Can one support Human Rights AND also be pro-choice?

Question

Does not one conflict 100% with the other?

Answer 1

I'm kind pro-abortion and kind pro-life. I feel that abortion should only be legal in extenuating circumstances, I.E., rape, incest, imminent danger.

Other than that, our youth should be taught three things.

1. Abstinence is the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy.

2. If they are not going to abstain, condoms and birth control MUST be used.

3. Life has consequences that are very real and you must be willing to take responsibility for your actions.

I do feel that abortion is murder and goes against the idea of human rights. Ending a human life purely for the sake of not being inconvinced is unacceptable to me.

Answer 2

Well, "Human Rights" is a grey area. I'm sure that if you ask 10 people what rights a human has, you'll get 11 answers.

May people will say that it is a "human right" to have a job, but does that mean that the government (and thus you and I by extension) have an obligation to get them a job?

By the same logic, "Pro-choice" is also a grey area. Many "pro-choice" people I know do not agree with third trimester abortions. Others do.

When you combine two grey areas, the overlap will be even greyer. So your answer will be yes, depending on how you define the two terms.

Answer 3

Sure, why not? As you well know, I am a conservative and a Catholic and I am Pro-choice. That doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion, though. I simply believe that I know what is best for me and my family and I don't want the government or a religion or you, logical though I think you may be--at times ;)--to make such choices for me. That doesn't mean that I'd necessarily have an abortion if there was a reason for it, but I think that's my business, not anyone else's.

As much as I may criticize some who don't think we should be in Iraq but don't have a problem going into Darfur, I tend to use that as an argument. I think the UN should be in Darfur yesterday in greater force than they are now.

Answer 4

There is only a conflict if you believe that a fetus is a human being. That is a matter on which even religious authorities strongly disagree. If you look at an embryo, which is a collection of cells only visible under a microscope, it has no brain, no limbs, no organs, and no anything else that would make it human. Only gradually does the fetus start to resemble a human being. At what point does it become a human being? If we only had a consensus on that issue, we could have a bright line test for when abortion should be legal and when it should not. But since we have a lot of legitimate moral disagreement on that issue, we leave it up to the woman carrying the fetus to make the moral judgment, at least for the first few months of pregnancy.

And I have a question for you: if I carry a fertilized embryo with me in a cooler in my car, can I use the car pool lane?

Answer 5

I suppose you could be selective about which Human Rights you support, which you prioritize over others, and how you define them, yes.

If you define a fetus as having human rights, for instance, you could prioritize it's right to live above it's mother's (women can die in childbirth, so carrying a pregnancy to term represents a risk of the mother's life). If you take the right to life as a positive right (as, ironically, so many liberals do), then you could even dismiss the argument that the woman has a right to decline to provide 'life support' for the fetus.

Those aren't arguments I'd buy, personally, but they could be made, and, while making them, you could still support many other 'Human Rights,' as commonly accepted by both sides of the political fence, without inherent contradiction.

Answer 6

Yes, one can, and no, they do not conflict, because when a woman is pregnant--especially NEWLY pregnant--she is far more human than the zygote she's carrying, which then becomes a fetus, which will only eventually become a human being. This is supported by laws that can't count killing a pregnant mother as TWO murders until the fetus reaches a certain stage of development.

FWIW, most pro-choice advocates don't like abortion at all. We think it's as awful as, say, an amputation. BUT we also believe that a woman's right to control what happens to her body and her life is marginally more important than the zygote's right to become a human being, because that zygote is part of HER body, and HER responsibility. She cannot carry responsibility if she does not have choice.

Answer 7

No. Pro choice is not Pro-abortion. They are not the same. Allowing someone else the right to choose what they want to do, is different than wanting people to abort pregnancies.

I Believe that Pro-choice is the way to go, even though I generally do not support abortions, but I think it is not my choice to make.

Answer 8

Human rights and abortion are both complexed issues. Scientifically, abortion is not murder (unless a partial abortion is performed). If you look at things in religious terms, yes abortion is murder. I believe there is no conflict in regards to supporting Human rights and abortion. The choice of receiving an abortion or not, is a human a right, a woman's right to be exact. I support all human rights.

Answer 9

No, it doesn't. How can one be pro-life and not pay attention to child prostitution in Southeast Asia? I've actually seen more pro-choice people involved in more human rights activities.

Answer 10

I guess it would depend on whether you consider the mother a human or not.
In my own personal life, I'm against abortion, but I also can't understand why the unborn, whose life is so sacred, suddenly deserves the death penalty when he/she grows up unwanted, neglected and abused. Is being unwanted and neglected any better than not being born?
If life is precious, then shouldn't it always remain precious?