A question for all people who are pro-abortion (or pro-choice, if that's what you call it nowadays)?

Question

A big argument for abortion is that "it is not murder, because the U.S. government says so". Apparently, the Supreme Court now has the ability to decide when someone's life ends.

But anyway, under this idea, slavery in the South was O.K. until the emancipation proclamation, because the government said it was OK. It could not have been morally wrong, because it was legal.

Using that line of thinking, what about Marijuana? It is illegal, so it must be morally wrong. However, the liberals (mostly the same people who are pro-abortion) want to legalize marijuana, saying that it was made illegal for the wrong reasons.

But what about abortion? What if it was made legal for the wrong reasons? Should we REALLY base our morals on what our government says?

Answer 1

Many people consider Roe v Wade to be "settled law," but many others consider it to be wrongly decided.

It's been on the books roughly half the amount of time that Plessey v Ferguson was.

Time will tell whether it remains as a precedent.

There is a difference between something being a good idea or a bad idea on the one hand, and required or prohibited by the Constitution on the other.

PS If no one is really pro-abortion, why did many liberals get upset when Sam Alito's mother said of her son, "of course he's against abortion"?

Answer 2

Wow - there are so many misconceptions in your question, I don't know where to start. First, "legal" does not equal "right" or "moral". Second, few people are "pro" abortion - no one much likes it. Third, the Supreme Court does not decide when someone's life ends in the big sense you lay out. It is a critical legal concept, though, so it must be defined in legal terms, and the Court is involved in that.

The government must make decions about legal/illegal based on practicalities. Sometimes making an undesirable thing illegal has worse consequences than keeping it legal. Prohibition comes to mind - with alcohol illegal, it was just driven underground. Because the population still wanted alcohol, the mafia sprang up to provide it and became much more powerful. With abortion, keeping it illegal drove it underground, where women were often maimed during botched, amateur abortions. Pro-choice means "don't drive it underground", not "abortion is great!".

As for marijuana, clearly much of the population likes the stuff. It does not cause more problems than, say, alcohol or prescription drugs. Practically, is it better to expend government effort to track down, process and imprison everyone involved in marijuana? Some people say no - it would be better to make it legal and tax it, freeing police and prison systems for more pressing crimes. Some liberals and small-government conservatives hold this idea.

Answer 3

the genuine base line right it is ... in case you at the instant are not arranged to alter right into a determine (the two a guardian) then don't have intercourse. It would not get plenty extra undemanding than that. as quickly as you have intercourse you have now risked the potential for an unwatned being pregnant - era. And that being pregnant is the two events responsiblity's ... regardless. no count if or not the intercourse became into consensual ~ as quickly as a woman will become pregnant it fairly is her physique ... HER determination. purely as i might by no skill call for a guy have a vasectomy ... a guy will by no skill tell me what to do with my physique. that's the base line. it fairly is a pair of woman's possession over her physique in a unfastened united states. you may say "the guy shoulda stored it in his pants' weakens a controversy all you desire ... yet while a guy isn't arranged to take accountability for a newborn then he should not be prepared to have intercourse. If a woman is prepared to do her area ... her 0.5 (that's frequently extra like 3/4 actual) then the guy could be held to blame for the small area is he required to pay financially or in any different case. to not point out that the newborn has rights besides. The embrionic heart beat starts off 22 days after theory. maximum females do not even understand that are pregnant by way of then. a good number of girls would not additionally be prepared to hearken to this sort of explanation while at 2 months the toddler's heart is thrashing and that they have began to experience a connection. that's something a guy will by no skill understand ... and until they do ... in my opinion this argument is pointless. ________________________

Answer 4

In answer to your last question, it's a resounding NO. Moral judgement and legislation are 2 distinct areas which often leads to confusion of the type that you seem to be experiencing.

Just beacuse the US Govt (or anyone else for that matter) say something is right (or wrong) it does not mean that the thing is necessarily morally right or wrong.

Morals are self defined boudaries within which individual choose to live their own lives. Everyone sets parameters of acceptability, largely based on personal choice. The moral and legal arguments for each of the areas you mentioned (abortion, slavery and pot) are widely different - using marijuana as an example, I agree that it should be illegal but that does not mean that I'm morally against its use in certain circumstances.

Coming on to abortion, I believe that everyone should have the choice, especially in particularly testing, trying or uncomfortable circumstances, but that it based entirely on my set of morals and the parameters by which I allow myself to live my life. That other people have different points of view and moral justifications is up to them and it is not my place to say that someones moral point of view is incorrect.

Answer 5

Morality and the law are not the same thing.

1.) Abortion is not murder because the phrase itself is using the legal definition of the word - you are using a moral definition, which varies from person to person. The context of the statement means alot.

2.) Not everyone who is pro-choice uses that argument. Most argue that regardless of they agree with abortion of not, the right of someone else to make that decision for themselves is more important that other people following my moral code.

3.) Slavery was not ok in a pretty universally accepted moral viewpoint, but it WAS LEGAL. Again, there is a difference. What are you meaning?

Ok in a legal sense OR ok in a moral sense? Its not a logical argument to point out that something is legally acceptable and them attack that fact with a moral argument. Its perfectly fine - and encouraged to lobby for a CHANGE in the law to reflect changing moral viewpoints. Its not ok to attack the law itself as if it is making a moral statement - it tries, but rarely does it succeed.

4.) Of huge importance in this country is the separation of church and state. It is not right from a constitutional perspective to use religious arguments as a basis for law. Arson isn't illegal for religious reasons, its illegal because its simply not fair to the victims. Rape is not illegal for religious reasons - its illegal because the victim of said crime has been forced into a situation they would not choose - the idea being that your right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose.

Same thing with abortion - your right to tell me not to do it stops the moment I am unable to seek one out - its the lady's choice - not yours.

That's how I see it anyway - I hope women don't get them, but at the same time, I am not going to insert myself into decisions they make about their own bodies and lives.... unless I was the father (as a result of a mutually consensual act), then I would want a voice. Anyone else has no business in the matter.

5.) Marijuana. The idea behind legalizing marijuana is that again, its a decision made by an individual. Its not anyone else's business unless you say drive or come to work high - that will already get your license pulled and get you fired in the case of alcohol - something that is far more dangerous from a health perspective, a violence perspective, etc.,....

The idea being that since alcohol is more dangerous on every front than marijuana, either marijuana should be legal or alcohol shouldn't - we know that's not going to work because it failed during prohibition. Just like it is not for marijuana.

It was made illegal for interesting reasons though - basically, the justification was that white women would be raped by crazy black men who smoked pot. That was the thinking way back when. That thinking doesn't really hold LOGICAL thinking. Morality isn't part of the argument there.

You just can't, no matter how much people may like, enforce morality. The law is there to try to establish, through common sense and PRACTICALITY a code of conduct. If the law is not enforceable (marijuana, abortion) in a practical way, if it is there but is ineffectual, its it pointless. Things like this are like trying to make breathing illegal - its not going to change behavior but instead simply makes alot of criminals to no good effect for no logical or practical reason. This is why there is no law on the books codifying the right to breath - to do so would acknowledge a non-nonsensical, dissenting opinion which makes no sense.

I think you are using analogies that don't hold water and stretching things out to make your point to such an extent that the effect is lost. This happens quite often when morals (debatable) are used in logical arguments.

Answer 6

A big argument for abortion is that "it is not murder, because the U.S. government says so". Apparently, the Supreme Court now has the ability to decide when someone's life ends.

No. that's not a "big argument for abortion." One of the (many) arguments for abortion rights is that our Constitution, as it has been interpreted, recognizes the right to privacy, including the fundamental right of a woman to decide whether or not another ball of cells grows in her belly. Whether or not you (or I) think an ebryo is a living person doesn't derive from what SCOTUS says, but whether the fundamental right of privacy from the First, Fifth, Fourth, Fourteenth, and other amendements extends to a woman's right to chose an abortion, and whether that right may be abridged from the state. That understanding of the privacy right CAN be influenced by what the most brilliant jurists in our country have to say. They never have tried to argue whether a fetus is a life -- rather, instead noting that the regulation of abortion depends upon "viability" of the embryo or fetus. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So you've got it all backwards.

Answer 7

I'll be honest with you.

I believe that once the sperm and egg meet, then a growing, living, breathing human being is creating.

HOWEVER, what about women who get pregnant from rape? I would never have a rapist's child. Point blank. Or maybe... I don't know. What if the child ended up being the best thing that could've ever happened to me?

Put it this way, I respect a woman's choice to do so, but not if the woman was just being unsafe and ignorant. If all percautions were taken, then...

It really is complicated. I can't just type it all in 5 minutes. I could go on for days.

Answer 8

That's a good question..i think the answer is very simple NO... every body has a different opinion on things. I don't think that there are standards we should base our thinking on. Morals are morals and governments will always want to decide for us. Now the abortion part of it, well it should definitely be based on morals.

Answer 9

NO i dont think we should basic on what the government says as i dont' think they know what they are talking about half the time. As for abortion i am pro choice to a point i don't think it should be used as a form of birth control but i think there are certain circumstances when the women really does have no choice.

Answer 10

I don't think anyone is actually PRO abortion....and you are mislead - the "big arguement for abortion" is actually "This is my body and the government has no right to tell me what to do with it".

The rest of your statements are barely coherent much less argueable.

I always think it's funny when men chime in on abortion - when it isn't your wife/girlfriend that's pregnant and you have no interest in caring for the baby....

I'm not saying it's right or wrong - just get your facts straight.
Who said you should base your belifes on what the government thinks appropriate?