Woman's Choice

[DealzOnWheelz]

I hear this phrase thrown around so loosely

"it's the womans choice to abort the child"


My thoughts

"It was the womans choice not to use Birth control"
"it was the womans choice not to use a condom"
"it was the womans choice not to take the morning after pill"


and if it is okay for the woman to choose to put a drug into her body to KILL her FETUS

Then why are drugs illegal when I'm only hurting myself???

I always get a confused look out of the people that use this argument

Noone can really answer it

[dircha]

Oh dear.

[Menthol Patch]

The fact is child is a human life.

Abortion is murder and should be banned by the states.

[angelatc]

Lots of people can answer it.

[ronpaulyourmom]

The fact is child is a human life.

Abortion is murder and should be banned by the states.

When does it become a human life though? Conception? 12 weeks? birth?

I vote for 12 weeks...

[MsDoodahs]

The most basic property right is ownership of your own body.

That's what your question is getting to.

I don't think many people think about the application of "choice" to other areas, so when you apply it, they get confused.

:)

[sedele]

and if it is okay for the woman to choose to put a drug into her body to KILL her FETUS

Then why are drugs illegal when I'm only hurting myself???



Word son.

[Wyurm]

I'm voting for Ron Paul and I'm pro-choice. I will qickly explain 2 things 1) I am actually against most abortion, however, in the case of rape I am 100 pct for allowing someone to make that decision for themselves. If the law were to state that its only ok in the case of rape, then a woman would have to prove she was raped which could extend longer than the first trimester. 2) Dr. Paul is pro-life, however, he would leave this decision up to the states. This is a very responsible and appropriate way of dealing with this issue.

As for anyone posting below. This is a super touchy subject for both sides, please do your absolute best to keep all aguments for and against respectful.

[voisine]

Murray Rothbard's argument is that even if the fetus is a person, it doesn't matter because the woman can't be forced by the state to use her body to support the life of another, even though not doing so is immoral.

This is an interesting argument, but it raises several problems. If we extend this principle to infants, you would have to say that it should be perfectly legal for a parent to leave a child crying in the crib until it dies, since you can't force them to support the child with their time and labor. Even requiring them to call a charity to take the child would be an imposition on the parent by the state.

I would argue that there is an implied contract between a parent and child for the parent to care for the child at least until it can be handed over for adoption. This is similar to the implied contract you enter into when you sit down at a restaurant. You've signed nothing, you don't even have and explicit verbal contract, yet it is absolutely theft to leave without paying. By the same argument, when you take action to create a child, you are entering into an implied contract to provide for the child's basic needs at least until you can give it for adoption.

[literatim]

When does it become a human life though? Conception? 12 weeks? birth?

I vote for 12 weeks...

When it has its own unique DNA which is immediately upon fertilization.

[RevolutionSD]

I try to avoid the abortion topic with people because it's a distraction issue. MOST states would not make abortion illegal under a Ron Paul presidency. The single-issue voters drive me nuts because they can't see the big picture. They would rather have hillary clinton in there fighting wars overseas, taxing the hell out of us, continuing the federal reserve scam, as long as abortion is legal in all 50 states. I'll never understand this attitude.

[VRP08]

Those abortion debates never go well.

[RevolutionSD]

Those abortion debates never go well.

I know, too emotional.

[AlexMerced]

Your Life, and Your Body are your property, so the womens property rights are being infringed, yet so is the childs if you terminate it.

So there is no right side, it's a very example of two people property being infringed on each other from this side.

But then there is the issue of autonomy, most agree rape is fair instance to allow the choice to be made cause it's violation of autonomy. In your typical abortion which is primarily what this argument is about no autonomy has been violated.

The moral argument is wide open for the question "by what standard of morality?"

The definition of life argument is iffy, because all human tissue is essentially alive, so then life never begins or ends. So then you must define it as when does human life begin but this undermines animal rights if your an animal rights person. I think most people can agree the things is alive during the 2nd and third trimester.

Ok, so if we make this womens rights issue, and you allow 2nd and 3rd trimesters it then sets precedence that womens rights supercede those of man and a child and life itself... which a little presumtuous.

If we attack from the privacy issue... well, that is a property thing and then the child has the same right, so who's rights take precedence.

In most situations thinking to court cases involving children of all types usually the court rules in favor of what's in the childs best interest, you see this precedence set in divorce and chid abuse cases all the time.

other will say, why does it matter, we're overpopulated and these moms can't take care of the children. This is a super flawed argument, this implies that child must be born into an "optimal" living environment to have a life worth living, which is similar to the argument against gay adoption... which is ludicrous. Who here has lived in an optimal child environment, the existence of one is fallacy.

As far as overpopulation, the better route would be legalizing euthanasia cause that would be improving autonomy not hurting it. This would take care of this supposed overpopulation and plus open jobs, and improve productivity.

Although I wouldn't worry about overpopulation destroying the earth, the fossil record shows earth will survive a long time after we're gone.

Bottomline:

= Abortion isn't murder, terminating the fetus is, Abortion is only terminating the pregnancy.
- Murder isn't absolutly wrong as shown in self-defense cases and military action.
- It is an act of violence so it should be settle in the states.
- No ones rights supercedes another, that's the who point of property rights
- violations of autonomy most people can empathize with

anything I missed?

[literatim]

"Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual." - Ron Paul, "Being Pro-Life Necessary to Defend Liberty," LFL Reports: #1, (1981).



To conceive and then abort one's child — even by mere eviction — is to turn conception into a deadly trap for the child. It is to set her up in a vulnerable position that is virtually certain to lead to her death. Conception followed by eviction from the womb could be compared to capturing someone, placing her on one's airplane, and then shoving her out in mid-flight without a parachute. The child in the womb is like a captive; she is in the situation involuntarily, and she cannot fend for herself. A captive is not trespassing on the captor's property, by definition. (Evicting or abandoning one's child cannot be regarded as releasing her from captivity, because this does not terminate childhood inability.)


http://www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html

[ronpaulyourmom]

When it has its own unique DNA which is immediately upon fertilization.

A human hair follicle has unique DNA but that doesn't make it life...

I would agree that the mass of cells in the first trimester has a high potential of becoming full blown human life in a short period of time, but I reject the notion that this constitutes life based solely on this high probability of success.

If you buy into spontaneous evolution as I do, then given enough time and circumstance, there are a lot of rocks floating around in space (or here on earth) that will eventually become a source of life, even if it's billions of years from now. Measured across infinite time, a rock has just as much likelihood as an embryo of bringing about sentient life. A life at conception argument then necessitates that we protect rocks as if they were babies, because we cannot use the idea of short time-frames, those easily perceivable by our minds, as a foundation for an objective argument on reality, as our minds do not define reality.

Because of my inability to accept 'potential' as a definition of sentient life, I seek out another measuring stick. One that I can digest is that sentient life, the kind of life worth protecting, begins at self-awareness. Right now science seems to suggest that self-awareness begins around 12 weeks...

I don't expect you to fully agree, in part because you may believe in the idea of a soul, and see it as something separate from the body, as opposed to its more traditional meaning. As an atheist I reject that as well, but I simply say all of these things to point out that not everybody falls into the category of 100% pro-life and 100% pro-choice. Some of us operate in the gray area in-between, and our belief is based on more than just "a woman has a right to..." and all that jazz. I would never condone murder, and I consider an abortion after 12 weeks equivalent to murder, under any circumstance.

[frasu]

Those abortion debates never go well.

This is an excellent thread... and it goes well :D

Indeed in person, it is harder to keep your cool, but this is great, given that all sides could learn from a debate like this

great points, everybody

[literatim]

A human hair follicle has unique DNA but that doesn't make it life...

A hair is dead and no, it doesn't have its own unique DNA--it's has your DNA. If you leave a hair at crime scene, it will be traced back to you. If you leave a cells containing DNA from the unborn child in the womb, it will not be traced back to you, but will identify as a separate human being that would be your son or daughter.


I would agree that the mass of cells in the first trimester has a high potential of becoming full blown human life in a short period of time, but I reject the notion that this constitutes life based solely on this high probability of success.

Your logic is completely and utterly flawed. What is full blown human life are we talking about? Human as it is labeled in science today is a species which is identified by its DNA. Do you mean a full blown adult human? We are talking about stages of life of a human. The growth of that specific human individual starts at fertilization when the genetic information needed for it is in place like a jigsaw puzzle.


If you buy into spontaneous evolution as I do, then given enough time and circumstance, there are a lot of rocks floating around in space (or here on earth) that will eventually become a source of life, even if it's billions of years from now. Measured across infinite time, a rock has just as much likelihood as an embryo of bringing about sentient life. A life at conception argument then necessitates that we protect rocks as if they were babies, because we cannot use the idea of short time-frames, those easily perceivable by our minds, as a foundation for an objective argument on reality, as our minds do not define reality.


Because of my inability to accept 'potential' as a definition of sentient life, I seek out another measuring stick. One that I can digest is that sentient life, the kind of life worth protecting, begins at self-awareness. Right now science seems to suggest that self-awareness begins around 12 weeks...


Everyone has faith in something, but that is irregardless of what human life is. Life is life. This isn't an argument about when life begins, but when a separate human entity begins.



I don't expect you to fully agree, in part because you may believe in the idea of a soul, and see it as something separate from the body, as opposed to its more traditional meaning. As an atheist I reject that as well, but I simply say all of these things to point out that not everybody falls into the category of 100% pro-life and 100% pro-choice. Some of us operate in the gray area in-between, and our belief is based on more than just "a woman has a right to..." and all that jazz. I would never condone murder, and I consider an abortion after 12 weeks equivalent to murder, under any circumstance.

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

[tjasond]

I think Paul articulated his position best when he was on the Adam Curry podcast (sorry, don't have a link). Basically, it boils down to when you can reasonably prove that a crime was committed; to paraphrase his own words, within the first few days it is impossible to know whether or not an actual life is taken if an abortion takes place. However, once it can be established that a human life is living within the womb, it should be considered the same way as a child living in its parent's house (to kill the child would be a crime). On a separate interview, Paul noted that we have the ability to save fetuses that weigh as little as 1 or 2 pounds. So I think he sees a window where it's acceptable, but that window is several days as opposed to several weeks or months.

I'm just paraphrasing here, so look up that interview from Adam Curry's podcast site if you want to hear his views yourself.

[BillyDkid]

Lets not get in a pointless argument over this. Ron Paul has very strong believes about abortion and he makes a very logical argument, but even he himself has said that the issue is not necessarily always cut and dried and obvious and there is some room for honest debate. The two extreme positions 1) that any and all abortions are nothing but murder and 2)That the only issue is a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body - are both dishonest and counter productive and do nothing toward helping resolve a very difficult issue.

[max]

Have a look at exactly what it is that a woman is "choosing"..

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/a/maryb683/marybrown/graphics/salt.jpg&imgrefurl=http://bellsouthpwp.net/m/a/maryb683/marybrown/salt.htm&h=339&w=343&sz=42&hl=en&start=3&sig2=262tJjjpXlA9iuO_VWwx9Q&tbnid=aXVG3i1wsbWybM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=120&ei=91o_R5-XIJG8gAKqqJXNCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daborted%2Bfetus%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D1 0%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG

[axiomata]

Murray Rothbard's argument is that even if the fetus is a person, it doesn't matter because the woman can't be forced by the state to use her body to support the life of another, even though not doing so is immoral.

This is an interesting argument, but it raises several problems. If we extend this principle to infants, you would have to say that it should be perfectly legal for a parent to leave a child crying in the crib until it dies, since you can't force them to support the child with their time and labor. Even requiring them to call a charity to take the child would be an imposition on the parent by the state.

I would argue that there is an implied contract between a parent and child for the parent to care for the child at least until it can be handed over for adoption. This is similar to the implied contract you enter into when you sit down at a restaurant. You've signed nothing, you don't even have and explicit verbal contract, yet it is absolutely theft to leave without paying. By the same argument, when you take action to create a child, you are entering into an implied contract to provide for the child's basic needs at least until you can give it for adoption.

The whole "famous violinist" analogy that you are hinting it (google it) works quite well to justify abortion in the case of rape but not in other situations.

[dircha]

It always disappoints me when discussion of abortion comes up, because undoubtedly it will veer off into a debate on the morality of the issue in which vague assertions and emotional anecdotes will be exchanged.

The fact is that in practice the scope of the abortion issue in the United States is very well defined in existing law. There is no unconditional right to an abortion in the United States. And the law does not recognize when "life" begins.

The decision in Roe v Wade (which has been further restricted by subsequent decisions) is presently the law of the land in our common law system.

The issue before us not whether abortion is morally right or wrong. The issue before us is not whether Roe v Wade is morally right or wrong. The issue before us is whether Roe v Wade is good law (case law). Preserving or overturning Roe v Wade does NOT address the question of whether abortion is right or wrong. If you believe that those advocating overturning Roe v Wade are thereby suggesting that abortion is morally wrong, you are sorely mistaken and do not understand the issue at hand.

The decision in Roe v Wade explicitly did not address the question of when life begins.

The decision explicitly did not address the question of whether abortion is right or wrong; courts address matters of law, not of morality.

Roe v Wade found, simply:
- There is no overriding state interest in restricting abortion in the 1st trimester.
- There is an overriding state interest in restricting abortion in the 2nd trimester to protect the life of the unborn child.
- There is an overriding state interest in proscribing abortion in the 3rd trimester to protect the life of the unborn child.
- In the court's reasoning, the trimester system compromise was based on the viability of the unborn child.
- The viability of the unborn child is a function of contemporary medical expertise and technology, a point which comes earlier in the pregnancy as expertise and technology progress.
- The court's reasoning also depended upon a recognition of a wide ranging Constitutional right to privacy which does not appear in the language of the Constitution but rather exists as a result of a long series of prior court decisions in our common law system.

[ronpaulyourmom]

A hair is dead and no, it doesn't have its own unique DNA--it's has your DNA. If you leave a hair at crime scene, it will be traced back to you. If you leave a cells containing DNA from the unborn child in the womb, it will not be traced back to you, but will identify as a separate human being that would be your son or daughter.

First of all I'm dealing in the realm of sentient life, not just human life. They should in my opinion all be treated equally. But putting that aside, unique DNA cannot be the barometer. There are a multitude of circumstances under which unique DNA is created, gamma-ray induced genetic mutations being one example. Furthermore, it has been shown that DNA in of itself is not an ironclad blueprint for what constitutes a person. Genes take on different 'expressions' depending on environmental circumstances, and RNA transcription has a dramatic effect on how things work. Additionally the DNA itself changes over time. In other words, you cannot make the argument that a unique strand of DNA encompasses what a human life is; it's simply a building block. To suggest otherwise would be like saying we need to protect cancer cells from destruction, or likewise other similar changes in your DNA / genetic expression / RNA transcription.




Your logic is completely and utterly flawed. What is full blown human life are we talking about? Human as it is labeled in science today is a species which is identified by its DNA.

Debatable. DNA in of itself is not a living thing, so while it may be a necessary component it is not a fulfilling one.



http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html[/url]

I'll poke around, thanks. :)

[foofighter20x]

As I've said numerous times before:

Even upon fertilization, it still takes about another 3-5 days for a woman to become scientifically and medically pregnant (which is recognized across the board as the moment when the fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall).

Until after that point, no chemical changes take place within the woman's body, so she has no way of knowing if she's pregnant or not. As she has no means at that point to assume she is pregnant, the assumption therefore must be to her benefit--i.e. that she is not pregnant. If she is not pregnant, she has every right to prevent pregnancy, which means taking both birth control or the morning after pill, etc.

My opinion, though, is that once the egg implants, the game's over. Carry it to term and give it up for adoption. By all means, 72 hours is plenty of time to take a Plan B pill, even in the case of rape or incest. And that's why such pills should be easily available to purchase over-the-counter.

[Tsoman]

I'm not into judging people or anything like that; I just think it's important to have a consistent philosophy. Anti-War, anti-violence, anti-death penalty, and anti-abortion.



a good portion of the abortion debate centers around "womens' rights".
One thing that I thought of the other day... ~ half of the aborted babies are female. How's that for womens' rights?

[foofighter20x]

I'm wondering why the pro-life movement has never tried to counter the argument of a woman's right by claiming "fetus' rights." It's not a term you hear often in the debate.

[noxagol]

As I've said numerous times before:

Even upon fertilization, it still takes about another 3-5 days for a woman to become scientifically and medically pregnant (which is recognized across the board as the moment when the fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall).

Until after that point, no chemical changes take place within the woman's body, so she has no way of knowing if she's pregnant or not. As she has no means at that point to assume she is pregnant, the assumption therefore must be to her benefit--i.e. that she is not pregnant. If she is not pregnant, she has every right to prevent pregnancy, which means taking both birth control or the morning after pill, etc.

My opinion, though, is that once the egg implants, the game's over. Carry it to term and give it up for adoption. By all means, 72 hours is plenty of time to take a Plan B pill, even in the case of rape or incest. And that's why such pills should be easily available to purchase over-the-counter.

I find this acceptable.


I'm wondering why the pro-life movement has never tried to counter the argument of a woman's right by claiming "fetus' rights." It's not a term you hear often in the debate.

Yeah, good question.

[literatim]

First of all I'm dealing in the realm of sentient life, not just human life.

The idea of sentience cannot be measured. Last I checked all humans have the right to Life, Liberty, and Property, not just "sentient" humans.


They should in my opinion all be treated equally. But putting that aside, unique DNA cannot be the barometer. There are a multitude of circumstances under which unique DNA is created, gamma-ray induced genetic mutations being one example. Furthermore, it has been shown that DNA in of itself is not an ironclad blueprint for what constitutes a person. Genes take on different 'expressions' depending on environmental circumstances, and RNA transcription has a dramatic effect on how things work. Additionally the DNA itself changes over time. In other words, you cannot make the argument that a unique strand of DNA encompasses what a human life is; it's simply a building block. To suggest otherwise would be like saying we need to protect cancer cells from destruction, or likewise other similar changes in your DNA / genetic expression / RNA transcription.


Debatable. DNA in of itself is not a living thing, so while it may be a necessary component it is not a fulfilling one.


It is our genetics, and genetics alone, that separate us from all other species. Our genetics gives us our intelligence, our sentience, and tells us how we grow old and die. Our defects such as natural baldness and heart disease are determined by our genetics as are many of our natural beneficiary traits. We appreciate music because of our genetics, make can compose music because of our genetics. We are who we are because of our genetics, our very personalities are ingrained in it. DNA contains all the information for life.

That life a woman destroys is unique and the odds are close to zero that such a combination of DNA will ever be formed again--all for her convenience.


As I've said numerous times before:

Even upon fertilization, it still takes about another 3-5 days for a woman to become scientifically and medically pregnant (which is recognized across the board as the moment when the fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall).

Until after that point, no chemical changes take place within the woman's body, so she has no way of knowing if she's pregnant or not. As she has no means at that point to assume she is pregnant, the assumption therefore must be to her benefit--i.e. that she is not pregnant. If she is not pregnant, she has every right to prevent pregnancy, which means taking both birth control or the morning after pill, etc.

Just because someone can't physically tell if there is a human being inside them, doesn't mean there isn't. This isn't about a right to 'prevent pregnancy' it is about the right of the innocent to live.


I'm wondering why the pro-life movement has never tried to counter the argument of a woman's right by claiming "fetus' rights." It's not a term you hear often in the debate.

Because there is more stages in pregnancy than just the fetus.

[Kregener]

You cannot "ban" it, anymore than you can pornography, sodomy, or any other sick, twisted personal practice or behavior, because people will get them anyway and it will just create a black market in death.

BUT NOT ONE MORE RED CENT OF "FEDERAL" MONEY FOR A SINGLE ONE!!!!!

[literatim]

You cannot "ban" it, anymore than you can pornography, sodomy, or any other sick, twisted personal practice or behavior, because people will get them anyway and it will just create a black market in death.

BUT NOT ONE MORE RED CENT OF "FEDERAL" MONEY FOR A SINGLE ONE!!!!!

So are you advocating the legalization of all murder?

[Hope]

This is exactly the kind of divisive banter that will only hurt Ron Paul's campaign. We need focus on what brings us together for the cause of liberty, not let ourselves get entangled in wedge issues.

[RonPaulIsGood]

I do not see abortion as a sensitive issue. I see abortion as an economic issue.

The free market can reduce the quantity of abortions by half.

Regulations:
Government regulations of daycare centers prohibit cheap daycare services. Government regulations prohibiting unlicensed daycare services.
Government making expensive adoption licenses.

Education:
One major reason to abort is to spend more time in education. Unfortunately, the education system is bad.
Government forcing students to study in inefficient schools and colleges for many years instead of letting them to start a family. For instance, government forcing students to study useless subjects instead of starting a family.
The number of years to complete education can be greatly reduced without reducing education quality. That's because centrally planned education is inefficient, ineffective, corrupt, slow-paced and expensive.

Monetary policy:
Government using the failed wealth distribution that produces the opposite effect of what is intended to do. People have trouble getting money for the baby. Minimum wage laws, unions, etc. An emperical study has shown that progressive taxes failed to raise the real per capita income for the lower class, but do the reverse. http://www.ipi.org/ipi%5CIPIPublications.nsf/PublicationLookupFullTextPDF/7412EB9AFBB4D28786256B4D00738EBE/$File/PR162-Hartman-Redistribution.pdf?OpenElement

The "inflation tax" damages the poor so they need to abort earlier because their purchasing power for goods and services in constant supply had unexpectively fallen. Prices are inflating for healthcare, insurance, education, housing and other goods and services in constant supply .

Babies born as early as 5 months are able to survive in incubators.

[ronpaulyourmom]

The idea of sentience cannot be measured. Last I checked all humans have the right to Life, Liberty, and Property, not just "sentient" humans.

All humans are sentient, I was expanding to things other than humans, not limiting to a sub-group within humans.



It is our genetics, and genetics alone, that separate us from all other species. Our genetics gives us our intelligence, our sentience, and tells us how we grow old and die. Our defects such as natural baldness and heart disease are determined by our genetics as are many of our natural beneficiary traits. We appreciate music because of our genetics, make can compose music because of our genetics. We are who we are because of our genetics, our very personalities are ingrained in it. DNA contains all the information for life.

Sorry I just don't find this to be scientifically true. We'll have to leave it at that I guess.

[SeanEdwards]

When does it become a human life though? Conception? 12 weeks? birth?

I vote for 12 weeks...

The fetus has a unique human genetic identity at the moment of conception. That's not really debatable, it's a verifiable fact of human biology.

[SeanEdwards]

All humans are sentient

Not really. People in a persistent vegetative state are not sentient.

[ronpaulyourmom]

The fetus has a unique human genetic identity at the moment of conception. That's not really debatable, it's a verifiable fact of human biology.

But you haven't shown that that alone makes it a human life. You seek to personify the genetic makeup by using the word identity, but I stand by my previous arguments on this subject.

[ronpaulyourmom]

Not really. People in a persistent vegetative state are not sentient.

This sort of speaks to the heart of my argument, I'm basically saying that something is not human life unless it is at least sentient. I would have no problems pulling the plug here...