Pro-Choice Arguments

[JediMobius]

There are a few arguments for pro-choice that I have problems with as arguments themselves.

1) In the case of rape, a child would be a constant and painful reminder of the poor woman's trauma. It's given that rape is a terrible crime. However, it is not given (as far as I know) that the child conceived would in fact be an open wound so to speak. Is there evidence that in most, many, or any cases the mother would look upon her newborn child with disgust or pain because of the crime of the father? Wouldn't maternal instinct kick in with unconditional love for the child?

2) Another argument that bothers me is that the man who raped the woman would somehow be able to litigate his way into the child's life and fight for custody. Could that actually happen? If our justice system is actually that messed up, shouldn't that be fixed rather than more or less allowed for the sake of argument?

3) Argument: A woman's body, a woman's choice. Why is the choice of the growing human being ignored?

Edit:

My major problem with argument #1 is when it's used as a reason for all abortions to be legal, not just cases of rape, and by extension incest or mortal danger to the mother.
Argument #2 should not be a reality in a just legal system, and so if it happens should be its own issue, not an excuse for abortion.
I intended argument #3 as separate from rape cases and other extremes.

 

[Archivist]

There are a few arguments for pro-choice that I have problems with as arguments themselves.

1) In the case of rape, a child would be a constant and painful reminder of the poor woman's trauma. It's given that rape is a terrible crime. However, it is not given (as far as I know) that the child conceived would in fact be an open wound so to speak. Is there evidence that in most, many, or any cases the mother would look upon her newborn child with disgust or pain because of the crime of the father? Wouldn't maternal instinct kick in with unconditional love for the child?

Perhaps the "maternal instinct" does kick in in some cases involving rape. The advantage of the pro-choice view is that the final decision rests with the rape victim. The choice to either terminate the pregnancy or give birth rests entirely with her as it should.

2) Another argument that bothers me is that the man who raped the woman would somehow be able to litigate his way into the child's life and fight for custody. Could that actually happen? If our justice system is actually that messed up, shouldn't that be fixed rather than more or less allowed for the sake of argument?

There was recently a case in Indiana where the rapist was given visitation rights. Laws govern custody and visitation are a state matter. There are states where visitation rights would never be be granted to a rapist.

3) Argument: A woman's body, a woman's choice. Why is the choice of the growing human being ignored?

Because a woman who is a victim of rape should not be forced to give birth against her will. Although I know of no case law on the subject, I would think that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term and give birth against her will would qualify as indentured servitude, something that the US Constitution specifically forbids.

 

[sidnee]

There are a few arguments for pro-choice that I have problems with as arguments themselves.

1) In the case of rape, a child would be a constant and painful reminder of the poor woman's trauma. It's given that rape is a terrible crime. However, it is not given (as far as I know) that the child conceived would in fact be an open wound so to speak. Is there evidence that in most, many, or any cases the mother would look upon her newborn child with disgust or pain because of the crime of the father? Wouldn't maternal instinct kick in with unconditional love for the child?

Rape is about the only time that I would consider an abortion strictly a womans choice. I'm sure if "maternal" instinct would kick in at some point. Its possible but that the same time it would be an open wound, as you said. But at the same time, why not adoption? Sure the victim of rape would have to carry the baby to term and give birth, but the child would then be loved by an unbiased family who didnt experience the trauma that the mother did.

2) Another argument that bothers me is that the man who raped the woman would somehow be able to litigate his way into the child's life and fight for custody. Could that actually happen? If our justice system is actually that messed up, shouldn't that be fixed rather than more or less allowed for the sake of argument?
I'm not sure how legit this worry is but if it possible then our government is worse off than even I thought.

3) Argument: A woman's body, a woman's choice. Why is the choice of the growing human being ignored?

It is a womans body, and she is allowed to make choices. If she makes choices and ends up pregnant than imo its no longer just her "right to choice" at stake, but the life of another.

 

[Archivist]

It is a womans body, and she is allowed to make choices. If she makes choices and ends up pregnant than imo its no longer just her "right to choice" at stake, but the life of another.

I assume that since the rest of the OP specifically addresses cases involving rape, this part does as well. Remember, the victim of a rape has not made a choice to end up pregnant?

 

[Archivist]

Rape is about the only time that I would consider an abortion strictly a womans choice. I'm sure if "maternal" instinct would kick in at some point. Its possible but that the same time it would be an open wound, as you said. But at the same time, why not adoption? Sure the victim of rape would have to carry the baby to term and give birth, but the child would then be loved by an unbiased family who didnt experience the trauma that the mother did.

This is exactly why the choice should be left up to the woman. If a woman chooses to carry the child of her attacker to term that's fine, but one should be forced to do so against her will.

 

[sidnee]

This is exactly why the choice should be left up to the woman. If a woman chooses to carry the child of her attacker to term that's fine, but one should be forced to do so against her will.

I agree, And as far as the third question in the OP I was unsure if the question of rape was being carried over there. In the case of rape I think it should be a womans choice. She didnt open herself up to the pregnancy through her own consent to sexual activity and therefore, imo, shouldnt be held responsible for it. But, if it were my choice at question I would choose adoption. One persons pain can be anothers blessing.

 

[Archivist]

I agree, And as far as the third question in the OP I was unsure if the question of rape was being carried over there. In the case of rape I think it should be a womans choice. She didnt open herself up to the pregnancy through her own consent to sexual activity and therefore, imo, shouldnt be held responsible for it. But, if it were my choice at question I would choose adoption. One persons pain can be anothers blessing.

And I admire someone who would be willing to make that choice.

 

[exxxys]

A woman's choices comes before that of a blob with eight cells because she has a life already, and her needs must be met.

 

[sidnee]

A woman's choices comes before that of a blob with eight cells because she has a life already, and her needs must be met.

Give birth, Carry a child. And then call what it once was a "blob" Its more than a blob.

 

[exxxys]

Give birth, Carry a child. And then call what it once was a "blob" Its more than a blob.

Seriously, eight cells. That's not a fetus. A fetus is a baby after three months. An embryo is after it attaches to the wall. Not a child, cells.

 

[acceptjesus]

If she is raped and gets pregnant I believe she has TWO Choices to keep the baby and care for it or give it up for adoption. PERIOD Thy Shall Not Kill, God says he see's us in the woman's womb and knows us. I'm sorry but rape is still not a righteous reason to kill the innocent child.

 

[Archivist]

If she is raped and gets pregnant I believe she has TWO Choices to keep the baby and care for it or give it up for adoption. PERIOD Thy Shall Not Kill, God says he see's us in the woman's womb and knows us. I'm sorry but rape is still not a righteous reason to kill the innocent child.

So you would force a woman who ahs been raped to carry her attackers child? I notice taht you are male, so of course you would never be in that position.

 

[karisma]

3) Argument: A woman's body, a woman's choice. Why is the choice of the growing human being ignored?

This is the only point I'll bother addressing as it encompasses the other two. All people have the right to bodily integrity. No born person has the right to another's blood or organs as it violates their right to bodily integrity. This applies even if it means saving that person's life.

Hypothetical scenario 1: a hemophiliac infant with a rare blood type is born and needs an emergency blood transfusion to survive. Neither parent is required by law to donate blood to save the infant. That baby can bleed to death right in front of the parents and it's perfectly legal, as forcing people to give blood or organs is considered a violation of the right to bodily integrity. No born child has any right to a parent's blood or organs, and in the interest of equal rights, neither can a fetus.

Hypothetical scenario two: an otherwise healthy 18 year old is killed in a tragic accident. This person is not an organ donor. Even though this person's perfectly healthy kidneys, heart, and other organs could be used to save many other lives, it is against the law to take that person's organs, as it would violate their right to bodily integrity. A person can lie dying in a hospital bed while those organs get buried with the person.

As you can see, one individual's right to bodily integrity supercedes another's right to life, even when that violation will save another's life. This right to bodily integrity even applies to the deceased. A person (or the unborn) may have a right to life, but they do not have the right to violate another's right to bodily integrity.

 

[Libre]

Karisma, you have stated the principle here very well. If we can legislate on pregnancy, then we can legislate on other private matters involving a woman's right to choose. The Nazis violated women's bodies. We are not Nazis, but the potential to fall into a very dark place will exist if we try to overturn the right to reproductive privacy. It will probably never be overturned, since after 40 years it is precedent. Not even the most recent liberal judge would vote to do so, citing the reason I just gave.

 

[Eleveness]

This is the only point I'll bother addressing as it encompasses the other two. All people have the right to bodily integrity. No born person has the right to another's blood or organs as it violates their right to bodily integrity. This applies even if it means saving that person's life.

Hypothetical scenario 1: a hemophiliac infant with a rare blood type is born and needs an emergency blood transfusion to survive. Neither parent is required by law to donate blood to save the infant. That baby can bleed to death right in front of the parents and it's perfectly legal, as forcing people to give blood or organs is considered a violation of the right to bodily integrity. No born child has any right to a parent's blood or organs, and in the interest of equal rights, neither can a fetus.

Hypothetical scenario two: an otherwise healthy 18 year old is killed in a tragic accident. This person is not an organ donor. Even though this person's perfectly healthy kidneys, heart, and other organs could be used to save many other lives, it is against the law to take that person's organs, as it would violate their right to bodily integrity. A person can lie dying in a hospital bed while those organs get buried with the person.

As you can see, one individual's right to bodily integrity supercedes another's right to life, even when that violation will save another's life. This right to bodily integrity even applies to the deceased. A person (or the unborn) may have a right to life, but they do not have the right to violate another's right to bodily integrity.

Excellent argument! This is similar to an argument I stated a few months ago, but I was not convinced anyone took it seriously, so I stopped posting. But I can now see that someone cares about the rights of the pregnant woman, so I feel empowered to post again.

The argument in favor of abortion on the grounds of the the rights of the pregnant woman can be condensed as follows:

1. A pregnant woman is a human being.
2. All human beings have ownership rights over their own body (what you call "bodily integrity").
3. It follows from #1 and #2 that a pregnant woman owns her own body.
4. A person's blood is part of his or her body.
5. It follows from #3 and #4 that a pregnant woman owns the blood in her body.
6. A person's blood contains nutrients that are to be spent only in accordance with its owner's wishes. No one other than the owner has the right to decide how the nutrients in his or her bloodstream are spent, regardless of whether another's life depends on the nutrients in that bloodstream.
7. It follows from #5 and #6 that a pregnant woman has the exclusive right to determine how the nutrients in her bloodstream are spent, even if her decision results in the death of someone else.
8. The life of the fetus inside the pregnant woman depends upon the nutrients in the bloodstream of the pregnant woman.
9. It follows from #7 and #8 that the pregnant woman has the exclusive right to determine whether the nutrients in her bloodstream are spent on the life of the fetus.

Believe me: I really, truly, honestly don't know how to make the argument any clearer that that. If it was tedious to read, believe me--it was tedious to write, but I wrote it in such a way to make it as clear and airtight as possible. I truly cannot find any flaw in the above argument; I encourage the reader to try and find a flaw.

If there is no flaw, then we may conclude, once and for all, that a pregnant woman has the right to abort if she so desires. Whether or not the fetus has any rights is absolutely irrelevant; even if the fetus is a human being, and even if it has all of the rights of a 21-year-old (ha!), it still does not have the right to deprive its mother of her property, which includes the nutrients in her bloodstream. No one has the right to deprive a person of their property--not even a fetus.

 

[sidnee]

If there is no flaw, then we may conclude, once and for all, that a pregnant woman has the right to abort if she so desires. Whether or not the fetus has any rights is absolutely irrelevant; even if the fetus is a human being, and even if it has all of the rights of a 21-year-old (ha!), it still does not have the right to deprive its mother of her property, which includes the nutrients in her bloodstream. No one has the right to deprive a person of their property--not even a fetus.

One thing I ask, at what point does the woman have to take responsibility for her actions? When a woman has consentual sexual intercourse she ALWAYS runs the risk of becoming pregnant. This fetus isnt an uninvited guest coming to crash her party. SHE made choices which involved the risk of pregnancy and imo killing the fetus simply because its her "right" is (1) Wrong based on the rights of the INVITED fetus, and (2) An attempt to run from the consequences of ones actions. In rape it is a different story imo. But in consentual sex the fetus is not usurping its mothers rights, its simply doing what it was invited/created to do.

 

[Libre]

The "private property" aspect of one's physical body has legal basis, as I understand it, though it seems a bit over the top. On the other hand, we don't take blood or organs without consent. And the real problem with denying abortion is that it opens the door to other violations of one's person.

 

[icarus62]

The circumstances in which a woman gets pregnant are entirely beside the point. It's not appropriate for me or anyone else to judge whether a woman's reasons are 'good enough' for her to have an abortion - that's for her to decide. What matters is whether the abortion involves killing what is essentially a featureless blob of cells (which surely cannot have rights which supersede those of the parents), or whether it involves killing something that is indistinguishable from a newborn baby (which cannot be any different from murdering a newborn baby). Therefore, the only way to deal with this is to set a time limit and say that abortion is acceptable only up to a certain stage of development, which is what most civilised countries have opted to do.

 

[Eleveness]

(Someone in another thread said that it was recently announced that atheists aren't allowed to post in this forum. I looked for such an announcement, but couldn't find one. I apologize in advance if I'm not supposed to post here, but if I can post, I'd like to. )

One thing I ask, at what point does the woman have to take responsibility for her actions? When a woman has consentual sexual intercourse she ALWAYS runs the risk of becoming pregnant. This fetus isnt an uninvited guest coming to crash her party. SHE made choices which involved the risk of pregnancy and imo killing the fetus simply because its her "right" is (1) Wrong based on the rights of the INVITED fetus, and (2) An attempt to run from the consequences of ones actions. In rape it is a different story imo. But in consentual sex the fetus is not usurping its mothers rights, its simply doing what it was invited/created to do.

Ahh, the problem with this reasoning is that it's possible to have sex for reasons other than for procreation. Sex among lesser animals has only one purpose--procreation, but sex between consenting humans could have multiple purposes.

The most common reason why humans have sex seems to be to express the love that each partner has for each other. The two partners have very strong feelings for each other (that lesser animals are incapable of possessing), and sex is the most effective way to communicate those feelings. If we prohibit abortion, we may as well prohibit sex altogether, since (as you point out) a woman always runs the risk of becoming pregnant when she has sex (even if she's on birth control, even if the man has had a vasectomy).

There's nothing more quintessentially human than true love. If we prohibit abortion, we cripple a person's capacity to express feelings of love to his or her partner. Does that sound right?

 

[sidnee]

(Someone in another thread said that it was recently announced that atheists aren't allowed to post in this forum. I looked for such an announcement, but couldn't find one. I apologize in advance if I'm not supposed to post here, but if I can post, I'd like to. )



Ahh, the problem with this reasoning is that it's possible to have sex for reasons other than for procreation. Sex among lesser animals has only one purpose--procreation, but sex between consenting humans could have multiple purposes.

The most common reason why humans have sex seems to be to express the love that each partner has for each other. The two partners have very strong feelings for each other (that lesser animals are incapable of possessing), and sex is the most effective way to communicate those feelings. If we prohibit abortion, we may as well prohibit sex altogether, since (as you point out) a woman always runs the risk of becoming pregnant when she has sex (even if she's on birth control, even if the man has had a vasectomy).

There's nothing more quintessentially human than true love. If we prohibit abortion, we cripple a person's capacity to express feelings of love to his or her partner. Does that sound right?

This is void imo, Yes birth control can fail. I've been there. It does. But, killing the by product of your "love expressions" Imo is just not right. There is always adoption, Do you realize how many infertile couples in America alone are waiting to adopt? Its a better option, What one couple sees as an unfair curse another will percieve as a blessing. I can not, nor will I ever agree that abortion is justified when the woman was a consenting adult. It isnt "crippling" ones capacity to express their love, its asking them to be responsible for such actions, which imo is not to much to ask.