is it really your choice?

[tsukikage]

Politically speaking, abortion is an issue that involves competing rights. On the one hand, you have the mother's right not to be pregnant. On the other hand, you have the baby's right not to be killed. The question that must be answered is this. Which right is more fundamental? Which right has a greater claim? Abortion advocates argue that outlawing abortion would, in essence, elevate the rights of the unborn over and above those of the mother. "How can you make a fetus more important than a grown woman?", they might ask. In reality, outlawing abortion wouldn't be giving unborn children more rights, it would simply gain for them the one most fundamental right that no one can live without, the right to life.
If a baby is not to be aborted, then the pregnant mother must remain pregnant. This will also require of her sickness, fatigue, reduced mobility, an enlarged body, and a new wardrobe. Fortunately, it is not a permanent condition. On the flip side, for a pregnant woman not to be pregnant, her child must be killed (unless she is past her 21st week of pregnancy, in which case the baby may well survive outside the womb). Abortion costs the unborn child his or her very life and it is a thoroughly permanent condition. This is what's at stake, both for the child and for the mother. It is not an issue of who is more important, but rather who has more on the line.
Any time the rights of two people stand in opposition to each other, the government must protect the more fundamental right. Let's consider crosswalks. A car is driving down the street while a person is crossing the street. The law requires the driver of that car to slow down and stop (giving up their right to drive where they want, when they want, and at what speed they want) so that the pedestrian may cross the street in front of him. Why? Why must the driver temporarily give up his right to drive down the street just because someone else is walking across the street? Why is the right of the man on foot upheld while the right of the man in the car is denied? It is not because the pedestrian is more valuable than the driver but rather because, if the driver doesn't stop, the pedestrian will likely be killed. In order for the driver to proceed down the street at full speed, at that moment, it will cost the pedestrian his life. In order for the pedestrian to finish crossing the street, at that moment, it will cost the driver a few minutes of drive time.
Obviously, for a woman to remain pregnant, she gives up far more than a few minutes of drive time, but she gives up far less than the baby who would otherwise be killed. This is what it all comes down to. Abortion permanently takes away the life of the unborn. Pregnancy temporarily takes away some of the freedoms of the mother. Since there is far more at stake for the child, the more fundamental right to life must be upheld.
- from Abort73

Exactly.

Comments

[belindabird.livejournal.com]

That's a nice argument, but considering that my beliefs about life are fundamentally different, I have to disagree.

1. I don't believe we have one chance at life - i.e. I believe in reincarnation. So aborting a fetus isn't necessarily deleting its one chance at life.

2. I believe a full soul/conscience is earned, not given, and that people aren't fully people until they can think outside themselves, deal with and accept the consequences of their actions, and think about how their choices affect others. A fetus (and even children, though I'm not advocating killing kids here) aren't so much "innocent" as they are amoral beings. I also don't put the life of a fetus on par with that of a child because a fetus is fundamentally a parasite in the woman's body.

3. People believe different things, so I believe in giving them the choice, even if their personal choice is to be pro-life for themselves :)

[sophysduckling.livejournal.com]

W/regard to (2), you say that a soul/conscience isn't given; it's earned. You also said in (1) that you believe in reincarnation.

You equate soul with conscience. If soul=conscience, then you don't think life really begins until after birth. So, according to you, in order to have a "soul", a thing has to be born already. That has certain implications for reincarnation; if the soul doesn't really exist until after the organism is *born*, then the aborted fetus never gets a soul, meaning that the fetus will never get another chance at life. You could argue that the *carrier* is irrelevent, and it is the soul itself that matters. But the soul itself is immortal, and so it doesn't *need* a "chance" at life because it has that all the time. It's just the carrier that will or will not have that chance.

As for the "earned", not "given." The way you've worded it, the view is internally inconsistent. A zygote/embryo/fetus is a "parasite", and it is up to the woman whether she wants to grant the zygote/embryo/fetus permission to stay in her body for a time and thereafter achieve life and a conscience, correct? That means that, essentially, the woman gives life to the fetus; the fetus doesn't earn it. It's just mere chance that I got pro-life parents and the next almost-kid got pro-choice parents. That's not earning. That's a freaking crapshoot depending on the political views of the sources of one's genetic makeup.

[belindabird.livejournal.com]

well, however you want to argue it, I don't believe a fetus is a whole person. It all makes perfect sense to me, anyway. I think that I may just be poor at wording exactly what I mean.

[jupistrahan.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean, I tend to think that way myself. Wording is always a pain, isn't it? You know what you mean, but getting it out in a way that expresses that meaning is nearly impossible.

I got a kick out of your questions. =D

[sophysduckling.livejournal.com]

I agree, except the guy uses the word "right" way too much. Driving is a privelege, and nobody, pedestrian or driver, has a right to use the road. And I don't think there's a right "not to get pregnant"; there *is* a right not to have sex. But not getting pregnant? That's like saying "I have a right not to get fat if I eat too much" or "I have a right not to get long hair if I don't get a haircut." Or "I have a right not to be inconvenienced by the choices I make." But aside from that, I agree and I want to be put on your pro-life filter if you make it. :D

[krossrodes.livejournal.com]

Thank you for that!
Some really wonderful things are being said here.

[jupistrahan.livejournal.com]

Because these topics always raises questions:

1. What about the case in which the child life-threatening to the mother? There are many cases in which the decision must be made as to whether to save the baby or the mother.
1b. This is slightly off topic, but how does the giving up or rights apply to siamese twins, which oftentimes is a situation in which you can attempt to save them both, as the risk of both lives, or sacrifice on to give the other a better chance at life?

2. Currently one of the roadblocks in defining the law on abortion is that people don't know just when a fetus develops its consciousness. It is currently legal to pull the plug on a person who has become a vegetable - the brain doesn't function but the body lives. When does a fetus cross that line, or is that irrelevent in this situation?

*loves a good debate*

[jupistrahan.livejournal.com]

A few corrections:

...child is life-threatening to...

...the giving up of rights apply...

*hopes I didn't miss anything else, and really needs to proofread every now and again*

[krossrodes.livejournal.com]

I've always felt that aborting a pregnancy is okay when the life of the mother is at stake. However, this means that this procedure could probably be performed in a hospital by a doctor because a life is actually being saved in this case. Besides, most of the time, the baby doesn't stand a chance without the mother anyway.