Pro-choicers how far do you take your view?

Question

This question is not specifically about abortion but obviously we assume you can condone it since it is "the woman's body and her choice". So having said that, do you believe that people should be allowed to choose to take drugs like amphetamines? Furthermore would you advocate in the name of "choice" for a child to take drugs.

Now I understand you may say they're irrational but this still raises problems because where do we draw the line on rationality concerning abortion? If it is a 30 year old woman yet she may be irrational when making the choice does that illegitimise her choice immediately? How do we decide? At worst this is an inconsistency and of course does not prove the rightness of any pro-life argument but it could prove the wrongness of many pro-choice arguments based on advocating for choice alone. Excuse the length :)

Answer 1

comparing being pro-choice and legalizing drugs is like comparing the proverbial apple and orange.  There are always exceptions to every rule and every condition - you can't make laws which will touch on every possible exception.  asking hypothetical questions will only yield hypothetical answers - for example, how would you prove the 30 year-old is irrational?  We don't decide that NO female may have the procedure but we can decide that each woman has the right to make that decision for herself.  That's why it's referred to as  pro-CHOICE.

As for children deciding to take drugs?  No.  When the child becomes an adult, then yes - it's assumed they then have enough knowledge and wisdom and education to make the best decision for themselves and if they were raised 'right' - they will.

Your argument begins with one hypothetical fallacy then you 'support' it with further fallacies.

For example, 'at worst this is an inconsistency' how?  because one woman out of a billion MIGHT be irrational?  Isn't this throwing the baby out with the bath water?  And if arguments based on advocating for choice alone are 'wrong,' the alternative is the government making the decision - and we've already been down that road.

If anything, YOU need to stop inviting the government into our bedrooms and bathrooms.

Response:  Firstly, you were comparing two analogies to each other - again, apples and oranges.  Where's the 'hypocrisy' of deciding when one is an adult?  Is it hypocrisy to decide what's against the law?  There's no hypocrisy of saying you can choose between doing or not doing.  Your way on the other hand, is to take the choice away - you speak for WOMEN by stating they shouldn't have the RIGHT to decide for themselves but make it blatantly illegal across the board.  It's either choice (I support) - or no choice.  It's hardly hypocrisy by saying you can choose to have or you can choose not to have.  You can choose to be a housewife or you can choose to be a career woman.  Why do you see hypocrisy in choices?

I never said it was choice alone that matters.  I said given education and wisdom, when a child passes from childhood to adulthood, THEN they have the right to make decisions for themselves and hopefully, they'll make the right decisions.  Reread what I wrote please before quoting me.

"I would appreciate no more self-righteous rhetoric since it is isn't exactly worthwhile knowledge."  Then YOU need to be quiet.  BTW, what does not being an American have to do with anything other than attempting to tell Americans how they should live.  No where did I mention being or not being an American.  More made up psuedo-intelligence crapola to 'support' your non-argument.

Response:  "Empirical:  derived from experience or experiment.  Depending on experience or observation alone; without using scientific method or theory; verifiable by experience or experiment."

I do have an empirical reason why it should be legal which is based on my experience -

Response 3:  "...pro-choice stands alone as correct regardless of moral arguments."  

Well said and exactly right.

Answer 2

I asked a similar question and got nothing but hypocrisy from the pro-abortion movement (which cannot be called pro-choice, since they only support choice in the case of abortion, not as a consistent philosophy)

I wanted to know if "pro-chioicers" would defend one's right to not be forcibly tied down, and vaccinated against their will.  

I don't think even ONE person defended choice.

For many/most in the pro-abortion movement, choice is not the issue at all, privacy is not the issue at all, big government is not the issue at all, convenient killing of unwanted fetuses is the purpose.  period.

Answer 3

i didn't understand a lot of what you meant by amphetamines, but i can talk aboutlike where to draw the line on it...

i say it all depends on the woman. for example if you're 16 and you're pregnant to your boyfriend whose parents hate your guts and would only keep you further away from him if they found out, but your mother wants him to help take care of the baby but she doesn't know that his parents hate you and you KNOW that if you have the baby, you won't be able to live out any of your dreams and also if you think adoption would be wrong for whatever reason, i say it's fine.

but if you're perfectly capable of taking care of a baby and the only reason you don't want to is because you don't feel like it or you're too lazy or don't want to deal with labor, i'd say suck it up and have the kid.

i used to be really pro-life until i thought i was pregnant...then i got the carajo scared out of me and turned pro-choice lol...yet it is pro-choice, and CAN be influenced by pro-life people, it's ultimately the pregnant woman's choice. but if a pro-life group knocks on her door and talks about the baby and its development and she changes her mind from that conversation, there's nothing wrong with that and she won't get the abortion.

the way i see the choice to be pro-life or pro-choice, is that whichever one you choose to be, it's in God's plan for you to do so and nobody should be complaining about women who have abortions because it was supposed to happen. if someone changes her mind to not have the abortion, then that was also supposed to happen. everything happens for a reason, i think.

btw, that woman who supposedly had 9 abortions within a year by impregnating herself and then using drugs to have miscarriages and turning into a school art project...do we know yet if that was real or if it was fake?

Answer 4

Because the use of amphetamines or most other illegal drugs can kill or destroy the health of the user.

Answer 5

I dont see how things could go any further than having the choice to kill an innocent un-born child. Maybe take it as far as if you are unhappy with the little package that has arrived, then you have 12 months to kill it before you are considered a murderer.

Answer 6

A Free Thinker, you blanket statement of calling pro-choicers "pro-abortion" is just as bad as those who say that anti-abortionist are "pro-fetus" and only care about it up until the moment it is born. After that, it is completely on its own and maybe it will find a good home but it's also all right if it gets dumped into foster care and lives a life of abuse and neglect. It's better to have lived a terrible life than never at all. Those of us who are pro-choice are truly that. We will support any decision a woman makes as long as she makes it based on her own free will and without coercion from those who don't know her and know nothing about her circumstances.

Yes, I do support people's right to refuse to be held down and vaccinated but they need to be informed of the very real risks of not being vaccinated.

Answer 7

You have a really virulent strain of womb envy.  You should see a doctor for that.

Sperm is fertilizer, not seed.

I understood your question completely.  An adult should have the right to take whatever substance she/he chooses.  

A woman should have the legal right to terminate her pregnancy.  Ending a pregnancy is not equal to murder.  Killing an embryo or fetus is abortion.  Murder is killing a person (someone who has been BORN).

Whether a woman is on any legally taken substance when she makes her decision is none of my business.

This section is full of womb-envying misogynists tonight.

Answer 8

It's a fair point, we confine people in hospitals against their will if we 'decide' they are mentally ill. And those who decide to harm themselves are often denied the choice on the grounds they are 'incapable'.

You must compare these scenarios with pregnant women and decide if they share any similarities enough to warrant similar intervention. If a woman is perfectly sane (and as far as I know pregnancy is not mental illness), her decisions have to be taken as rational. Morality is another matter entirely and rarely has anything to do with reason, rather it is an emotional position.

Answer 9

We draw the line where I am from at 18, before that the choice is the hands of the child's parents.  After that, yes, I do think people should have free choice.  There is going to have to be an arbitrary line in the sand regardless of what age it is.  Most can tell right from wrong by that time even if they aren't 'fully developed' yet.

The alternative of course is to have a society in which only some members have rights and others do not since they do not meet the criteria of 'fully developed'

Far too Orwellian for my tastes.

Answer 10

I love how people attack one another when they do not know the answer to the question.  In this case it shows how little you know about your own beliefs...that makes me wonder how you can criticize others.  Rambling on about something other than the question asked is always entertaining too.

I personally could never have an abortion, but am pro choice because of the benefits to society.  I am going to assume you are speaking of illegal drugs or misused prescription or OTC drugs when you say "drugs".  These do not benefit society so no, I do not condone the use of these.  I have one exception to marijuana which I would have no problem with people using for medical purposes or if it became legal and was regulated like alcohol.

A person's right to choose ends when the choice harms society.  Driving drunk at 120 mph, maybe someone's choice, but is is harmful to society and therefore wrong.

EDIT- Because children's brains are not fully developed they do not have the mental capability to make accurate decisions.  The human brain is still very much developing into a person's early 20's...some suggest until the age of 25.  The last portion to develop is the frontal lobe which helps in decision making.

It has always boggled my mind how we can let someone legally be an adult vote, even die for our country, before all of this happens.  I know many have suggested lowering the drinking age, but perhaps with more recent data that would not be such a grand idea.

Answer 11

I want to know it it's my body, my choice, then why can't I sell my kidney on eBay? I could use the cash.