If the State was allowed to prevent abortions, what would prevent them from, in the future, forcing abortions for population control? What would prevent Government from weeding out undesirable babies and the mentally retarded?
This is not unrealistic and seems to be a logical extension of pro-life if you believe an individual does not have any reproductive choice.
If you disagree, please explain, I am not trolling and am open to criticism.
2006-08-10 18:41:26 · 11 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Charles and others I see your point. However, individual right does not mean State approval.
What I am saying is the danger if the protection to leave the decision to the individual is not made.
If there is no individual right, if the state had a strong interest to force abortions, it could, under due process if there was an improtant or compelling governmental interest. The only individual check would be a constitutional right to decide the makeup of your own family.
2006-08-10 18:59:42 · update #1
Never thought of it that way, and in theory its a good point.
It doesn't apply to the US, though. We can't act blatently authoritarian like that.
Although, your thinking could be applied to other countries....
2006-08-10 18:47:01 · answer #1 · answered by Cherry 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The reason I am Pro Life is not because I want to dictate other people's rights- it's because I believe that a fetus is a living being (starting at a very early stage- before most women know they are pregnant). If I wanted to dictate reproductive rights I'd be for a contraceptive ban- which I most certainly am not (contraceptives prevent abortions).
The Goverment couldn't force abortions because abortions would be banned. It's not dictating reproductive rights- it's protecting a human that is unable to speak for itself. While abortion is legal- what about the extremely old and sick? If they're hooked up to macines- completely dependent on the machines and doctors and nurses for life, can't speak for themselves, but their family wants to get rid of them because they're too much work, should that be allowed- even if the old person has not given any form of consent?
I think it's a huge stretch to assume that by banning abortion, the goverment will conduct forced abortions and kill the mentally retarted and such. You see, abortion couldn't be banned without support behind it, just like population control and killing the mentally retarted would have to have alot of support behind it to become possible. And trust me, there aren't enough sick people to get support for that kind of horrible deed.
2006-08-10 18:53:15 · answer #2 · answered by opi 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i'm professional-life. the government has no skill different than what we provide to it. government could be allowed to bypass here rules: one million. Ban any abortion that the toddler might desire to stay outdoors the mummy. i've got self belief this could commence in 2nd trimester. 2. government has no stunning to dictate judgements while the being pregnant substitute into conceived against her will. there's no one answer and the government could stay out of it. 3. If a woman might desire to die or be critically harmed, comparable as #2. 4. mum and dad could consent to an abortion for a minor. 5. government has no company investment abortion. the super concern I surely have with all that's reproductive rights advocates view that they are able to do what they like while they like. the certainty is intercourse is a duty and human beings could comprehend that.
2016-11-04 08:25:26 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rather than answering that, or bringing my own feelings into the matter, let me point this out. Your argument could easily be turned around:
"Pro-choicers: Why do you believe the State should dictate individual right to live?
If the State was allowed to kill babies, what would prevent them from, in the future, from perpetrating genocide? What would prevent Government from weeding out undesirable ethnic groups and political groups?
This is not unrealistic and seems to be a logical extension of pro-choice if you believe an individual does not have any right to live."
2006-08-10 18:47:40 · answer #4 · answered by Charles G 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
couldn't happen since we are a democratic union and not a communist state. Pro- life doesn't want abortions so why would they suddenly change their stance in the future and kill off for population control and undesirable. There is a fine line between mentally retarded and low IQ. 69/70. So by those standards who would choose seeing as IQ tests vary by several pts. Your question doesnt' really make any sense by that standard. Why would a pro life promote death???
2006-08-10 18:57:57 · answer #5 · answered by Chrissy 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
abortion is just another term for murder but of an unborn child. once u conceive in ur womb (providing ur a woman) u now have a life inside of u that needs u to take care of it. how would u feel if ur mom or dad told u that they didnt want u and just did away with u? to me its the same thing. theres only 1 real basic reason y i would abort, and thats if it was not safe for either me or the baby. teens i think need to learn that they made a mistake if they get pregnant, not just give them an abortion. here the law states that killing an unborn child isnt a life, i strongly disagree with that. just because a child hasnt been born (where everyone can see him/her) doesnt mean that its not a life
2006-08-10 18:52:14 · answer #6 · answered by fuzzycakes 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The pro-life message has nothing to do with reproduction itself. It is about life (hence, pro-LIFE, not anti-reproductive-rights. I don't mean that condescendingly, I'm just making a point).
As a pro-lifer, I will give you my point of view. I honestly don't care what you do to your body. It's your body to do what you want with. You can tattoo it, lacerate it, put drugs in it, whatever. However I believe that when a woman is pregnant, the baby inside of her is not a part of her body. It is a separate being with separate genetics. It may depend on the mother's body for survival, but doesn't a newborn? Without parental care a newborn would die, but clearly that child is it's own separate life.
The reason that government-mandated abortions would not be a logical extension of pro-life sentiment is that no one wants to control your body, but they are concerned for the separate life inside of it.
2006-08-10 18:50:33 · answer #7 · answered by baby36036 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am simply going to boil this down to murder. As states have the right to outlaw murder has that wound up becoming the states deciding who should live and who is undesirable and should die? Typically no.
It is not a logical leap to go from saying you cannot kill your child to saying you cannot kill your child but we may.
2006-08-10 18:53:07 · answer #8 · answered by billybetters2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's upside down. It's that way now. Just what is a reproductive right? Is that in the bill of rights or constitution?
2006-08-10 18:48:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Stop saying pro-life, you mean anti-abortion... If they were truely pro-life they would be anti-war and anti-death penalty.
2006-08-10 20:00:06 · answer #10 · answered by RATM 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋