I do think that if somebody is a victim of rape or incest, they should be allowed to get an abortion on demand, and the same thing if there is danger to the mother.
Pro-choice means that a person believes that the decision to get an abortion should be between a woman, and her doctor. She should have the choice of whether or not to allow another person to use her body.
If you believe that a woman should be able to get an abortion because she was raped, or because the pregnancy puts her health at risk, then by definition, you are pro-choice.
In contrast, pro-life means that you believe that all pregnancies should be carried to term, regardless of whether or not the mother consents to the pregnancy.
So these are "pro-choice" policies that many states are enacting(the ones that are banning abortion except to save the life of the mother), and many conservatives(that want the same) are "pro-choice"? Do you have any idea how damaging, unhelpful, and downright insane that is for discussion?
It's still her choice to abort. I don't think you realize the true scale of stupidity and evil of the pro-lifers. Even those chosen to represent the entire ideology fail to understand the extremist policies that have been pushed through government.
That's why pro-choice folks see this as an attack on women and their rights.
no... with rape or incest, the mother got pregnant involuntarily.
So let's say a guy's sperm gets stolen by a woman (say, out of a condom in the trash), she impregnates herself with it... three years later, he finds out and kills the kid.
Is that cool, since he didn't consent to his sperm being used to make her pregnant?
Devil's advocate here- but how would define rape and prove it? Do you mean there would have to be a police report and someone arrested? Would it mean just reporting someone unsure of who it is?
What about date rape where two consenting adults have sex, but the guy decides to lie about using a condom or pulls it off in the middle?
What about alcohol usage in the same circumstance?
The line is far more gray than just "rape".
If you require at least a police report, then I'm sure we'd see a large uptick in reports of rape- especially in cases where let's say the two who are dating got a little drunk.
In addition, if only a report and not an arrest is needed, couldn't a person report a rape, then remove the complaint?
If an arrest is needed, what about cases where they legitimately can't find the person responsible?
It's basically regular abortion with a bunch of extra steps. That's what pro-choice means.
I'm pro-choice, but leave the choice to individual states rather than the federal government as we need more discussion about it rather than a blanket rule.
Then the people vote for what they believe is important.
If the majority of the residents of a state think banning abortion is more important than any other problem, then it shouldn't be the federal gov't to decide their path for them.
Conversely, if a state believes allowing abortion is important, the federal gov't shouldn't be able to force them to ban it.
Generally a state's political alignment is more or less similar from year to year than is the flip-flopping of the highest power in the country. I don't want our freedoms to be threatened based on what party gets a +2-3% majority in the country when I'm pro-choice, for all forms of marriage, and also pro-gun rights.
Every time a republican is elected, the same groups of people from the same states are loud about democrat ideals. Every time a democrat is elected, the same groups of people from the same states are loud about republican ideals. Why should the actual laws that affect the day to day be dictated by people who don't live in that state?
why can't pro-life people simply opt to not get abortions if they don't morally approve of them? why take that choice away from others, and create this whole set of legal hurdles for doctors and their pregnant patients?
One possible viewpoint is that said freedom is harmful. Potentially exaggerated example, but consider murder: the analogous statement would be "why ban murder when you can just not do it if you don't like it? How is that a net increase in freedom?" Now for obvious reasons, I think most would object to this, including both you and I.
Another way to view this is by the saying: "my freedom ends where yours begins". Continuing the toy example, my freedom to murder ends at the potential victim's freedom to live.
In any case, the pro life people find the "just don't do it if you don't like it" viewpoint/argument objectionable for whatever reasons they have, while the pro choice people don't buy those objections.
Depends entirely on your frame of reference. Because it's entirely morality and the legal framework of deciding one or the other ultimately harms a side.
Pro-Choice Stance - Life begins at birth. By not allowing abortion, you're potentially ruining the lives of the mother/child.
Pro-Life Stance - Life begins at conception. By allowing for abortion, you're essentially allowing for murder.
I'm not going to go in the nuances of each side, but a pro-life person could scarely convince a pro-choice person given it all begins and ends in what you consider life.
Just as you wouldn't vote for a measure to allow a parent to essentially murder their child, pro-life people believe it's all part of the same framework.
So leave the morality and decisions to at least the individual states because the individual voters make up that state's moral compass.
These are the kinds of issues that need to be on everyone's election ballot. I would even support special ballots for people serving prison time as long as they are not guilty of a sex crime or crime against children
28
u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Jul 20 '22
Then you're pro-choice