An Analogy For Understanding the Pro-Choice View

[Geoist]

Some pro-lifers struggle to understand why anyone could be pro-choice even when they agree a zygote/fetus is a life. Here's an analogy to help understand. It may not be perfect but it's the best one I've got so far to explain my own position (and if any other pro-choice folks have a better one I could adopt, I'd love to read it):

Let's say you get into a car accident. Let's say that car accident was your fault. Now let's say you wake up in the hospital with an IV line hooked up and transferring your blood to the other car crash victim. They say you are the same blood type and you have to stay hooked up because, after all, it's your fault this person ended up here.

Questions:
Do you believe you should have no say in this?
Do you believe you have a right to break off this involuntary blood transfusion?

 

[aociswundumho]

Let's say you get into a car accident. Let's say that car accident was your fault. Now let's say you wake up in the hospital with an IV line hooked up and transferring your blood to the other car crash victim. They say you are the same blood type and you have to stay hooked up because, after all, it's your fault this person ended up here.

Let's also add that the accident victim will die if you refuse to continue with the blood transfusion, and you are the only possible donor in the world.

So you hurt this person, and now only you can save his life. Your actions put him in this situation, so aren't you morally obligated to help him out of it?

 

[Geoist]

Let's also add that the accident victim will die if you refuse to continue with the blood transfusion, and you are the only possible donor in the world.

So you hurt this person, and now only you can save his life. Your actions put him in this situation, so aren't you morally obligated to help him out of it?

I would say I'm morally obligated to help him. But I'm sure you'd agree what is moral isn't always what is or should be legal/illegal.

 

[aociswundumho]

I would say I'm morally obligated to help him.

Well, the pro lifer believes the mother is morally obligated to help the child.

But I'm sure you'd agree what is moral isn't always what is or should be legal/illegal.

You have to figure out what's right and wrong first, before you can write a just law.

 

[Geoist]

Well, the pro lifer believes the mother is morally obligated to help the child.

Except they believe it goes beyond moral obligation to where the state gets to decide.

You have to figure out what's right and wrong first, before you can write a just law.

I believe gambling is wrong. I also believe smoking is wrong. Do you think I support laws banning these things?

 

[aociswundumho]

Except they believe it goes beyond moral obligation to where the state gets to decide.

Yet you have no problem with state deciding which drugs she may take, how much she may work for, who she may trade with, whether she may own a firearm, and so on and so forth. This is just one more thing added the incredibly long list of things you support having the state decide.

I believe gambling is wrong. I also believe smoking is wrong. Do you think I support laws banning these things?

We are talking about rights in a social context, not personal vices.

 

[Geoist]

Yet you have no problem with state deciding which drugs she may take,

Where did I ever say that? I believe adults should be allowed to take whatever drug they choose.

how much she may work for,

The state issues the business licenses so the state sets the rules for business regulations, including minimum wage. Outside minimum wage, the business and the worker (or her union) can negotiate whatever wage terms they want.

who she may trade with, whether she may own a firearm, and so on and so forth. This is just one more thing added the incredibly long list of things you support having the state decide.

Did you know that practically every pro-choice advocate endorses regulations on health care, INCLUDING abortion clinics and doctors? There is a world of difference between regulations to ensure proper business practices and laws that would imprison (or worse) women for making personal reproductive health choices.

We are talking about rights in a social context, not personal vices.

Maybe you need to be more specific on what you mean by 'right' and 'wrong.'

 

[aociswundumho]

Where did I ever say that? I believe adults should be allowed to take whatever drug they choose.

So you support abolishing the prescription drug system, correct?

The state issues the business licenses so the state sets the rules for business regulations, including minimum wage. Outside minimum wage, the business and the worker (or her union) can negotiate whatever wage terms they want.

As I said, you support having the state make all kinds of decisions for her, thereby limiting her options, and making her less free. Abortion is just one more decision for the state to make for her.

Did you know that practically every pro-choice advocate endorses regulations on health care, INCLUDING abortion clinics and doctors?

Of course. I'm not sure how pointing out their inconsistencies becomes a rationale for yours.

There is a world of difference between regulations to ensure proper business practices and laws that would imprison (or worse) women for making personal reproductive health choices.

No, there isn't, and all "proper" means is approved by politicians. The last thing anyone should want is politicians deciding economic matters, as virtually all freedom is economic.

Economic Freedom vs. Personal Freedom

There is a false dichotomy pushed by the political left - that economic freedom is somehow different (and much less important) than personal freedom. But the truth is, personal freedom is derived from economic freedom and property rights. I'll provide some examples to make this clearer. 1...

debatepolitics.com

 

[Geoist]

So you support abolishing the prescription drug system, correct?

What aspect of the system are we talking about here? Even if I supported keeping some form of that system intact, what does that have to do with my supporting personal choice in drugs?

As I said, you support having the state make all kinds of decisions for her, thereby limiting her options, and making her less free. Abortion is just one more decision for the state to make for her.

It is a dishonest argument to say I should support the state dictating a woman's reproductive choices if I support government regulations. I mean, you're pretty much arguing that pro-choice people who want health standards of abortion clinics enforced by the state are really anti-abortion after all. It's that ridiculous of an argument.

Of course. I'm not sure how pointing out their inconsistencies becomes a rationale for yours.

Right, because anyone who is pro-choice and not an 'anarcho'-capitalist like you is just a hypocrite. Your arguments are based in a fantasy world.

No, there isn't, and all "proper" means is approved by politicians. The last thing anyone should want is politicians deciding economic matters, as virtually all freedom is economic.

Economic Freedom vs. Personal Freedom

There is a false dichotomy pushed by the political left - that economic freedom is somehow different (and much less important) than personal freedom. But the truth is, personal freedom is derived from economic freedom and property rights. I'll provide some examples to make this clearer. 1...

debatepolitics.com

'Government should be abolished' -wundumho.

That is literally the gist of every post you've ever made.

 

[minnie616]

Well, the pro lifer believes the mother is morally obligated to help the child.



You have to figure out what's right and wrong first, before you can write a just law.

Let's also add that the accident victim will die if you refuse to continue with the blood transfusion, and you are the only possible donor in the world.

So you hurt this person, and now only you can save his life. Your actions put him in this situation, so aren't you morally obligated to help him out of it?

A blood transfusion that lasts months?
It causes sever anemia and dames her kidneys.

Yet she is supposed to remain hooked up the accident victim ?

It’s wrong to expect the woman to risk her life.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

Well, the pro lifer believes the mother is morally obligated to help the child.



You have to figure out what's right and wrong first, before you can write a just law.

But a "just" law in matters of emotion, morality, and others can be ambiguous. If I can turn my head one way and say that pro-life is the right way because of x, y, z and you can turn your head the other way and say pro-choice is the right way because of x, y, z -- then maybe the "justness" of the situation is logically undefinable. Perhaps its an issue that should be left up to the individual instead of federal, state, or local government simply -because- it's undefinable.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Well, the pro lifer believes the mother is morally obligated to help the child.

I believe it is morally good to help, but not morally obligated. If there is someone in a burning building would you think the state should punish you if you don’t run in and save them if you are the only one around?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

But a "just" law in matters of emotion, morality, and others can be ambiguous. If I can turn my head one way and say that pro-life is the right way because of x, y, z and you can turn your head the other way and say pro-choice is the right way because of x, y, z -- then maybe the "justness" of the situation is logically undefinable. Perhaps its an issue that should be left up to the individual instead of federal, state, or local government simply -because- it's undefinable.

Leaving it up to the individual is just pro-choice with extra steps.

 

[aociswundumho]

But a "just" law in matters of emotion, morality, and others can be ambiguous. If I can turn my head one way and say that pro-life is the right way because of x, y, z and you can turn your head the other way and say pro-choice is the right way because of x, y, z -- then maybe the "justness" of the situation is logically undefinable. Perhaps its an issue that should be left up to the individual instead of federal, state, or local government simply -because- it's undefinable.

Great, and let's not stop with abortion.

 

[aociswundumho]

I believe it is morally good to help, but not morally obligated. If there is someone in a burning building would you think the state should punish you if you don’t run in and save them if you are the only one around?

No.

 

[ChrisIsLeft]

The thing with the right wing is they never say what they mean. You can argue if a foetus is human all you like. What they mean is, we hate sexually active women and want them to suffer

 

[choiceone]

Well, the pro lifer believes the mother is morally obligated to help the child.



You have to figure out what's right and wrong first, before you can write a just law.

The pro-lifer believes the embryo is a child and I don't.
You have to figure out what's what first, before you can write a just law.

 

[choiceone]

Yet you have no problem with state deciding which drugs she may take, how much she may work for, who she may trade with, whether she may own a firearm, and so on and so forth. This is just one more thing added the incredibly long list of things you support having the state decide.

I actually have no problem with the state deciding which drugs are sufficiently unsafe to be banned for everyone's use, how low a financial reimbursement for work can be without the work verging on a danger to be banned for everyone, what trades and firearms present a clear and present danger to social life.

We are talking about rights in a social context, not personal vices.

The unwanted forcing of generation of overpopulation and unwanted production of children at the risk of others' life and heath is a personal vice that is also a violation of rights in a social context.

 

[aociswundumho]

I actually have no problem with the state deciding which drugs are sufficiently unsafe to be banned for everyone's use, how low a financial reimbursement for work can be without the work verging on a danger to be banned for everyone, what trades and firearms present a clear and present danger to social life.

Yes, so having the state control her vagina is consistent with your beliefs.

 

[roguenuke]

No.

Should everyone be forced to donate their body after their death?

 

[aociswundumho]

Should everyone be forced to donate their body after their death?

No.

 

[roguenuke]

Yes, so having the state control her vagina is consistent with your beliefs.

No, it isn't. There should always be articulated reasons for restrictions based on balance of rights, or general welfare of society.

Drug use should not be criminalized, result in jail time. Drug sales, distribution should be regulated, as that is for general welfare. Abortions should be between a pregnant person and their doctor, but that doesn't mean that abortion cannot be regulated to prevent someone with a "dirty knife and a folding table" from being able to legally perform an abortion.

 

[roguenuke]

No.

So then dead people have more rights than pregnant people.

 

[aociswundumho]

No, it isn't. There should always be articulated reasons for restrictions based on balance of rights, or general welfare of society.

1. Pro lifers do provide reasons.

2. Politicians do not know what's best for society. I can provide a mountain of evidence to support that assertion.

Drug use should not be criminalized, result in jail time. Drug sales, distribution should be regulated, as that is for general welfare.

I've been buying unregulated drugs in unlabeled containers from unlicensed sellers since I was a teenager. What I buy and put into my own body is simply none of your business, and it's certain none of the government's business.

Abortions should be between a pregnant person and their doctor, but that doesn't mean that abortion cannot be regulated

If it's controlled by politics, then it isn't between a woman and her doctor. Having it controlled by government is precisely what gives politicians the power to ban it.

 

[roguenuke]

1. Pro lifers do provide reasons.

2. Politicians do not know what's best for society. I can provide a mountain of evidence to support that assertion.



I've been buying unregulated drugs in unlabeled containers from unlicensed sellers since I was a teenager. What I buy and put into my own body is simply none of your business, and it's certain none of the government's business.



If it's controlled by politics, then it isn't between a woman and her doctor. Having it controlled by government is precisely what gives politicians the power to ban it.

No. Pro-birthers provide excuses and/or religious beliefs mostly.

And if politicians don't know what is best for society, they shouldn't be making laws about what is best for the life of a pregnant person (or transgender person), that should be between the person and their doctor.

If they are selling drugs that are causing societal problems outside of regulation of those drugs, they should face legal consequences. I don't care about your choices of what goes into your body.

State lawmakers are still politicians, government. I'm all for abortion not being banned at all. Leave it up to the woman and her doctor. Having rules related to safe medical practices does not equate to "this should be banned, regulated to not being available at all".