare? :)

Are testes as equally buoyant as breasties?

dr truth,

no and when they get hit, they hurt a LOT more.

Jonathan, Would you care to test your theory out? BUHAHAHAHA!!!

BTW, when was the last time you had a mammogram?

considering that I have had 3 lymph nodes removed from my torso regions as a result of cancer, every 3 months for the last 3 years.

And no, but if you are offering, there are a few people that I know that would love to take you up on that offer, though that probably isn't what you were looking for in terms of a good night out. hahahaha

When guys say it hurts to have the old testes kicked, I remind them that having a mammogram is like getting your tit shut in a car door.

On a side note, we were talking about oral sex today in my human sexuality class and a female student blurted out that she doesn't like to give because she hates the feeling of balls slapping her chin. The class burst out in laughter.

this is what I mean.

Libertarians are for the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights at all costs...we see individual right higher than that of collective...as without individual rights there is no collective.

I do not know when human life begins......is it at conception?? 16 weeks?? 24 weeks? 30 weeks? birth?

once it becomes human I am obligated to fight for the rights of the individual......ie...the unborn..

Its the only area as a libertarian that I am completly confused............I do know the history behind it however...and know that it wasnt all that good........

I dont know...I am to tired to really debate this issue tonight...or put too much thought into my posts...just rambling.

late night articles that are a bit lighter in mood are better. lol...for me that is.

a weekend with a cranky wife and kids......has the MJ beat.

I know I know...how could my wife be cranky..she is with me right???

ugghhhh somedays man...somedays.

I feel like quoting Jackie Gleason on days like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV1zul2aCM8&feature=related

@TiG:

Well put and thought out my friend. As is to be expected.

But one must not also forget the sociological and psychological allure of forming such camps that exist for nothing less than the battle.

The pro-choice position is not defined by the choices that one makes for him or herself. It is defined by supporting the right of others to make choices for themselves.

Do you support the right of women regarding the choice to continue or terminate their pregnancies without external interference?

Do I support the" right"?

The "right" to do so has been decided by the Supreme Court, so I will respect to the law - to a point.

Do I respect women who terminate their pregnancies? Not for the most part, no.

With any "right" comes responsibilities. It is getting most tiresome to hear the constant cry about "my rights".

Where are the rights of the unborn? The ones that dont have a say...

It Aint So

It is none of your business what a woman does with her body (unless she is a suicide bomber). You can talk about "rights" until you're blue in the face.

Where are the rights of the unborn? The ones that dont have a say...

The rights of the living, breathing human supersedes any of those of a fetus.

Notice the small dot at the end of the last sentence above? That's a PERIOD. ( DONE. FINITO. FIN'E ).

What is deemed moral or legal is dependent on the definer. While getting fall down drunk is legal, it may still be called immoral and yet smoking a doobie in the confines of ones home is illegal but is it considered immoral.

As with all things in this Country morality and legality blend together at times and when they do there is usually money involved at some level.

I believe the writer is just saying that whatever side of the fence you are on, just present an intelligent reason for your position and not just the talking points. Just my thoughts.

yet smoking a doobie in the confines of ones home is illegal but is it considered immoral.

Guess I'm very immoral then. Now where are my papers?

Made me smile.

1) “Stay out of my uterus!”

Weakest argument for pro-choice out there... tops the list. So, let’s say I’m pro-life (anti-choice) and I believe abortion is murder. Telling me to stay out of a the “vicinity” of the crime scene is pure hog wash.

Good one. The strongest argument for pro-choice, imho, is that, if there are indeed two entities whose "rights" are in conflict with each other--that of the fetus and the woman carrying it--we have to side with the woman carrying it. She is a full-fledged person under the law whose rights cannot be and may not be diminished for nine months just because she's pregnant and doesn't want to be.

We know for a fact she is a full-fledged person; the fetus is not. We can speculate from now until the cows come home as to whether that fetus is a "human being" in the spiritual sense, but the spiritual has no place in a civil, secular society. The spiritual and the speculation as to what is and what isn't should be left to theologians and philosophers. We interpret the Constitution and base law on what we know as fact, not on what we think might be true.

And we don't err on the side of the fetus simply because it's helpless and has no voice. It is not an autonomous person under the law and has no rights under the Constitution as a person under the law. It simply resides inside a full-fledged autonomous person under the law whose rights cannot be abridged based on her pregnancy or any other physical condition.

Truth

It is not an autonomous person under the law and has no rights under the Constitution as a person under the law.

Fetus personhood?

Given the COTUS does not define the term 'person' as illustrated by the ability to continue corporate personhood interpretations I would think a similar (interesting) debate could ensue on the idea of fetus personhood.

Although the COTUS does stipulate conditions concerning persons born (e.g. ability to hold office of POTUS) I do not believe it defines what is required to be a person.

In light of Citizens United, I'm a little pissed that I can't get my cat declared a person and therefore a dependent on my taxes.

Even if fetuses were ever declared "persons" under the law, abortion, imho, should not ever be illegal. The reason is that there is "no duty to rescue" in our legal system. No one is required to use his/her body to save another: You aren't required to be relieved of one of your kidneys, even though it could ostensibly save someone today who will die without it. You aren't required to donate blood even though your local hospital is cancelling surgeries because their shelves are empty. You aren't required by law to save a baby lying on the train tracks in front of an oncoming train. You aren't required to jump into the river and save someone who's drowning. You aren't required to submit to an unwanted pregnancy in order to save a fetus.

I think personhood would still be irrelevant, even if fetuses were declared persons. One person (woman) is not required to have her body used against her will in order to save another "person" (fetus).

Truth

Even if fetuses were ever declared "persons" under the law, abortion, imho, should not ever be illegal. The reason is that there is "no duty to rescue" in our legal system.

You have to admit that the physical commingling of mother and viable fetus is a unique situation that would justify a unique legal consideration. If we were to consider a viable fetus an unborn person it would likely gain the immediate protection of its life (illegal to indiscriminately terminate its life). For example, it cannot be aborted unless the mother's health is at risk. This would happen on very rare occasion.

Prior to viability, abortions are unconditional - the total call of the woman and her doctor. However, upon viability the fetus person would have the right to life (subordinated by its mother's health rights) but preempting unconditional choice. In other words, as long as the mother is in no health risk, the presence of a viable fetus means that her choice to abort is preempted by the fetus' right to life.

The reason is that there is "no duty to rescue" in our legal system.

Just to emphasize, the above would not be a duty to rescue but rather the prevention of a gratuitous termination of a viable fetus' life. If the mother no longer wanted the viable fetus, labor could be induced or a C-section performed. Of course, the ideal situation is for the mother to decide she did not want the child prior to viability in which case unconditional abortion is available.

Moby

But what does it mean to side with the mother? For example (as I mentioned in my prior post) how would a rational legal system deal with an 8 month viable fetus whose mother decides that she no longer wants to continue her pregnancy? No health issue, just changed her mind?

Would the rational legal system (one that considers viable fetus' to have rights - that was the premise) preempt the fetus' right to life with the mother's right to convenience?

I do not think this is a simple black & white deal - 'always side' seems too coarse.

And seriously, anyone with a lick of common sense should be able to make their mind up within 20 to 24 weeks.

"Common sense" isn't quite so common. :)

On a side note, does anyone note that a appeal to common sense sounds logically falacious by virtue of being basically a argumentum ad populum?

Moby

I consider your post of paraphrase of mine. Seems we are of like-mind on this topic.

Wraith

Common sense is [not] quite so common. :)

Agreed! Objective discussion of this topic is very tough - far too emotional.

(Sadly, I think your statement is also true in general.)

@TiG.:

Yea, please excuse my regrettable lack of proof reading skills. I fixed my comment and extended it though.

For example (as I mentioned in my prior post) how would a rational legal system deal with an 8 month viable fetus whose mother decides that she no longer wants to continue her pregnancy? No health issue, just changed her mind?

Do you actually believe a lot of women would want to do this? Do you really think there would be an epidemic of women aborting at 8 months if it were legal?

Barb

No I do not! Damn it; that is not the point. This happens a lot on Newsvine. I used an example to illustrate a point. In the prior post (which I referred to) I even stated: "This would happen on very rare occasion."

I cannot quality every sentence I write.

@TiG.:

I believe that is precisely the point my friend.

I used an example to illustrate a point.

Sorry. I think the problem is that the illustration rather echoes the anti-choicer's argument about how, if allowed, all manner of women would be aborting up into the 9th month.

Barb

I think the key problem is that most people categorically reject anything offered by someone perceived to be on the 'other side'. It is one of the reasons why we cannot (and likely never will) find a rational solution to the pro-choice | pro-life controversy.

Exactly. :) Let's not forget ranting about that "other side" at every available opportunity.

Wraith

Oddly I am (as best as I can tell) offering a compromise and routinely emphasize that I consider both pro-choice and pro-life to be ridiculous political positions that ultimately inhibit a rational course of action. I am for neither.

Similar to the atheist | theist controversy, eh Wraith?

Oddly I am (as best as I can tell) offering a compromise and routinely emphasize that I consider both pro-choice and pro-life to be ridiculous political positions that ultimately inhibit a rational course of action. I am for neither.

Isn't Roe already a compromise?

@TiG.:

Oddly I am (as best as I can tell) offering a compromise and routinely emphasize that I consider both pro-choice and pro-life to be ridiculous political positions that ultimately inhibit a rational course of action. I am for neither.

I agree, both political positions are indeed ridiculous. Not mention altogether irrational. Which is largely illustrated by the irrational response along the lines of "If you're not with us you're against us.". This is also illustrated by the response to my humble comment in which the author invoked rape and incest though clearly both don't really figure into my comment in any sense except messily.

Offering a compromise speaks well of you. However, any such compromise will ultimately fall on deaf ears in my opinion as it's not a rational issue for the individuals engaging in either camp of the debate. I think a large chunk of it has gone far beyond a squabble as to who is right and more into the real of older tendencies of group identification and conflict. You know, the classic "Us, YAY!" and "Them, BOO!".

Similar to the atheist | theist controversy, eh Wraith?

They do seem to follow the same mechanics and outright silliness. There, much like here, neither side can definivitively "prove" the other side wrong. More so because here we are talking about moralistic absolutes despite the lack of really any such thing. So the whole mess slides into a highly childish game of sorts with both sides enthusiastically partcipating. Once again, in my opinion.

@VerbalBarb:

At what point was he talking about Roe versus Wade? Or how exactly does Roe versus Wade fit into his comment?

Barb

It is most definitely a compromise. It is (in fact) a compromise that is law yet the silly pro-choice | pro-life advocates maintain their extreme positions.

At what point was he talking about Roe versus Wade? Or how exactly does Roe versus Wade fit into his comment?

If you read his comments, you will have seen there was no point where he was talking about Roe v Wade.

Or how exactly does Roe versus Wade fit into his comment?

He was talking about compromise. I'm simply wondering whether or not he sees Roe as a compromise.

I'm sure he will understand the question, so please don't worry.

It is most definitely a compromise. It is (in fact) a compromise that is law yet the silly pro-choice | pro-life advocates maintain their extreme positions.

Yes, I see it as a compromise, also, and a reasonable one.

And, I have to say, I don't recall ever seeing a pro-choicer advocate tearing down Roe and having laws passed that will allow for abortion up to the last minute of pregnancy with no restrictions- even those who come up with the "it's not a human being until it's born" scenario. They just want to see Roe preserved.

Barb

They just want to see Roe preserved.

And they hold true to the extreme position because of the fear of incrementalism. I refer you to my opening post.

I have been in debates where people have argued that a fetus is a parasitic mass of flesh until it is legally born. When offered the obvious logic (e.g. what about C-sections that are actually scheduled by the doctor) to refute such silliness they insisted on the parasitic mass of flesh mantra. The pro-choice extreme does indeed exist.

how would a rational legal system deal with an 8 month viable fetus whose mother decides that she no longer wants to continue her pregnancy? No health issue, just changed her mind?

As you rightly said, TiG, it would be a very rare instance that an 8-month pregnant woman would at that late date decide to have an elective abortion. I think since the fetus is viable, as you specified in your hypothetical, and if there were a doctor who would be willing to deliver the fetus at that point in gestation--and I don't think there would be, as that would be bad medicine, and in and of itself, a departure from the accepted standard of care--then I think a rational legal system would have the state take custody of the infant. That's one scenario. My hypothetical one.

And since I typed it and re-read it, it obviously doesn't make sense. Therefore, even though I've stated before that I'm so rabidly pro-choice that I believe there should be no restrictions on abortion, I do admit, thanks to your hypothetical and always-logical and -questioning thinking, that such an extreme point of view is probably unrealistic--especially medically.

In theory, I still maintain that the woman has the absolute right to do what she wants regarding her pregnancy, but in practice, I concede that an elective abortion at the viable-fetus stage is not only medically unsound, but legally as well, and here's why: Once the viable fetus is delivered, it is then a person--and obviously a person with a lot of medical issues to face that it didn't ask for and and wouldn't have to face had the woman continued her pregnancy to term. Note: This has nothing to do with the issues that call for late-term abortions.

I think the key problem is that most people categorically reject anything offered by someone perceived to be on the 'other side'...they hold true to the extreme position because of the fear of incrementalism.

Fear. Yes. You nailed it. Fear, that, god forbid, they might be mistaken for the "enemy." And it gets very tiresome having to defend one's "true" position and have to "protest too much," it seems, in the process. It's basic insecurity about questioning one's own logic and reason. Questioning your own logic and reason and answering challenges to it doesn't mean abandoning your conviction to your basic position on the issue. I wish there were more like you, on all sides of all issues. (I noticed you were on that paperdragon discussion saga :) Case in point.)

I have been in debates where people have argued that a fetus is a parasitic mass of flesh until it is legally born. When offered the obvious logic (e.g. what about C-sections that are actually scheduled by the doctor) to refute such silliness they insisted on the parasitic mass of flesh mantra. The pro-choice extreme does indeed exist.

It does. I suppose my position is pro-choice radical. But that's quite different from pro-choice extreme. If we're going to be honest, rational and logical when we discuss this issue with pro-lifers, then the fear that you so accurately described gets in the way of mutual understanding. Either we want to try to understand each other's position and somehow, some way, come to an accommodation that respects rights and free will, or, we want to just have an excuse to ridicule the opposition. Big difference. And I applaud Moby for bringing this up for discussion. We rarely talk about this aspect of the abortion debate--the debate itself!

Reducing the growing “human” to these things [mass of tissue, clump of cells, "parasite"] will win absolutely no arguments... I promise.

Posted this just a couple of weeks ago, Moby, on another thread in answer to the very argument you brought up:

I think a fetus does have a certain kind of moral value. I think that's maybe one thing those of us on the pro-choice side might be able to concede to the pro-life side. And maybe my use of the word "moral" is not quite accurate, since moral matters should not be the province of the law. But I think the "value" of a fetus is greater than that of a car, for example. But it's value is less than that of a person under the law. A fetus simply does not qualify for all the rights under the Constitution that a person does. But, it does, regardless of what the mother intends to do about her pregnancy, have a certain status that, I think, we have to agree is greater, or at the very least, different, from a clump of tissue or a piece of tangible property such as a car...

...It is a philosophical point, but a valid one nevertheless, imho, when it comes to, at least, claiming some common ground and understanding with our opponents on the issue. IOW, just because I'm a radical advocate for a civil rights-only basis for interpreting the Constitution, and not one of morality or religion, it does not mean that I don't have morals myself or a moral code for behavior and for viewing the world and my fellow man. I do! Just like my adversaries on the other side of the debate. I just don't want it codified into law, and THAT is where our argument should reside. If we can stipulate that a fetus is not just a clump, but does have value, then maybe we can move on to the actual civil issues that matter when it comes to the Constitution and the law.

But I think the "value" of a fetus is greater than that of a car, for example. But it's value is less than that of a person under the law. A fetus simply does not qualify for all the rights under the Constitution that a person does. But, it does, regardless of what the mother intends to do about her pregnancy, have a certain status that, I think, we have to agree is greater, or at the very least, different, from a clump of tissue or a piece of tangible property such as a car...

This is a well put principle and should, rationally, serve as a starting point for determining reproductive rights in the United States.

The pro-choice extreme does indeed exist.

Oh, I agree they exist. But, have you actually heard anyone advocate overturning Roe so that women can have unfettered access to abortion up until the last minute of gestation? I have not. My point was that even the ones with the extremist language/beliefs seem to be ok with Roe, even if they think a fetus is a parasite until birth. Even if they believe there should be unfettered access, they seem willing to go with the flow.

Understood, VB, but I think the point is tackling those extremes--pro and con--with logic and reason. Many on the pro-life side latch onto extremes in trying to make their point, and instead of refuting those extremes with logic, reason and facts, many on the pro-choice side latch onto extremes of their own. And, they're like magnetic polar opposites: They repel each other. They do nothing to try to reach some kind of agreement on a point--any point--and then move forward from there.

have you actually heard anyone advocate overturning Roe so that women can have unfettered access to abortion up until the last minute of gestation?

No, but many on the pro-life side exploit that false argument of rampant last-minute abortions. And many on the pro-choice side respond by saying that it simply doesn't happen that often, if ever. Both of those statements are correct. And neither do anything to advance the debate forward. That is the point, at least as far as I understood it.

And that harkens to TiG's point, or at least what I inferred from TiG: Both sides are too caught up in validating and reinforcing their own position (and its ancillary issues that relate to personal self-image about politics and not wanting to be "mistaken" for "the other") than in challenging and refuting the other side's position--and doing so calmly, courteously, respectfully, and, again, with facts, logic and reason--but not with political and righteous indignation.

Truth

Well said (as usual). :-)

Barb

I am not suggesting that the extreme pro-choice crowd seeks a change in Roe (never mentioned Roe v. Wade in my position) but rather that extreme positions (both sides) inhibit finding common ground. In other words, this topic perpetuates because the two sides both refuse to give an inch - not even to acknowledge the silliness of their extreme positions.

I am not suggesting that the extreme pro-choice crowd seeks a change in Roe (never mentioned Roe v. Wade in my position) but rather that extreme positions (both sides) inhibit finding common ground.

I never said there were not extreme positions, and agreed that there are. And, when you talked about "compromise" I asked about Roe, because I see that as a compromise, and you agreed. I'm just pointing out that, yes, you see a lot of extreme rhetoric, but who actually acts on that extreme rhetoric by trying to change things?

What I'm doing is pussy footing around my belief that pro-choicers who may have extreme rhetoric are not the ones trying to change the status-quo....they do not try to take exteme actions to match their extreme rhetoric. They seem to accept compromise, even though they may speak in the extreme. I'm certainly in hopes there are also people out there like that on the other side of the issue.

I'm pro-choice, but I also believe that there is a time during gestation where it can be said that the fetus moves from being an empty Earth suit waiting for an inhabitant to an Earth suit with an inhabitant in residence. I believe it's the time when the functions of the brain are to a point where it inables the ability for sentience (even though actual self-awareness is far down the road)....I think that is the time that there is "someone home". (I read an article once about human beings' bodies being "Earth suits" and it's always stuck with me.)

When born people lose certain brain functions, it is recognized that they are "gone"; can there really be someone home before those same brain functions begin?

I've actually been in a few discussions where people have had logical discussions about various aspects of abortion. Sadly, though, they do seem to be few and far between.

When born people lose certain brain functions, it is recognized that they are "gone"; can there really be someone home before those same brain functions begin?

Well, if you remember, the Terry Schiavo case made it rather clear that there are those who mistake the biological processes of life, even when completely dependent upon an outside source (in the Schiavo case, machines) for support, as "living".

Barb

I'm just pointing out that, yes, you see a lot of extreme rhetoric, but who actually acts on that extreme rhetoric by trying to change things?

I know that is what you have said and I am (still) not disputing your statement. Since the point you have made does not really have anything to do with the point I have made, I have been trying to bridge the gap.

I'm pro-choice, but I also believe that there is a time during gestation where it can be said that the fetus moves from being an empty Earth suit waiting for an inhabitant to an Earth suit with an inhabitant in residence.

And you are seemingly aligned with Truth, Moby, Wraith (I suspect) and myself in this regard (although we all likely have plenty of nuanced differences). Given that, my point has been that those who do defend extreme positions hinder the progress of society to this position. In your terms, the extreme defenders detract from Roe v Wade.

I've actually been in a few discussions where people have had logical discussions about various aspects of abortion. Sadly, though, they do seem to be few and far between.

Me too, and I agree it is rare.

If we stop thinking, we are no better than those who would ban everything they hate, dislike, distrust, or simply fear. At least we admit that we have...problems. For a person in the medical field, regardless of whether it is admin, QA, or, especially, patient care, this is a question that comes up.

In the end, we must...leave the question to women...and stand in support of their decision, even if it is not the one we might have preferred.

Caitlin Borgmann, who's referenced above, has some excellent arguments that those of us on the pro-choice side might consider if we're to substantively engage our "opponents" on the "pro-life" side and at least engage them in a meaningful conversation (not just the usual political partisanship) and hopefully have some common ground upon which to have that conversation.

So, coming... Maybe later this evening or tomorrow.