no planned parenthood, now, naral, guttemacher or any resources like that i would like to refine my arguments so please help me out oh and no begging the question or making assumptions.
2007-03-22 19:56:53 · 9 answers · asked by krista 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
it is a private medical decision. also, giving the fetus the right to use the mother's body against her will gives the fetus rights that no other person in the country has.
2007-03-23 02:17:21 · answer #1 · answered by bluestareyed 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
First, the pro-choice argument has nothing to do with whether abortion is good or bad. It's only about WHO makes the decision -- the individual or the government.
Face it -- someone is going to choose. It's either going to be the individual, or it's going to be the majority (through enacted laws). If the majority gets to choose, then they are effectively imposing their belief system -- which is almost always religiously-based -- on everyone. If the individual gets to choose, then it allows for those people who happen to believe that a 6-week old collection of cells is not yet a person, as well as those who believe it is.
But if the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, if women lose the individual right to choose, and the government makes all the decisions. Try to imagine what could happen, if all reproductive rights are now subject to state control.
New York or Florida could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. It's up to the states to decide.
Or North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer protected. The states can do whatever they want.
South Dakota has already tried outlawing abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or permanent harm to the mother. Then, they decide that they have too little population, and require every female under the age of 28 who is not celibate to have at least one child. Or mandating that women serve as surrogates. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer protected.
Once the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.
2007-03-22 20:00:53 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Many of the answers above are right on target. All I would add is this; when we start to allow the government to make personal choices for us, we are in trouble. Think of where it could lead. If they force women to carry unwanted children, could they then not also force certain women (or men) to be sterlized? (Imagine a world where only certain people are allowed to reproduce.) Why should the government get to choose whether we have children or not?
2007-03-22 22:13:35 · answer #3 · answered by Hillaryforpresident 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
For me, it's simple.
We are a free society. A woman has the right to choose what to do with her body.
That doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion. I'm pro-CHOICE. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, then she should. Likewise, if she chooses to keep the baby, then she should. What is important is that she has a CHOICE.
Without the choice, what are we left with? A government that is dangerously overstepping its bounds and forcing women to have a child that may not necessarily grow up with the resources it needs because its mother can't take care of it. Or a child who is shunted off into foster care or an adoption agency or an orphanage where they hopefully will be loved but may not be.
I believe it's dangerous to a free society to begin regulating what a woman can and can't do with her own body.
2007-03-22 20:09:48 · answer #4 · answered by witchiebunny 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
A woman's body is her own. For the government to dictate how she use it is in my opinion a violation of the constitution. Not only that, but there could be health risks involved with her pregnancy that would make her life trump the baby's if it came down to that. The baby could also have predetermined defects that could affect its ability to thrive. Only that woman knows exactly what is going on with her situation, and no one can know better than she.
2007-03-22 20:29:57 · answer #5 · answered by Giliathriel 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
This lends to the libertarian argument that most people know best the circumstances of their situation and should therefore be allowed to make decisions that will have a dramatic affect on their lives.
2007-03-22 20:14:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
fFeedom of choice was given to us by God, if you believe in God.
When God said do not eat the apple we had free choice.
The government does not have the right to tell people how and what they can do with their personal bodies...
2007-03-28 05:52:46 · answer #7 · answered by Stop the Stupidity 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Really, how can one person think they can answer for every other person on the planet?
Its the right of every woman to decide. No one else can decide for them.
2007-03-22 20:21:41 · answer #8 · answered by hecatemother 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
7 billion humans.
Only breed on purpose.
Eliminate religions as dictators of personal behavior
Supreme Court is law of land. Period.
Freedom is what this is about.
Abortion is self limiting.
Rape, genetic vulgarities, drug babies, retarded parents.Incest
2007-03-22 20:04:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋