Why do leftists support abortion-on-demand?

Question

Leftists claim to be protecting the rights of the poor against the rich, the weak against the strong, etc. As Bill Barnwell put it, "personal consciences would do well to consider the real nature of abortion: an aggressive, irresponsible act which denies personal freedom, liberty and justice to a weaker and inconvenient class of people." Isn't "pro-choice" inconsistent with leftism then?

(http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell30.html)

The point everyone here has missed is that there simply exists no NON-ARBITRARY point in human development when the conceptus becomes a "person," regardless of what a court or judges may decide. The philosophical basis of Leftism's belief that abortion should be legal presents no reason to disallow infanticide, either. Birth is an ABITRARY point in the development of a human because humans are born at widely diverging stages of development.

Answer 1

The entire abortion debate misses the real question here.

The quote in your question includes an assumption that the fetus is a "person", while pro-abortion types assume that it is not.

The fact is that the real question in abortion is whether or not the fetus is a "person" under the law, and therefore entitled to protection of the law. Roe v. Wade was about the question of how much latitude the states have in making this decision.

The USSC erred in deciding that the individual states were limited in their recognition of this Personhood, and assumed that power in themselves. Personhood is not a matter for the courts, nor is it a matter for the federal government. The USSC had no legitimate jurisdiction over the matter in the first place.

Now, back to your original question, no, pro-choice is not inconsistent with Leftism, and you fail to see the consistency because the Left does not believe that a fetus is a Person at all.

What is amazing to me is that they can hold this view, and be totally incapable of imagining how rational god-fearing people two centuries ago could tolerate slavery in this country. The answer is very simple. Slaves were not considered to be "Persons" under the law. The Dredd Scott case is ample evidence that this error was widespread enough to cause the USSC to decide that case under principles of Property Law.

Under the logic they apply to abortion, today's left would have had no qualms about owning other human beings as slaves.

Answer 2

Only if you agree with Barnwell's quote. An alternative view is that abortion is the removal of growing balls of cells that, some day, may have the _potential_ for human life but does not constitute life itself. It does not deny freedom, liberty and justice to any person, because a blastula, embryo, or fetus is not a "person" than is a spem cell and ovum. If you accept this view (rightly or not), then the overwhelming concern becomes the privacy issue. Women have a right to decide what medical procedures to undergo, and have a very fundamental right to decide whether or not to birth a child (an actual human life). That right is engrained with many of our other personal privacy rights, and outweighs any potential, future interests that a potential, possibly future human may have.

So the position is inconsistent only to the extent that you believe that a blastula, embryo, or fetus is a "person."

Answer 3

If you would like to debate then when life begins one must be able to sustain its own life (not be a parasite) this is why a virus is not considered to be alive. For this reason a fetus is not alive until the third trimester when if born has a chance and living on its own (in the sense of breathing eliminating waste heart beat ect) a 20week old fetus really doesnt have a shot at this, granted medical advances save more and more pre mature babies (a baby after it is born) but thats what make sense to me.

Answer 4

"On-demand" is a strange choice of words unless you are solely trying to make a political and emotional point.

But to answer your question, the right to choose has nothing to do with whether abortion is good or bad. The only issue in the right-to-choose debate is WHO gets to make the decision.

There are only two options. Either the individual has the right to choose what medical procedures are done to her, or the govt can make that decision regardless of what she wants.

You do realize that the constitutional right to choose is the only that stops a state from making abortion mandatory, like China, or requiring forced sterilzation? If the state could do whatever it wanted, because there was no constitutional right to make the medical decisions, then it could just as easily require abortions as it could prohibit them.

That's not up to the state. And the majority has no justification to force someone to have or not have medical procedures.

Answer 5

This is a myth perpetuated by repuglicans, there are just as many repuglicans that support pro choice as there are democrats and there are just as many democrats that are anti-abortion as there are repuglican. I personally am against abortion, I think it is piss poor means of birth control. However I do not want the government in this decision as it should be left up to each individual and their Doctor.