If you are pro-choice, does my argument make sense to you?

Question

I want to approach this subject with sensitivity and respect. I have known many good people who support a woman's right to choose. I do not think that abortion should be illegal, I just think that an unborn child has rights, too.

If you are pro-choice, I respect that. Perhaps you are an advocate of animal's rights, as well. Although I think that there needs to be a very clear distinction made between a human baby and an animal, there are some similarities between the two. Both of them are totally innocent. They can't do wrong, because they don't know any better. Both of them are fragile, and we should treat them with love and dignity. An animal should not be ill-treated just because humans are arguably more intelligent and sophisticated than animals. Technically speaking, humans are animals. But I personally see something greater in humans than in other animals. We are special in a way, because we can create and destroy. We can build things or tear them down. We can make life on this planet better or worse in ways that no other animal could.

Since animals are innocent and cannot speak, I believe that someone should stand up for their rights. Very similarly, I believe that since an unborn baby cannot speak, that someone should also stand up for its rights.

Does my argument make any sense at all? Please respond. I thank you in advance.

Answer 1

I notice that your pro-abortion respondents do violence not just to prenatal babies, but to the facts. But that is understandable. They hate to think of themselves as genocidal killers, willing to send innocent living human individuals to death.



However, there is no getting around that fact that the growing child in the womb is a living human individual. Were she dead or inanimate, she would not grow. Were she anything but human, some other species would emerge at birth. Were she not an individual, she would not have a unique DNA identity. Clearly, the defenders of abortion will not change these facts.



But a personal note to you: If you do not think abortion should be illegal, what sense is there in speaking of human rights? The purpose of government is to secure our rights.



Cheers,

Bruce

Answer 2

You say that you don't think abortion should be illegal, but that an unborn child has rights, too . . . except that this doesn't make sense. If you have rights, violating those rights mean the violation is illegal. Otherwise, if it's legal, you don't have the rights. You can't have it both ways. You can be personally opposed to abortion and support its legality, but by definition, that *does* mean you believe fetuses do not have a legal right to life.



Does your argument make sense? Yes, but it's not a very good comparison. Animals are not living in someone's uterus (unless we're talking about animal fetuses) . . . abortion is a unique situation because pregnancy takes place inside someone else. If you believe embryos and fetuses have certain rights (and most pro-choice people do not), then you at the very least have to acknowledge that you then have two competing sets of rights within the same body. An animal is not comparable to this situation- it is just one set of rights in its own body.



Hope that helps.



EDIT: @010: "Someone who is pro choice usually says a woman has rights what she can do to her body. But the problem with that is we all have free will to do anything to anyones body. That doesn't mean its right. Just because I have a hand doesn't mean I can go and hit people?"



Dude, when you hit a person, you're using your body to attack their body. Abortion ain't the same- you're having a procedure done on your body. Hell, the abortion pill acts *only* on your body, by blocking your progesterone receptors so that your body doesn't receive progesterone, the hormone necessary to maintain the uterine lining.



"They don't want to have a kid and they use it as a form of birth control."



Sorry, but nope. A majority- 54%- of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Only 8% of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html ).



"And if you were raped or cannot provide its called adoption."



Please see my response here: https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20110614210003AAN4Uwm



"Don't be sexual, wear certain clothing, make gustures to lead sex on and end up getting supposedly raped or putting yourself in a bad environment where you know sex will happen."



F*ck you, you victim-blaming piece of sh*t.

Answer 3

Oh, Guardian, you certainly got a lot of answers.



Every day I see women and children in a medical setting, and some of them are good, caring, intelligent mothers but many are careless, distracted, and aren't nurturing the minds of their children. Most of these careless mothers are too young themselves, more interested in texting their friends than in keeping an eye on the child.



How many of those little people will grow up without a solid connection to love and the value of the human heart?

I would wonder if the mothers who choose to end a pregnancy aren't at the point in their lives when they can't really give 100% to the raising of a little life. Perhaps later, when their lives are in order, would be a better time for the children they might have.



The mother who ends one pregnancy may go on to have four children in her lifetime, and I would hope that the love she can show those remaining children will be great, and that she will live for them and through them. So I will reserve judgment on the lives of women. Sometimes all things work together for good.

Answer 4

Here's the essential difference: Pro-choicers don't believe that an eight week embryo is a "baby" or a human being entitled to all the rights an already-born human has. The part of the brain that is uniquely human won't develop until around 20 weeks gestation.



Through history, religions have defined the beginning of life in different ways. To many ancient people (including Jews) life began when an infant took its first breath (the "breath of life"). To the medieval church, life began at quickening. Other cultures have defined the beginning of life as the point where the fetus could live outside the womb. The idea that life begins at the moment of conception is a fairly recent invention.



So arguing about the rights of "babies" is meaningless to someone who doesn't accept your definition of "baby" as anything back to a fertilized egg.

Answer 5

I appreciate your sensitivity. As a meat-eater, I am aware that animals are slaughtered so that we may consume them. Naturally I would prefer this to be done in the most humane way possible, but since I cannot be personally present I must suspend my judgment and imagination on the subject. But animals and humans do NOT have equal rights, so I feel it is an invalid comparison.



I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I feel that every woman has the right to choose her medical treatment, and whether to carry a fetus to full term; whatever choice she makes should be fully supported. I would hate to return to the days of backstreet abortions by hacks.

Answer 6

I agree with your conclusion that someone should stand up for the rights of the unborn. However your argument does not work. You are relying on the existence of animal rights. But animals have no rights. I believe that cruelty to animals is wrong, but not because animals have rights. It is wrong because it is inhumane. It is wrong because it is inhuman.



Your argument might be effective, because it appeals to the heart. No sane person would disagree that animals need protection. But it fails as an appeal to the head.

Answer 7

While I respect your argument, I must disagree. A woman might lose a child through miscarriage or mishap (strangulation with the cord, amniotic sac bursting prematurely, etc.), or even if a fertilized egg fails to attach to the uterine wall, so you have to be careful how you define such a rule giving a fetus rights. If you give a fetus all of the rights of a fully formed human being, a woman who loses a fetus through natural means could be arrested, tried, and convicted of murder.



Essentially, giving a fetus complete human rights is a short-sighted attempt to block abortion through other means that could have other consequences that aren't being thought of.



To me, it makes more sense just to keep the law the way it is. If you don't like abortion, then don't have one. It's your choice. And, you can use your protected freedom of speech to peacefully speak out against it, and maybe convince others not to have them, too.

Answer 8

I am pro choice, but I hate abortion. I think abortion should always be the last resort. I just don't see where I have the rights to force myself into a situation that belongs between a woman and her doctor. I do think they should teach children fetal development in the early years of school. I am tired of the "it's just a parasite of a lump of cells" rhetoric. It is killing. However: It is also killing when a woman goes to a back alley coat hanger scenario, and dies.

Answer 9

Your argument sounds great (((((MG))))).



As one who considers herself middle-of-the-road concerning abortion, I agree with every point you have made.



While I would never wish to see a woman be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, I would like to see more personal responsibility. In this modern age, there is little excuse for an unwanted pregnancy.



Back when my children were conceived, we didn't have access to what women have available today. If we found ourselves pregnant, we had our babies... Then we either chose to raise them or gave them up for adoption. I chose to raise my boys, and not one of those pregnancies was planned. The birth control in those days didn't always work, lol. Especially since high blood pressure kept me off the pill...



Women have rights. Unborn children have rights. Women have a responsibility to themselves, their bodies, and the children they carry...



As I've stated, there is little excuse for an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion as a method of contraception (and I know a few who have done this)... Well, abortion for that reason seems wrong.



Great seeing you again (((((MG))))).



Long live your queen... ;)

Answer 10

I get what you're trying to say, and I thank you for the sensitivity and respect that went into your question, but I think there's one place where you're taking a wrong turn.



I'm willing to give you, for the sake of argument, that the fetus is a human being with all the commensurate rights. But that still doesn't give it the right to occupy another person's body without her consent. *No person* has that right. No person has the right to possess or utilize any part of your body against your will -- not even to save their own life. To suggest that a fetus's right to live trumps the right of the woman carrying it to control her own body is actually to assign *more* rights to a fetus than born people enjoy. Is it horrible, sad, and unfair that a fetus's life support systems are attached to a woman who may not consent to host it? Of course it is. But that doesn't give the fetus the right to override her consent for its own sake.



In other cases, the sanctity of a person's body and one's agency over it are prioritized over the right to life. There was a court case, McFall v. Shimp, in which a patient with a fatal bone marrow disease required a bone marrow transplant in order to save his life, and the only compatible donor refused to consent to the donation procedure. The court ruled that it could not override the donor's will and force the donation procedure on him, even to save a life. All blood and tissue donations in this country are strictly voluntary; they can't even harvest your organs after you die unless you've given your explicit prior consent to become an organ donor. As pregnancy is an even more invasive process than blood or bone marrow donation, I don't see how it can be legitimately made an exception to this rule.



No one is saying that a fetus isn't innocent, or that we don't have compassion for the terribly dependent position it's in. But it doesn't have the right to use a woman's body against her will, even to sustain its life. If a woman chooses to extend her consent to allow a pregnancy to come to term, great. If she doesn't, that's her right.



Does that make sense?

Answer 11

I agree with you. Someone who is pro choice usually says a woman has rights what she can do to her body. But the problem with that is we all have free will to do anything to anyones body. That doesn't mean its right. Just because I have a hand doesn't mean I can go and hit people? And the whole rape thing or unable to take care of a child is first of all most people use abortion because they are selfish. They don't want to have a kid and they use it as a form of birth control. Not alot of people are getting in done because of rape. And if you were raped or cannot provide its called adoption. Don't have sex if you don't want the risk or responsibility of a child. Simple. Don't be sexual, wear certain clothing, make gustures to lead sex on and end up getting supposedly raped or putting yourself in a bad environment where you know sex will happen. People put themselves is those predicaments, take responsibility, and deal with consequences!

Answer 12

So long as an embryo is a parasite for 9 months, dependent on life support from a host, then the host gets to decide who lives off her body resources or not. No one should be forced to destroy their life due to the rights of a zygote which cannot independently sustain its own life. They don't get to have rights when they interfere with the rights of humans who are self-sustaining.



If I decided arbitrarily to spend the rest of my life hanging on piggy-back style to your back, do I get to do so. Should my rights be honored? Or would that be an intrusion into your personal space and rights? Whose rights should prevail? I love, love, love children, am a teacher, was only able to have 1 child of my own, suffered 10 miscarriages, and yet, I believe that each child should be dearly wanted by their parents before being born. You cannot and should not ask that a woman be held hostage to her own body and suffer all sorts of negative consequences for having an unwanted birth. Of course, society has to do a lot more to better educate women so they get pregnant less by accident, but as long as we have interference from the word's religions, denouncing birth control, then this situation will continue to be a tenacious one. Overpopulation is a serious issue--it threatens to end civilization as we deplete resources and fight over them. Let's get religion's hold off people, get people educated and give them access to birth control....until then, protect your own body and leave your controls off mine. Hope this provides you with some insight into how the other side thinks.

Answer 13

No, it doesn't.



An animal is a sentient being. A fetus is not:



"A Fetus Is “Innocent”:



The claim is frequently made that it is wrong to kill a fetus because it is "innocent". This, like calling a fetus a "baby", or referring to abortion as "murder", or claiming that abortion is immoral because it "stops a beating heart", or so many other Lifer arguments, is based purely on an attempt to sway others through emotion, because the second you actually apply logic to this claim, or any one of the others I mentioned, it collapses into a crumpled wad of absurdity.



A fetus is a nonsentient being. It doesn't possess the capacity to be either innocent or guilty of anything. Claiming that a fetus is "innocent" is as idiotic as me claiming that my toaster is "innocent". Well, sure, my toaster isn't guilty of anything. But then again, my toaster is incapable of thought, so it is logically incapable of being guilty or innocent at all. A fetus possesses exactly the same level of sentience as a toaster, so pretending that a fetus has the capacity to be innocent, much more that it actually is innocent, is the result of either willful obfuscation, or of someone who hasn't really thought the concept all the way through."



--From: "Abortion": https://sites.google.com/site/alexisbrookex/abortion





Addendum: MortalGuardian - You always approach subjects such as these in a civil and thoughtful manner, which is one reason it's always a pleasure to engage in the topics you bring up.



The article in the link above is, admittedly, quite lengthy, and would probably take even a fast reader a good twenty minutes or more to get through in its entirety. Still, I think you'd appreciate it, and the primary reason I originally wrote it is because it forever dispels any confusion or ambiguity regarding not only the reason abortion should be legal but why it is not an immoral act.



If after reading it there is still more you would like to discuss on the issue, I would of course be happy to.

Answer 14

Here's the thing.



Animals are independent beings.

They can survive without us, and in fact most would survive best without us.

They are not inside of a person's uterus or using a person's body.

Their very existence is not a threat to basic human rights.



One of the most basic human rights is right to bodily integrity.

This means, I decide what happens to my body.

I decide what I eat, what medical care I receive, and whether I'm willing to donate blood, organs, etc.



One person's right to life does not trump another person's right to bodily integrity.

Aka, no one can force me to give up blood, or organs, or any part of my body even to keep another person alive.

If I wish to donate my blood, organs, or body then that's fine. That's my right, and I've consented to it.



But no person has a right to another person's body.



So whether you consider a fetus a person or not, it has no right to life.

Because it can not sustain life without taking blood and inhabiting the uterus of a person.

And if that person has not consented or withdraws their consent to it being there, then it has to go.



I understand what you're saying, it simply has no real standing with logic, laws, or human rights.

Answer 15

No. As long as person can't be forced even to donate blood to save somebody else, a woman should not be forced to carry a fetus that she doesn't want.



If you really cared about people, you'd be working to help save the millions of already living people who are starving every year.

Answer 16

Standing up for animal rights does not involve impinging on human rights. Most abortions take place within the first trimester of pregnancy. At that point, it is not a baby - it is a fetus which has no working brain and could never survive without its host. It has no "rights" as we understand them. The one with the rights is the pregnant woman who makes the decision for herself and if standing up for fetuses impinges on a woman's personal choice, then it is wrong.

Answer 17

HI Sav.



I appreciate and admire your attempt to be fair on the issue, but I have to wonder how you can "stand up for the rights of the unborn" while still believing abortion should be legal. That's sort of like believing that whites and blacks are equal, but slave ownership should still be allowed.

Answer 18

I don't advocate for animals rights buddy .Americans are aloud to kill some animals for food ,cows,chickens,pigs,lamb,deer,horses,etc.



Yeah if there was a law to banned from killing those animals,there'd be outraged.But when there's a law trying to make abortion illegal everyones hush hush? It's a fetus ,not a child. There's proof of that.

Answer 19

At 3 months it is not a baby. There is no brain, no spinal cord, no nerves. And that is the medical criteria for "life". A heart is basically a pump that can be kept beating with an electrical pulse. The bottom line is, like you said, it's a very personal decision. That's why the government needs to stay out of it. BTW, I don't see all these Pro-Lifers adopting unwanted babies.

Answer 20

A right that an animal has is to be 'put to sleep' when it is ill, a baby foetus should have to right to be terminated when it is not wanted by it's mother. Denying it this right only courses great suffering for it.



Your argument makes no sense because your stance makes no sense, your stance makes no sense because you have not fully looked at the issues.

Answer 21

"Does my argument make any sense at all?"



Not really. It's definitely flawed. And I completely disagree with your assertions.

Answer 22

Sort of. Where you lose me is on your definition of a baby.

Answer 23

I am pro-choice and no, your argument does not make sense simply because there is no such thing as an unborn child. Do you think squirrels eat unborn oak trees, or do they eat acorns?

Answer 24

well yes there are humans and animals, and then there are foetuses that aren't alive. comparing foetuses to humans and animals is like comparing an intelligent robot to a calculator.

Answer 25

Comparing born animals to unborn humans is ridiculous ... Thousands of unborn animals are aborted by nature and humans every day ...

Answer 26

A newborn baby cannot speak, either, yet society confers upon it more rights. Abortion isn't legal because unborn babies cannot speak up for themselves.

Answer 27

The bottom line is my uterus, and what happens in it, is no one's business but my own.

Answer 28

An animal is actually alive and has had living experiences. Ending the development of a foetus is equal to letting a sperm die.

Answer 29

God regards man differently from the animals. The Bible account is primarily concerned with the relationship between God and man. Man was created by God, in his image, for God’s joy and glory, and exists only in the context of God.