The real issue in the abortion debate

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
May 11, 2011
15,347
985
175
N'Awlins Mid-City
The real issue in the abortion debate is the question of whose rights trump whose - do the rights of a fetus trump the rights of a woman, or vice versa?

Choosing the former places the fetus as a higher citizen above women, thus subjugating them to second class citizenry - enjoying only part of the rights of citizenship. Choosing the latter preserves the first class citizenship of women and



That's pretty much it. The right claims they want "limited" government yet they don't believe government's limit stops at a person's reproductive function. If government can criminalize abortion in the name of protecting the fetus, what's to stop them from banning alcohol consumption for all women between puberty and menopause who have not been rendered sterile by surgery? Any of those women could be carrying child without knowing it, thus to allow them to consume alcohol would create the very real risk that an "innocent human being" is being poisoned by its mother. Will the right stand for it?

If the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother - what's to stop the government from compelling women to receive pre-natal treatment in accordance with government guidelines - for the purposes of protecting the innocent fetus? What's to stop government from deciding any pregnant woman who consumes even one drop of alcohol needs to be confined and surpervised until birth ?(even though most docs agree very light consumption late in the pregnancy is no problem)


The fact is what the right wants is for the rights of a fetus to exceed the rights of a woman. Based on that idealogy, government would be justified in doing anything it needed to protect the life of a fetus - from regulating the diets of all women who are fertile and sexually active to requiring them to attend natural child birth classes, if the government decides that will best protect the life of the fetus - or perhaps, instead, forcing women to receive epidurals against their will - if government decides that will best protect the life of a fetus.


The right only wants limited government when it comes to business. When it comes to the restriction of the most basic personal liberty to own one's own body - they do not.
 
The issue is Government money paying for something the constitution does not allow while at the same time many people don't want to be paying for, but are. The issue is there is no definition as to when life begins yet if you cause a woman to lose the child they carry when they didn’t want an abortion you can face charges of murder, even if you’re a doctor.

I’m very conservative, or libertarian. I’m pro choice and yet I fully understand the problems these two parts of the issue cause.

You have a limited grasp of the issue and what the “other side” sees as important.
 
Last edited:
The real issue in the abortion debate is the question of whose rights trump whose - do the rights of a fetus trump the rights of a woman, or vice versa?

Choosing the former places the fetus as a higher citizen above women, thus subjugating them to second class citizenry - enjoying only part of the rights of citizenship. Choosing the latter preserves the first class citizenship of women and



That's pretty much it. The right claims they want "limited" government yet they don't believe government's limit stops at a person's reproductive function. If government can criminalize abortion in the name of protecting the fetus, what's to stop them from banning alcohol consumption for all women between puberty and menopause who have not been rendered sterile by surgery? Any of those women could be carrying child without knowing it, thus to allow them to consume alcohol would create the very real risk that an "innocent human being" is being poisoned by its mother. Will the right stand for it?

If the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother - what's to stop the government from compelling women to receive pre-natal treatment in accordance with government guidelines - for the purposes of protecting the innocent fetus? What's to stop government from deciding any pregnant woman who consumes even one drop of alcohol needs to be confined and surpervised until birth ?(even though most docs agree very light consumption late in the pregnancy is no problem)


The fact is what the right wants is for the rights of a fetus to exceed the rights of a woman. Based on that idealogy, government would be justified in doing anything it needed to protect the life of a fetus - from regulating the diets of all women who are fertile and sexually active to requiring them to attend natural child birth classes, if the government decides that will best protect the life of the fetus - or perhaps, instead, forcing women to receive epidurals against their will - if government decides that will best protect the life of a fetus.


The right only wants limited government when it comes to business. When it comes to the restriction of the most basic personal liberty to own one's own body - they do not.

It may be your perspective, but I personally don't share it. You are misinformed and are big on false assumption. You might want to get your prescription checked too.
 
The right only wants limited government when it comes to business. When it comes to the restriction of the most basic personal liberty to own one's own body - they do not.

and are wrong in both instances ...
 
The right only wants limited government when it comes to business. When it comes to the restriction of the most basic personal liberty to own one's own body - they do not.

and are wrong in both instances ...

Ok so this idiot kinda proved my point. The left wants to control a WHOLE lot more of your self than the right. The right would like people to be Leave it to Beaver, while the left wants to be Jersey Shore, hmmmmm gee I wander what is the best for the kids, and who might achieve more.

BUT the left wants to control EVERYTHING About you. Heck they may start to force you to have abortions? I wander what your excuse...er position will be then.

20 years later, it turns out Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown and unmarried moms - The Washington Post
Editorials & Opinion | Hey, Murphy Brown: Dan Quayle Was Right | Seattle Times Newspaper

Yeah that right wing Washington Post and Seattle Times, LOL
Yeah we want people to be responsible and keep their freedom, you want an enslaved hedonistic bunch of dope dependant drones, I guess that's how you want to obtain socialism, because no thinking person is going to do it.
 
Last edited:
republicans-in-your-vagina.jpg


Republicans, Get In My Vagina: Kate Beckinsale Satirizes 'War On Women' With Funny Or Die (VIDEO)
 
The real issue in the abortion debate is the question of whose rights trump whose - do the rights of a fetus trump the rights of a woman, or vice versa?

Choosing the former places the fetus as a higher citizen above women, thus subjugating them to second class citizenry - enjoying only part of the rights of citizenship. Choosing the latter preserves the first class citizenship of women and



That's pretty much it. The right claims they want "limited" government yet they don't believe government's limit stops at a person's reproductive function. If government can criminalize abortion in the name of protecting the fetus, what's to stop them from banning alcohol consumption for all women between puberty and menopause who have not been rendered sterile by surgery? Any of those women could be carrying child without knowing it, thus to allow them to consume alcohol would create the very real risk that an "innocent human being" is being poisoned by its mother. Will the right stand for it?

If the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother - what's to stop the government from compelling women to receive pre-natal treatment in accordance with government guidelines - for the purposes of protecting the innocent fetus? What's to stop government from deciding any pregnant woman who consumes even one drop of alcohol needs to be confined and surpervised until birth ?(even though most docs agree very light consumption late in the pregnancy is no problem)


The fact is what the right wants is for the rights of a fetus to exceed the rights of a woman. Based on that idealogy, government would be justified in doing anything it needed to protect the life of a fetus - from regulating the diets of all women who are fertile and sexually active to requiring them to attend natural child birth classes, if the government decides that will best protect the life of the fetus - or perhaps, instead, forcing women to receive epidurals against their will - if government decides that will best protect the life of a fetus.


The right only wants limited government when it comes to business. When it comes to the restriction of the most basic personal liberty to own one's own body - they do not.

It may be your perspective, but I personally don't share it. You are misinformed and are big on false assumption. You might want to get your prescription checked too.


Do the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother or not?
 
Life of the baby vs. "I would have to find a new place to live" (19 percent).
 
Do the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother or not?

You don't get to murder someone just because they are an inconvenience.

OK. And?

And this topic is done. You built your entire rant on a false premise, using the tired old pro-abortion tactic of covering up the fact that a human life is at stake. You are willing to murder the child just because the mother doesn't want to have to find a new place to live!
 

Forum List

Back
Top