What do you all think?

To be fair, its not my analogy. Its from an essay tittled "In Defense of Abortion" written by Judith someone... Pretty famous feminist philosopher.

At any rate, I'd recommend you read it.

 

I think it is interesting that most of the people who are prochoice actually HAVE children, and have chosen to have them. This eliminates the idea that prochoicers don't like children, or don't care about them.

I also see that a good number of those who are antichoice do not have children, in fact many are incapable of becoming pregnant. Yet, feel they can tell those who can get pregnant what they can and cannot do with their own uteruses.

Interesting.

I think the kidney analogy is a good one. Not perfect, but no analogy can be. Let's put it a different way, let's say that someone needs a kidney and YOU are the only match. If you refuse, the other person will die. Do you have a right to refuse? Does South Dakota have a right to force you to give this person your kidney?

 

So you believe men should have no right in deciding the legality of abortion because we dont have uteruses?

It only works for a rape scenario.

Actually, i'll play along. If i 'accidently' sew myself to this other guy knowing that he will die unless i stay connected to him for 9 months...no i shouldn't be allowed to back out after i've made that 'mistake.'

It really is a silly analogy and it is not one i'd want to use to defend my pro-choice stance.

 

Did I say that? I find it weird that those who have NO IDEA what it is like to be pregnant have such strong opinions about OTHERS having to be, when they don't want to, or can't.

The kidney thing is FAR from a rape scenario. How? Let's say they got the info when you went into the hospital for a routine blood test. Antichoicers always refer to it as a rape scenario BECAUSE it is such a good analogy. MAINLY because most of them would NOT give someone their body parts, or even their time for the life of an other.

Here's the thing, if you are forced to give someone your kidney, your responsibility ends as soon as the surgery is over. A mother's responsibility never ends.

 

Well it sure sounds that way.

This was the actual analogy, so lets use that.

"Say one day you woke up from sleep to find yourself attached at the hip to another person (whose kidneys did not work). In the middle of the night, doctors, without your permission, had attached him to use yours. After 9 months, he would live and be fine, but you would not be able to leave the bed for those 9 months. Would you detach and let him die?"

Yep, that's a rape only scenario. "Without your permission."

If you agree to be attached at the hip allowing another to use your kidney you cannot back out if it will kill him. You accepted that responsibility by agreeing to attach yourself to him. Pro-Lifers would say you agree to said responsibility by having sex. Therefore, the pregnancy, regardless of whether you want it or not, was with your permission.

true, but irrelevant.

 

Dude, where did you get this idea of people sewing eachother to hips?

Do you know what kidney donation is???? They don't sew two people together! They remove a kidney from one person and transpant it into another person. You are taking a perfectly logical and ethical comparison that Maggie is making and making a moronic mockery of it.

As a former student of Bioethics, this particular scenerio is up my alley. What Maggie is saying is is if the government starts telling women that they have to sustain the life of another using their own body,against their will....What's to stop the government from demanding that people have to be unwilling organ donors to also sustain the life of another?

Uncle Bob has diabetes. His kidneys go kaput, they test all of his family and you are his only match. In other words, you don't donate a kidney, Uncle Bob will surely die. You hate the idea of surgery, don't wanna be anesthetized, you would like to hold onto your organs, it's your body..ect...either way, you don't want to donate..it's your body,your choice after all right?

What if some government guy told you that you had no choice because Uncle Bob's right to life supercedes your right to your own body and comfort. Then you are sedated against your will, put under, and then cut open,having your kidney removed. Your life is put in danger and now you have to function on one kidney. For the sake of another life. Are you willing to accept that possibility?

It wouldn't just be kidneys either, they could force blood donation, bone marrow donation, skin graft donations, they could take part of your liver.

Is that the kind of society you want?

To be truly prolife, you have to embrace ALL the aspects of the philosophy. Including the seedy possibilities that could result from a government decision that elevates a fetal right to life above that of the woman who womb it resides in.

It's not so farfetched either, our society is already slipping into one where everyday we are losing more and more of our freedoms.

 

Oh, I'd also like to add that not only have their been some shady organ donation protocals that have been busted in some of the world's top medical establishments...

There have also been "rumors"(because they haven't really be published for a world-wide audience yet) of working on protocals for forced surrogacy...

Forcing women with healthy bodies and uteruses to be implanted with embryos,carry,and give birth to babies for people unable to do so on their own.

It's disgusting to think that people cna find some sort of defense for this.

 

Read posts 40-45. Please. I sure as hell didnt propose the analogy, and i've already said that i think it is silly.

I'll restate: this works for the rape scenario ONLY. Having sex is like signing your name on the dotted line. You have to accept responsibility once you do it.

and i'm sure pro-life people will tell you that the ultimate freedom is lost everytime there is an abortion.

Excuse me, but you're just throwing out some crazy rhetoric out there.

The analogy really isnt that good. It fails for the simple fact that you are comparing a person who put themselves in a position where they have to take responsibility with someone who did not. It really is apples and oranges here.

 

that is pretty sick.

 

Roe v. Wade made it like this:
1st trimester - No regulation of abortion is legal. Abortion will cause minimal physical damage to mother.

2nd trimester - State can only regulate to protect health of the mother. At this point, it may be more dangerous for the woman to have the abortion than the child (physically).

3rd trimester - State can ban abortion, except in case where there is danger to mother's "life or health." Fetus is now viable

That conclusion was reached by bypassing the entire "when does life start" thing, because that is entirely opinion, and people obviously have many different views on it. The mother is a grown, concious human being with memories, emotions, loved ones, and interests. Her rights always trump those of a potential human being. Having a child can impose physical and emotional harm all over the place, especially if the mother can't support it, and it can be to the detriment of her future to have a baby. However, states have an interest in protecting the fetus, so as it becomes more like a human being, with organs and such, and WHEN it's able to live outside the mother, the state can forbid abortion.

I have a couple scenarios for the lifers out there. Please tell me how you would feel about the following (far-fetched)scenarios:

1. B.C. is developed that works by surrounding the egg with a layer of metal, so no sperm can get in.

2. B.C. is developed that works by preventing the cell membrane of the sperm from opening or fusing with the egg once it is inside.

3. B.C. is developed that works by preventing buildup of zygote wall, so multiple sperm can get in and make the zygote completely non-viable because of too many sets of DNA.

4. B.C. is developed that works by preventing egg from dividing once it is fertilized. It stays as one cell.

Part of that is to illustrate that conception is not single thing. It's kinda like how pro-choicers (that I know of) think about the fetus, as in that it's a changing thing.

 

Pro-choicers generally have fewer children and more money than pro-lifers. Read Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood by (pro-choice) Kristin Luker.

First, advances in technology have pushed "viability" into the 2nd trimester. Also, it should be noted that the "health" exception is completely amorphous, under the language of Doe v. Bolton, making it impossible to effectively ban elective 3rd trimester abortions.

Roe v. Wade rests entirely on opinion. It is not the job of the judiciary to set social policy however it sees fit. That authority belongs to the legislative branch of government.

That's just barrier contraception. No problem.

That sounds like a way of making men infertile. It's not abortifacient.

These both tamper with newly created lives.

Conception takes place within 24 hours. Given that there are many simple ways to prevent it from ever occuring, I see no reason to tinker with the actual process itself. Once conception occurs, the "change" you mention is merely a matter of growth and development. Zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus, are not different organisms, but developmental stages of the same life.

 

Indeed. The trimesters were not set up as three months each (I don't think). The markers were as I said before, as the point of change in rates of mothers' fatality, which has also moved closer to the middle since '73, and viability.

The court had ruled previously that there are a number of fundamental freedoms that are major decisions in life that the state cannot legislate. It started out with marriage, with a VA law against interracial marriage. Then conctraception, in Griswold v. CT, where CT had banned the sale or prescription of anything that would prevent conception. Those laws were tossed out because they are not choices for the state to be making, nor anyone but those people involved. Which is why, when parties other than the mother were brought into the decision to have an abortion, the SCOTUS has always required a bypass, so that the choice is the mother's, since it is her life that will be most affected either way.

 

I'm well aware of these novel legal doctrines that the courts have created by fiat. My point is that they have no constitutional basis, aside from the interracial marriage ruling. (Government-enforced racial discrimination is explicitly barred by the 14th Amendment. Abortion was never at issue when this amendment was crafted or ratified.)

 

I would simply like to state my disgust for those who worry about zygotes and have "Choose Life" license plates when they are responsible for 85-100 deaths per year by eating someone else's child.

Regarding the debate however, this will never be solved. Both sides of this debate will probably argue it to the death. However, I do personally find it repulsive that the people who make laws are mostly rich white men- people who will NEVER have to worry about carrying their rapist's fetus/unborn child/whatever word you prefer, never have to worry about whether or not the child support check will come, never have to worry about delievering a child (completely alone!) they do not want.
I feel it is largely just a male dominated issue. I will be damned if I have a daughter and she is raped and is forced BY LAW to carry her rapist's child to term and deliver it. This is why I am pro-choice.
I agree with the desperate need for safe sex education and free access to birth control for ALL people. I think both sides can agree that this would reduce the number of abortions.
Outlawing abortion will not make it go away, it will make it go underground and women will resort to older, dirtier, more unsafe mthods (i.e. clotheshangers). If you believe fetuses and people then you cannot sanely argue that women are not. And with "back alley" abortions, you will be done with the fetus AND the woman carrying it. If we really care about life, we need to consider that the mother is a person as well.

 

????????????????

Roughly 2/3 of committed pro-life activists are women.

What about the other 99% of abortions?

Planned Parenthood's version of "safe sex education" is designed to provide them with a steady supply of abortion customers.

This tiresome mantra has no basis in fact:

http://web.archive.org/web/20021213093126/http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html

http://www.ortl.org/publications/articles.php?articleID=88

 

killing and eating someone else's children-I was referring to the billions of animals we kill each year for food that are just as sentient as any fetus or adult human.

I was also talking about govt position holders, NOT activists. Congress, Senate, etc.

So just ONE percent of abortions are from coerced sex? Highly doubt it. Regardless of that, it is her body.

Sex Education- priving factual non biased info and resources (i.e. birth control pills, condoms, etc) . I did not say anything about providing a steady stream of abortion customers.

Are you arguing that women are not people?

I also clearly stated that this issue would be debated by both sides indefinitely. I do feel your response is not necessaryjust because you disagree with me. I understand both sides of this argument but was simply stating my opinion. As you are yours.

 

its is a beliefe, but pro choice is the only belief that can be made into legislation and not force others to have the same belief. At least people can then decide if abortion is not for them

 

By default, the Supreme Court has presently decided that the unborn are not persons and thereby stripped them of legal protection from the violent killing by abortion. This is hardly a "neutral" position.

 

Bottom line, if we say abortion is illegal, there are going to be a lot of back alley abortions that occur. Things happen and bc is not always effective...even condoms break! And if someone really doesn't want to have the child, coat hangers are going to be the abortion tool of choice. It's terrible and dangerous...women (and men) should have the option...because if they don't, they're going to do it anyway, without the support of doctors and psychologists who are trained in helping these couples.

But, what do you know? You're a guy...you have the easy job.

 

Let's look on this board, or even this thread. Let's see, you have ONE, adopted child, you are prolife.(And I do applaud you for taking in a child, I really do.) I have FOUR natual children, prochoice, six pregnancies, two miscarraiges, and no abortions. Megara has no children, and is prolife. Otter has three (right) children, and is prochoice. We could go on.

Dubya is "prolife" and his wife had ONE, only one pregnancy, two kids. He once said "I've gone to war and I've raised twins, if I had to do one over again, I'd go to war." Hmmm. (Despite the fact, that he never actually WENT to war.)

It is hard to find hard data on this. Most of the prolifers I know have fewer kids (or no kids) than the prochoicers. This, of course is anecdotal, I did read somewhere that womyn who have had children are actually more likely to lean towards prochoice. (Labor did that to them, maybe, ) I'd like to see some hard data, but I know I read somewhere that prochoicers are actually producing more kids.