I'm getting ticked off at Pro-'Choice'rs right now, so I'm posting my feelings, and hoping that someone will actually listen to them for once.
xp First, let me clarify. I feel that, whenever I'm in a debate, any arguments I make go right over the head of whoever I'm talking to. I firmly believe that they don't bother to read the entire thing, and prefer to skim it and make it say what they want it to say for their own needs. For instance, if I say that "You had sex, you made the choice, took the chance, flipped the coin, it turned out as what you see as bad luck. Live with it." They see, "You shouldn't have sex if you aren't going to have kids."
(Ref. 1)This is not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that when you have sex, you know there is a possibility of you getting pregnant. If you do get pregnant, regardless of the protection and prevention you use, you should have to live with it. You made your choice, fully knowing the possibilities.
Alright, now I think I'll list the arguments the -other- side makes, grouped by reference, and then reply to them. I'll try to stick to the most common arguments. There will be links to where Pro-'Choice'rs have actually said these things, mostly in their guild as it is the most readily accessible place for them.
First I am going to reply to what I see as the most used "inteligent" argument, and yet the most easily refuted: Don't force your morals on me/my body. Basically, what this really is is: "There are no absolute morals, and you shouldn't force what you see as absolute morals on us."
Though you won't get them to admit it, this is the main thing behind Anarchists. There are no absolute morals, so we should all be able to do what we want. Nothing, and I mean nothing, should be illegal, including but not limited to, murder, rape, and stealing. You can't say, "Well, those are different," or "those are exceptions" Because if there are exceptions, it goes against what you already said, that there are no absolute morals. It opens a door to a whole mess of other things being exceptions as well, including abortion.
(Reference 1) 1. "So it would not be much more hard of a stretch to force the woman to alter her lifestyle to accomodate for this fetus. That is, if pro-life TRULY cared about the fetus. A woman who smokes, drinks, and does other reckless things to her body should be punished, if pro-life had its way, as it will be the fetus who suffers"
(Ref. 1) 2. "Adoption implies a sacrifice on the woman's part"
(Ref. 1) 3. "This fosters dependancy on the government and/or on a male provider, which results back to a form of slavery on the woman's part. BUT, you see, the Judeo-Christian heritage supports/allows the subordinated role of women"
(Ref. 1) 4. "I feel that pro-choice offers a more empowering role of women. It seems to me that pro-choice emphasises getting a woman a decent education about sex, safe sex, abstinance, and a myraid of other choices concerning sexuality, her body, and pregnancy. An education usually does a good job at dispelling fear and dependancy (something, i might add, that religion doesn't do a very good job at ). This will in turn give the woman a sense of control over herself, especially if the pregnancy was an unexpected turn of events. "
(Ref. 1) 5. "A women is an Actual, already existing person. She can survive just fine without the fetus."
(Refer. 2)1. First, this makes it look like the Pro-'Choice' movement is only for legalized abortion in cases with a 'bad mother'. If this were so, I'd have a lot more respect for Pro-'Choice'rs. However, they are actually for abortion to be legal in all sorts of cases, including teenagers who were stupid and got pregnant on 'accident.' Second, she makes a good point. Maybe we should make laws about drinking/smoking while pregnant.
confused I wonder how they'd feel about that now, even though we took the idea from them...
2. ...And abortion doesn't imply more of a sacrifice, or, at the very very least, an equal sacrifice?
3. Again with connecting Judeo-Christianity with bad things that are really not connected with it. She makes Jews and Christians out to be Male Supremists, when we really aren't. I mean, she sets up this whole thing on false pretenses that Judeo-Christians are against women, and that's why they want to 'take away our freedoms!" In connection with this, it really ticks me off when people act as though Bush is going to overturn all womens rights, and is going to instate the laws here on women that we -just- got rid of else where.
(See here)4. Pro-Lifers are also for a good sex education, as the better the sex education, the fewer abortions there are even with them legal, at least hopefully. And I find it funny that she includes abstinence in her list, as though Pro-'Choice'rs are really for abstinance being practiced, overall.
5. To quote her at another point later on, "It does not matter how the fetus was conceived. Your right do not change based on how you were conceived, or your parents sexual history, so why would a fetus'?" It seems to me, she made her own argument, at least when translated. It doesn't matter how you were conceived, your rights are the same as anyone elses. So why change that with a fetus? It doesn't matter if you are black, so why does it matter if you are unborn?
Posts Refered To:
1.
Pro-Life on the roles of women2.
My Argument, any flaws?((I've gotta do homework... Already spent too much time on this, so maybe I'll do some more in another post later.
sweatdrop ))
