pro-choice people

[MaC]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

[Ebowed]

The body argument is stupid.  It's like playing a game of "I'm bigger than you."  The woman's older and has more rights than the fetus, so basically if she wants control of her body, she gets control over the fetus' body too.  Complete selfishness is what it is.

[Gabu]

I've never made that argument.  I personally don't agree with it, although I really would rather not get into detail because I've sworn off debating abortion; it gets really stupid really fast.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Women can make about $20,000 by having a pregancy where they give a kid up to a couple that really wants a child, but can't have one.

Obviously if having a 9 month pregnancy and giving birth was such an easy thing, the cost would be lower.

[John Dibble]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

The bolded part is the problem - that's where the view of pro-lifers and pro-choicers differentiates. Pro-choicers don't tend to view the fetus as a human being(many do at later points in the pregnancy, but at least not from conception). This is really a problem when abortion is debated - quite often the opposing sides do not truly understand the opposing viewpoint.

[Inverted Things]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

I'm going to make an argument that is a bit nuts.

Let's say you had a 14 year old who decided to severely hurt his/her mother/father physically. Personally, I'd kick him out of the house. A fetus either is or is going to hurt the mother physically, so treating the fetus as having the same rights as the hypothetical 14 year old means that the mother has the right to kick the fetus out of the house. The fact that it is not viable simply ensures the fetus death. That's where 'the same rights as any other human being' argument gets you.

Like I say, a bit nuts, but there's a kernel of a valid point in there.

[KEmperor]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

The bolded part is the problem - that's where the view of pro-lifers and pro-choicers differentiates. Pro-choicers don't tend to view the fetus as a human being(many do at later points in the pregnancy, but at least not from conception). This is really a problem when abortion is debated - quite often the opposing sides do not truly understand the opposing viewpoint.

Indeed.  The real question is whether you view a fetus as a human being.  I understand the reason why those who do oppose abortion, I would too if I saw it that way.

[angus]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

I agree with you.  I am of the opinion that abortion, at any term and by any method, should remain an option.  As long as you're not asking me to pay for it.  But I do agree that's a shallow way to frame the argument.  And I'm not alone.  I remember Teresa Heinz Kerry saying she cringed when the "feminists" said things like "Keep your laws off my body."  She described it as Low-Brow and misguided and lacking any understanding not only of the other side's arguments, but also of their own side's best arguments.  She gave a long speech about this exactly.  About a year ago.  I remember commenting on it in this forum.  Anyway, I think it's an issue that gets far more attention than it deserves.  From all sides.  But in this case you remind us of the wise words of Ms. Kerry, whom I admire.  So it's a welcome thread.

[David S]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

The bolded part is the problem - that's where the view of pro-lifers and pro-choicers differentiates. Pro-choicers don't tend to view the fetus as a human being(many do at later points in the pregnancy, but at least not from conception). This is really a problem when abortion is debated - quite often the opposing sides do not truly understand the opposing viewpoint.

In the beginning of the birth process you have a fertilized egg. It is a single cell and it has no brain, no nervous system, no ears, no eyes, no arms, no legs, or any of the other features of a person. In my estimation that is not a person. At the other end of the birth cycle there is a fully formed baby, with all of the features that make a person. It is separated from life only by passage through the birth canal. IMHO that is a person and is deserving of the same protection of the law that you and I are. The 64,000 dollar question is at what point does the transition occur?

[John Dibble]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

The bolded part is the problem - that's where the view of pro-lifers and pro-choicers differentiates. Pro-choicers don't tend to view the fetus as a human being(many do at later points in the pregnancy, but at least not from conception). This is really a problem when abortion is debated - quite often the opposing sides do not truly understand the opposing viewpoint.

In the beginning of the birth process you have a fertilized egg. It is a single cell and it has no brain, no nervous system, no ears, no eyes, no arms, no legs, or any of the other features of a person. In my estimation that is not a person. At the other end of the birth cycle there is a fully formed baby, with all of the features that make a person. It is separated from life only by passage through the birth canal. IMHO that is a person and is deserving of the same protection of the law that you and I are. The 64,000 dollar question is at what point does the transition occur?

Yes, that statement pretty much sums up how I feel about the matter. However, many pro-lifers consider another thing that science can't really prove - the soul, and if the soul enters the equation at conception they will consider it a human being. Essentially it can't be proven if there's such a thing, and if so when it enters the body, so the debate will likely never end.

[Snowe08]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

The bolded part is the problem - that's where the view of pro-lifers and pro-choicers differentiates. Pro-choicers don't tend to view the fetus as a human being(many do at later points in the pregnancy, but at least not from conception). This is really a problem when abortion is debated - quite often the opposing sides do not truly understand the opposing viewpoint.

This is very true. I wouldn't argue that it's a tendancy, however - it is absolutley the dividing line, as it seems to me.

It makes no logical sense whatsoever for a person who does not believe the child in utero is alive to be pro life. That's not to say that there are no other grounds to be anti-abortion, which is a different proposition to pro life (see also Susan B. Anthony and most other early feminists, for example, who argued correctly that abortion is violence against women).  Equally, it is indefensible to support unrestricted abortion if you believe that the child in utero is a living human being.

This latter point is why Kerry's position on the matter was so utterly abhorrent: he prooudly claimed on national television that he regarded abortion as murder but that he would do nothing about it, a contention which by force of logic compells him to acknowledge that he supports the murder of 4000 a day.

Any pro life legislation must include provisions, such as those Sen. Snowe offered to the recent partial birth abortion bill, ensuring that an abortion can be carried out to save the life of the mother, but only to save the life of the mother. The goal of pro lifers, in my view, is not to negate the value of the life and rights of the mother, as many liberals contend to be our goal, but rather, to balance those rights against the life and rights of her child.

[Wakie]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

The bolded part is the problem - that's where the view of pro-lifers and pro-choicers differentiates. Pro-choicers don't tend to view the fetus as a human being(many do at later points in the pregnancy, but at least not from conception). This is really a problem when abortion is debated - quite often the opposing sides do not truly understand the opposing viewpoint.

In the beginning of the birth process you have a fertilized egg. It is a single cell and it has no brain, no nervous system, no ears, no eyes, no arms, no legs, or any of the other features of a person. In my estimation that is not a person. At the other end of the birth cycle there is a fully formed baby, with all of the features that make a person. It is separated from life only by passage through the birth canal. IMHO that is a person and is deserving of the same protection of the law that you and I are. The 64,000 dollar question is at what point does the transition occur?

I agree 100%.  I find it overly simplistic to insist that a fertilized egg is a human being.  At the same time I find it horrific to insist that a baby that still hasn't passed through the birth canal isn't a human being.  Abortion should be legal but used rarely.

[Bono]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

I'm going to make an argument that is a bit nuts.

Let's say you had a 14 year old who decided to severely hurt his/her mother/father physically. Personally, I'd kick him out of the house. A fetus either is or is going to hurt the mother physically, so treating the fetus as having the same rights as the hypothetical 14 year old means that the mother has the right to kick the fetus out of the house. The fact that it is not viable simply ensures the fetus death. That's where 'the same rights as any other human being' argument gets you.

Like I say, a bit nuts, but there's a kernel of a valid point in there.

When you get pregnant, you are signing a contract with the faetus that you will feed him and carry him around through the next 9 months. Carrying him around obviously accounts for teh kicks, that will not severely hurt the mother, unlike your red herring wants us to think.

[angus]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

The bolded part is the problem - that's where the view of pro-lifers and pro-choicers differentiates. Pro-choicers don't tend to view the fetus as a human being(many do at later points in the pregnancy, but at least not from conception). This is really a problem when abortion is debated - quite often the opposing sides do not truly understand the opposing viewpoint.

One RightWingNut, whose posts I don't see anymore, Ms. Kerry, and myself don't, so there are at least 3 people in the world who don't have this problem.  I suspect that there are others.  I think it is quite possible to recognize that a fetus is a human, and still have no ethical qualms with snuffing it out, if economic necessity dictates pregnancy termination as the most viable course of action.  No government should force a pregnant person to abort, nor should it force a pregnant person to carry a pregnancy to term.  There is nothing in the previous compound sentence to indicate that I believe, or don't believe, that abortion is tantamount to killing.  You are simply reading something that isn't there.

[Redefeatbush04]

Milk & Cereal brings up a good point. She can do what she wants with HER body. However in the case of abortion nothing is being done to her body - she can't do whatever she wants with other people's bodies (even unborn people). Using that twisted little logic I could murder some guy and claim that I was doing what I wanted with my body (I wanted my body to make a stabbing motion in his general direction).

Yes I understand that the "fetus" can not survive on its own. If I stopped feeding my 7 month old it would die too.

[Cashcow]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

The bolded part is the problem - that's where the view of pro-lifers and pro-choicers differentiates. Pro-choicers don't tend to view the fetus as a human being(many do at later points in the pregnancy, but at least not from conception). This is really a problem when abortion is debated - quite often the opposing sides do not truly understand the opposing viewpoint.

Good to see someone here is wise enough to understand both arguments. Naturally a libertarian though, Democrats and Republicans can't seem to figure it out.

Yes I understand that the "fetus" can not survive on its own. If I stopped feeding my 7 month old it would die too.

If it's been born, someone else can feed it. Please refrain from ever making such an inane statement in the future. I've heard some pretty terrible pro-life arguments, but that one is easily the worst, and I don't even understand why it's brought up in intelligent debates.

[MaC]

well, I can understand that it's debatable when life begins, but I cannot understand why people use the excuse of "it's my body.  I am against abortion, but I don't think there should be any federal laws in the matter because it will likely cause a "black market" situation where women perform unsafe abortions, which they take huge health risks in addition to destroying the fetus.  Now it may be debatable and almost impossible to determine when the embryo grows into a fetus, and when it has a brain and when it's able to feel pain, but I don't think well ever have an answer as to when the baby being carried has a soul.  In the case of incest or rape, terminating the fetus IS a bad thing, but is justifyable in some cases.  I would still hope that the woman puts the baby up for adoption, but there's nothing I could do in the situation, since the fetus is an accident.  I believe the only time it would be completely justified, yer still wrong would be when it threatens the mother's life.  However, there's still no proof before it happens that the mother will in fact die.  Even though I consider myself pro-life, it's still a very gray area.  My point is that there are many people who use "it's my body" as a diversion fallacy to try justifying their choice, and it's a rather lousy argument.

[migrendel]

Of course such an argument is overly simplistic, and thoughtful people would never use that as a defense of abortion. Personally, I am quite annoyed by all this hair-splitting over when a fetus has legal rights. Either women have this right or they don't.

[John Dibble]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

The bolded part is the problem - that's where the view of pro-lifers and pro-choicers differentiates. Pro-choicers don't tend to view the fetus as a human being(many do at later points in the pregnancy, but at least not from conception). This is really a problem when abortion is debated - quite often the opposing sides do not truly understand the opposing viewpoint.

One RightWingNut, whose posts I don't see anymore, Ms. Kerry, and myself don't, so there are at least 3 people in the world who don't have this problem.  I suspect that there are others.  I think it is quite possible to recognize that a fetus is a human, and still have no ethical qualms with snuffing it out, if economic necessity dictates pregnancy termination as the most viable course of action.  No government should force a pregnant person to abort, nor should it force a pregnant person to carry a pregnancy to term.  There is nothing in the previous compound sentence to indicate that I believe, or don't believe, that abortion is tantamount to killing.  You are simply reading something that isn't there.

Wasn't saying it is a universal problem, but it is with a great many people on both sides(and not just in this issue). I find that the key to being a good debater is to understand what my opponent means(makes it easier to grind him into the dust ). The fetus being human or not is an issue with most people on either side, and I'll admit there are exceptions(to give an opposite example, one might discourage abortion because they think it encourages irresponsible behavior, and at the same time not believe a fetus is a human being).

From a libertarian viewpoint, the humanity argument is probably the most important - if the fetus is human, it has self-ownership and you have no right to snuff it out unless it is going to kill you, but if it is not human it is basically the woman's property and she can do as she likes with it. Now, this doesn't mean other arguments shouldn't enter the equation, I'm just pointing out what the central argument is for the majority on either side.

[angus]

Wasn't it Harry Browne who used to say that he was personally against abortion, and would not have the females in his family abort, but that it was not a matter for the state?  And, moreover, though he personally opposed the procedure on the very grounds you suggest, he did not feel the state should restrict.  Thus, he was both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.  I thought that a very Libertarian position.  I think I'm probably neither, but I can certainly try to understand Browne's position.

[Bono]

Wasn't it Harry Browne who used to say that he was personally against abortion, and would not have the females in his family abort, but that it was not a matter for the state?  And, moreover, though he personally opposed the procedure on the very grounds you suggest, he did not feel the state should restrict.  Thus, he was both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.  I thought that a very Libertarian position.  I think I'm probably neither, but I can certainly try to understand Browne's position.

Hans Hermman Hoppe, on the other hand, wants to kill abortionists, but he wants society to do it, not the state.

[angus]

wow.  that's the flip-side.  guess he's not a fan of "Cider House Rules."  I'm a fan of Charlize Theron's ass, but I have to admit I have not heard of Hans.

[Bono]

wow.  that's the flip-side.  guess he's not a fan of "Cider House Rules."  I'm a fan of Charlize Theron's ass, but I have to admit I have not heard of Hans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe

[John Dibble]

Wasn't it Harry Browne who used to say that he was personally against abortion, and would not have the females in his family abort, but that it was not a matter for the state?  And, moreover, though he personally opposed the procedure on the very grounds you suggest, he did not feel the state should restrict.  Thus, he was both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.  I thought that a very Libertarian position.  I think I'm probably neither, but I can certainly try to understand Browne's position.

I'm not too familiar with Harry Brown, but I'll try to take a crack at his logic. I think the thing is he realized that abortion is an issue that is highly philisophical - nobody can prove much if anything regarding it. So, since it is mainly philosophy, there's no reason to get the state involved since individuals can make up their own mind regarding philosophy.

[angus]

Browne I liked.  I voted for a third-party candidate in 2000, but not him.  Still, I liked his positions on a number of issues.  Although my vote isn't usually swayed by a candidate's position on this particular issue either way, as I don't regard it particularly pressing, I did find his position unique among the candidates.  At the time, I thought it was probably mainstream Libertarian.  One thing that I liked in particular is that unlike Bush, Gore, Nader, McReynolds, Buchanan, and Phillips, he actually downplayed the issue.  I also thought that abortion as a non-issue, or at best a minor issue, was mainstream libertarian.