Blog For Choice Day

[callistra]

I am pro-choice because I believe NO ONE has the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body. I believe I have the RIGHT to remove an unwanted pregnancy if I so desire, and that the only other people who can have a say in this is my partner, and realistically this is a CHOICE of mine and not a right of his. You don't own it cos you fucked it. I have the RIGHT to have this performed in a medically safe and approved manner. My body is MINE.

I think Lauredhel wrote a better rant about how women are legally children. Go and read it.

Comments

[kaths.livejournal.com]

I understand that, but I also understand the point of view of those who feel the foetus has its own rights. And one's rights usually end where another's begin, eg you can swing around a hammer, but not if someone's standing right next to you, as their rights for safety trump your right to throw it around.

And even if a foetus isn't capable of living without support from the mother, if it's left alone it will be able to, hence it having its own rights.

I'm not really clear on where I stand on this issue... I have no qualms with things like the morning after pill (although obviously prevention is a better option) and also abortion after rape.

It's a contiuum I suppose, the further it gets along, the harder it is to accept it. Especially when it's only a few weeks away from being able to be born. I've never had to truly confront the issue on a personal level as I've never been pregnant.

I heard a podcast recently about the issue, and it tried to get past all the political issues and high emotions of it by using an analogy: If you woke up one day with someone attached to you, who needed the help of your kidneys to survive for 9 months, after which time they would be okay, would you let them stay attached to you, or cut them free and let them die? Would it be morally okay to do that? And if you left them attached, what if you decided after 4 months that you'd had enough and wanted to cut them free at that point? Would it be equally morally acceptable or less or more so?

It's obviously not directly compatible as an analogy, but it's interesting to explore it and then seeing how it relates.

[foamiethegreeny.livejournal.com]

Hi callistra
Given the dangly bits i think i'm allowed an opinion but no concrete rights in this area. I'm not the one who has to carry around an ever growing watermelon for nine months. I think education is the most important thing in the whole debate, pro-choice is a right but then you get government saying yes it a woman right to choose But we're not going to tell you about sex education or contraception option. If you think i'm joking look at china or america where sex education is non existent and abortion is used as major form of contraception. I not say abortion is not a right but rather young women are force to go through this rather than other simpler form of contraception. Then you get our dickhead government here giving pregnancy counselling contracts to the catholic church. That's not help, that's not advice, that's religious rhetoric that god will send you to hell if you don't do anything but have the baby even if it kills you. Pro-choice is only a word if choices are not explain, and i fear that we are currently headed for the grand god-fearing american model.

[foamiethegreeny.livejournal.com]

so when do these rights begin, do cells reproducing in a Petri dish have rights, do the animals we eat have rights. Rights are an arbitrary construct given by society. I think giving a cut off date for abortion is the only way, otherwise every sperm is scared and masturbation is now illegal

[kaths.livejournal.com]

The abstinence approach, and the amount of money the government throws into those programs in the US is ridiculous. And they DON'T WORK!

Plus it's been shown that the more educated people are about sex, the later they first start having sex.

[kaths.livejournal.com]

When those rights begin is the tricky thing, and I have no answer.

It's hard to define a point at which it should or shouldn't be allowed, as it's a continuum of development, so there's no clear time.

I suppose one guide is the point at which they can survive outside the womb (without help), but that's being pushed back earlier and earlier so what might be okay now won't be in 10 years.

Plus the thought of aborting a foetus that is only 1 or 2 weeks off being 'viable' seems wrong to me.

[callistra.livejournal.com]

What's wrong to you should have nothing to do with my womb.
:-)

And I don't quite get your whole "when they can survive outside the womb" thing. I didn't like your analogy of the kidney thing either, but I figured I wasn't going to quibble. :-)

But anyway, I'm not going to quibble with anything because you have every right to say what you like, and I will happily defend your right to say it.

[kaths.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's your womb, but I suppose it's like if you say you're going to push someone out of a building, saying that it's your building so you can do what you want in it, that doesn't mean you can get rid of someone just because they're in your building. Ie your right to do what you want is superceded by theirs.

If someone believes that a foetus has its own rights, then its survival supercedes a woman's desire to get rid of it. So the issue then is whether it has its own rights, and if so, when.

The surviving outside the womb thing... I suppose I'm saying that if eg a foetus can survive at 25 weeks, having an abortion at 25 weeks is wrong if there's the option to give birth.

I don't think I explained the analogy thing very well...

Feel free to quibble! I'm happy to discuss this issue and our varying points of view, and I promise not to go all drama queen about it :) I also don't mind if you want to leave it as is.

Unfortunately it's an issue that people find very difficult to discuss without it all blowing up, but I suppose because I'm not too clear on it all, I can see different sides and understand where people are coming from, even if I don't totally agree with those points.

Random comment...

[igneous-smurf.livejournal.com]

You seem to like the word "right", but nowhere do I hear the word "responsibility" mentioned.

Don't you think that a person should take responsibility for their actions? Most people have sex knowing full well that there is the possibility that a child may result. Shouldn't they be held accountable for their actions?

I'm not saying that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances eg, rape victims, under age sex etc. However, when two consenting, informed adults decide to have sex why should they be allowed to have an abortion simply because having a child is inconvenient? If the woman doesn't want a child, there are plenty of other loving, childless couples out there that would be happy to give it a home.

Also, I would like to know where you stand on the rights of the unborn child. Do you think that a child doesn't have any rights until it's born? Until it can speak? Age 12? Age 18? Age 21? When do you believe that it's appropriate to identify the child/fetus as a "person"?

Re: Random comment...

[cheshirenoir.livejournal.com]

Troll..

Do I even bother arguing? No.

Hey Troll. Get a life.

Re: Random comment...

[igneous-smurf.livejournal.com]

I'm very sorry that you think I'm a troll. I came across this blog through a friend of a friend and thought the discussion was interesting enough to comment on. I apologise if I've offended people.

I was just trying to view a different side to the issue and ask what people's viewpoints on certain topics were. I never meant to infer "I'm right and you're wrong." and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Re: Random comment...

[zey.livejournal.com]

You seem to like the word "right", but nowhere do I hear the word "responsibility" mentioned. Don't you think that a person should take responsibility for their actions?

There's an interesting argument that where a woman uses her (completely correct) freedom to decide to carry a child to full-term without the male parent's agreement or consent, that she should carry full financial and parenting responsibility for it: the right of choice being balanced by the responsibility of choice. (Most responses to that seem to centre on the male's choice being one of abstinence: by not abstaining from the nooky, he takes automatic responsibility.)

But I don't think that's where you're coming from. The thing that's always puzzled me about US Republicans is they'll die in a ditch to protect a 1 month foetus. Then, once it's born, they'll abandon its "rights to life" and let it starve in a world of poverty caused by their free market ideology. Strange human beings, the lot of them.

(Sorry Chesh. Shouldn't feed the trolls...)

Re: Random comment...

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

Where that "interesting" argument becomes tiresome and instantly evaporates is at the point when the arguer finds out that financial child support is a child's right, not a parent's.

Re: Random comment...

[zey.livejournal.com]

Where that "interesting" argument becomes tiresome and instantly evaporates is at the point when the arguer finds out that financial child support is a child's right, not a parent's.

Yes and no. The born child certainly has a right to exist and be supported in some way.

That debate's more about who has the responsibility to foot the bill: the one who actually wanted the baby and had the right and responsibility to choose (to keep the bub, abort or put up for adoption) -- or the guy she bonked one night ;-).

I'm sure there are lots of genuine "deadbeat Dads" around, who don't pay mandated child support costs for children of broken relationships. Yep, they're villains: they accepted responsibility for a child and are now trying to duck it after the fact. But that's a whole separate debate on a different issue.

Re: Random comment...

[zey.livejournal.com]

Oh, off-topic here, congratulations on your excellent site (http://www.ozclothnappies.org/). A good resource which seems to be becoming justifiably popular.

Might be worth seeking sponsorship soon to help defray those hosting charges.

Re: Random comment...

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that!

One of our core ethics at Ozclothnappies is no paid advertising, no money, no budget. We're part of the global gift economy resurgence: people offering each other information, no more, no less.

Anything really needed (like hosting) can be donated directly by interested parties, but with no advertising or promotions in return.

Lara