The meaning of Pro-Choice ?

[Mktavish]

 

And there is no constitutional right to an abortion. That requires some interpretation of what has been written...... and not everyone agrees on the interpretation. Big surprise there huh?

 

Actually there is.

 

The constitution guarantees rights of citizens , it does not extend human rights for the whole world.

And a person becomes a citizen in this context when they have a certification of birth.

So no birth certificate , no birthday , no constitutional protection.

 

However with my understanding using the "seems to me method" And the whole reason I started this thread. Is the meaning of abort and what / when that applies.

 

Now albeit the birth process is not instantaneous ... I think it is separate from what is called the pregnancy. So imo I think the right to abort applies to the pregnancy , and not the birth process. Because the pregnancy has come to full term delivering its effects to a womans body that she should have a right of choice over anybody elses.

Therefore nothing to spare her from involving termination of a new viable human.

 

But the viability of that human still is a point of choice imo for someone to now step into the shoes of parenthood.

[HeyYou]

 

 

And there is no constitutional right to an abortion. That requires some interpretation of what has been written...... and not everyone agrees on the interpretation. Big surprise there huh?

 

Actually there is.

 

The constitution guarantees rights of citizens , it does not extend human rights for the whole world.

And a person becomes a citizen in this context when they have a certification of birth.

So no birth certificate , no birthday , no constitutional protection.

 

However with my understanding using the "seems to me method" And the whole reason I started this thread. Is the meaning of abort and what / when that applies.

 

Now albeit the birth process is not instantaneous ... I think it is separate from what is called the pregnancy. So imo I think the right to abort applies to the pregnancy , and not the birth process. Because the pregnancy has come to full term delivering its effects to a womans body that she should have a right of choice over anybody elses.

Therefore nothing to spare her from involving termination of a new viable human.

 

But the viability of that human still is a point of choice imo for someone to now step into the shoes of parenthood.

 

Basically, all that really means is according the constitution, it isn't ILLEGAL to have an abortion, as the fetus, technically, has no rights. Applying that logic, a woman should technically be legally able to abort her baby, right up to the point of birth..... at which time, it all becomes moot anyway. So, seems to me, (I like that method too. :) ) what we need to do, is clarify just WHEN the fetus *should* have rights..... At the moment, that one is really up in the air, and the timeframe is determined by which party is in power.... (see Alabama, Mississippi, et al.) Either that, or the government should just stay the hell out of it. (my preferred solution.) The current conditions are intolerable...

 

Democrats: We don't care about you UNTIL you are born, at which point, we want to take care of you, and tell you how to live your life.

Republicans: We care about you until you are born, after that, you are on your own. Oh, and by the way, you better live your life the way we tell you to, or we'll slap you in prison.

 

The republican position is simply untenable. They want to force girls that get pregnant, regardless of circumstances, to bear their child, but, on the other hand, offer zero support for that child, once it is born. Folks like to offer adoption as an alternative to abortion.... but, that still plays merry hill with the girls body, and you end up with a child that most likely is raised by the state in any event, as adoption is a major pain in the US, and hideously expensive. Which makes the target audience of folks willing to adopt rather small. Almost every adult that I know, that actually adopted a child, went to another country to do so. Why? It's less expensive, and less hoop jumping.

 

In all reality, I think we need FEWER laws, not more..... and the state should not be telling anyone what they should do with their life, and their body. Including suicide. (which is technically illegal....)

[Mktavish]

Well as I see it ... the motherly instinct is one of the best examples of humanity.

And we as a collective entity , can never be anywhere near as good as that possibility.

 

So considering there is all these other situations we choose not to bring up as much as abortion.

In regards to being humane ... we have no point of authority to stand on in doing it.

 

The basic tenant of pro-choice the way i see it anyways .

 

But I still think there is a line to be drawn here with regards to abortion past pregnancy.

And not in a save all the babies kinda way ... but just about what that says about us.

 

"us" being the operative word.

[sajaxom]

The principle argument I've seen for Pro-Choice is Body Autonomy. Each person has the right to their own body and to determine how it is used. You can't force someone to donate blood or organs, even to save another life, and as such, you can't force them to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

The principle argument I've seen for Pro-Life is Right to Life. Each person has the right to live, and abortion denies that right. It is also morally wrong to take a life.

 

Historically, women have been denied Body Autonomy as a means to reduce their power and disenfranchise them. Whether through ownership by parents or their spouse, as a chattel, or through being denied contraception and abortion, women in most countries around the world have less Body Autonomy than men, both de jure and de facto. Pregnancy is also dangerous, and even the best pregnancy presents some level of threat to a woman's life.

 

This discussion usually focuses on abortion, but really the two sides are arguing about different things. Pro-Life advocates are arguing that abortion is morally wrong because it is killing a living person. Where personhood starts is another aspect of this, but I think nearly all Pro-Choice advocates would agree that beyond some distinguishing point the fetus is alive and killing it is morally wrong. Pro-Choice advocates then take the next step to say that, while it is wrong, it is still necessary. And that's where most debates stop, but they really shouldn't. The next question should always be "why is it necessary?"

 

I think it comes down to three things: lack of foreknowledge, lack of effective contraception, and emergencies.

1) We lack foreknowledge because we don't have standard, safe process in place to give parents all of the information they need to determine if they should both have and keep a pregnancy. That includes genetic testing, adequate health education, relationship counseling, etc. We need to focus our efforts on building a comprehensive system to ensure that all pregnancies are desirable pregnancies. The state of women's healthcare in general in the U.S. is atrocious, but the state of men's reproductive healthcare isn't much better. If we want to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies, we need people to be informed and willing participants in parenthood.

2) We lack effective contraception because, even when it's available, many people choose not to use it due to the side effects. Most are uncomfortable, many cause hormonal issues, and some can literally causes bodily harm. We need safe, universal contraceptives - that means for everyone, both men and women. And that pretty much rules out all hormonal and implant contraceptives. If we want to stop abortions, we need people to be informed and willing participants in contraception.

3) Emergencies are going to happen. Whether the mother's life is threatened or the pregnancy is due to rape or incest, there will always be a need for surgically removing a child before birth. If we want these events to stop being abortions, then we need to fund research into new methodologies for performing surgically assisted live births. When there is no longer ever a need to kill the baby in the process of terminating a pregnancy, then we can stop having abortions.

 

All three of these things require that we fund and support medical research into human reproduction. The main problem is that many Pro-Life advocates are also against contraception and sex education. And the policies and social norms that arise from those stances are the primary factors in creating new abortions. So they target abortion as something that is obviously wrong.

[Mktavish]

The principle argument I've seen for Pro-Choice is Body Autonomy. Each person has the right to their own body and to determine how it is used. You can't force someone to donate blood or organs, even to save another life, and as such, you can't force them to carry a pregnancy to term.

 

The principle argument I've seen for Pro-Life is Right to Life. Each person has the right to live, and abortion denies that right. It is also morally wrong to take a life.

 

Historically, women have been denied Body Autonomy as a means to reduce their power and disenfranchise them. Whether through ownership by parents or their spouse, as a chattel, or through being denied contraception and abortion, women in most countries around the world have less Body Autonomy than men, both de jure and de facto. Pregnancy is also dangerous, and even the best pregnancy presents some level of threat to a woman's life.

 

This discussion usually focuses on abortion, but really the two sides are arguing about different things. Pro-Life advocates are arguing that abortion is morally wrong because it is killing a living person. Where personhood starts is another aspect of this, but I think nearly all Pro-Choice advocates would agree that beyond some distinguishing point the fetus is alive and killing it is morally wrong. Pro-Choice advocates then take the next step to say that, while it is wrong, it is still necessary. And that's where most debates stop, but they really shouldn't. The next question should always be "why is it necessary?"

 

I think it comes down to three things: lack of foreknowledge, lack of effective contraception, and emergencies.

1) We lack foreknowledge because we don't have standard, safe process in place to give parents all of the information they need to determine if they should both have and keep a pregnancy. That includes genetic testing, adequate health education, relationship counseling, etc. We need to focus our efforts on building a comprehensive system to ensure that all pregnancies are desirable pregnancies. The state of women's healthcare in general in the U.S. is atrocious, but the state of men's reproductive healthcare isn't much better. If we want to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies, we need people to be informed and willing participants in parenthood.

2) We lack effective contraception because, even when it's available, many people choose not to use it due to the side effects. Most are uncomfortable, many cause hormonal issues, and some can literally causes bodily harm. We need safe, universal contraceptives - that means for everyone, both men and women. And that pretty much rules out all hormonal and implant contraceptives. If we want to stop abortions, we need people to be informed and willing participants in contraception.

3) Emergencies are going to happen. Whether the mother's life is threatened or the pregnancy is due to rape or incest, there will always be a need for surgically removing a child before birth. If we want these events to stop being abortions, then we need to fund research into new methodologies for performing surgically assisted live births. When there is no longer ever a need to kill the baby in the process of terminating a pregnancy, then we can stop having abortions.

 

All three of these things require that we fund and support medical research into human reproduction. The main problem is that many Pro-Life advocates are also against contraception and sex education. And the policies and social norms that arise from those stances are the primary factors in creating new abortions. So they target abortion as something that is obviously wrong.

 

Thank you ... that was a very nice read ... and I guess what I was looking for with the posted question.

To stop the abortion question from even arising , should be the goal. Not a taboo tag , or I guess Wall to not cross.

I wonder what the numbers of abortions to children/people kidnapped/enslaved per year are ?

And to keep that quota up or growing . More children born into ignorance = = more pliable slaves available. simple math ...

And to counter act that direction it is easier teaching them than shielding them . You know ... like with a wall or sumthin :tongue:

[kvnchrist]

Pro-choice is just another sugar-coated phrase those who support this ideal have come up with to make this stance sound more palatable. It's a shell game with words, which in itself shows the inability of those on the pro abortion side of fence to even be honest about their own ideals. It's the removing of something that is not desired at the present time. You can demonize or exult the action and or what lead up to this action all you want but the responsibility lies with they who have brought about this situation. Fault or intentions are irrelevant when it comes to taking care of a situation that those evolved are in. Resolution is a process of weighting the options and determining a path.

 

If another party wishes to step in and interfere than that party needs to step up to the plate with an offer that would make the experience beneficial to the person or persons enduring what needs to be done to satisfy all parties . If not then they themselves are not being as responsible for their actions as they claim others should be.

 

There is an old saying that once you save a life you are responsible for that life. I couldn't care less about the politics involved, If the fetus had a vote and a voice outside the womb the politicians would treat it like the plague.

 

The two sides of this issue stand on their own ideals which they should uphold in their own lives and leave others to determine the coarse of their own actions.

[RGMage2]

I don't have a side in this discussion, but I do think it just gets wackier and wackier.

 

Alabama: pregnant woman shot in stomach is charged in fetus's death ...

[HeyYou]

 

I don't have a side in this discussion, but I do think it just gets wackier and wackier.

 

Alabama: pregnant woman shot in stomach is charged in fetus's death ...

 

Yeah, I saw that article. Basically, the pregnant lady started the fight, and escalated it. I don't know if she had a weapon as well, but, the gal that shot her went before a grand jury, and no charges were filed. (even though she shot the other gal 5 times, in the abdomen......) So I am guessing it was ruled 'self-defense'..... I think what this boils down to is punishing someone for being stupid. Not that being stupid is actually illegal........

[HadToRegister]

 

I don't have a side in this discussion, but I do think it just gets wackier and wackier.

 

Alabama: pregnant woman shot in stomach is charged in fetus's death ...

 

 

 

Good old Talibama

Christian Ol' Sharia Law for the people.

 

Talibangelicals and the Republicans they vote in, have completely lost their minds.

[Harbringe]

 

 

I don't have a side in this discussion, but I do think it just gets wackier and wackier.

 

Alabama: pregnant woman shot in stomach is charged in fetus's death ...

 

 

 

Good old Talibama

Christian Ol' Sharia Law for the people.

 

Talibangelicals and the Republicans they vote in, have completely lost their minds.

 

 

 

So what are you saying here.

 

Just as an example say it was a random person just walked up and shot the woman in the stomach , killing the baby that was wanted , should the perpetrator be charged for murder or not. Or better yet its just a guy who doesn't want to be stuck raising the baby , so assaults the woman ,beating her stomach. So for prosecution charges is that a baby that died or is it just a blob of cells.

 

I'm just saying it this way cause I'm not sure what angle your taking on it.