Yes, Pro-Choicers argue that women should have the right to choose, but they've also argued that "there's no one in there" and abortion isn't that bad. Does a woman always have the fundamental right to get pregnant, or to keep a pregnancy? What about in situations where a woman bringing another person into the world might have a detrimental impact on that society? (maybe not in your country but some other country like China) I've noticed that many Pro-Choicers (when it comes to abortion) seem to have no problem with laws coercing people to have vaccines injected into their own bodies. So obviously they believe the greater good trumps bodily rights, in some cases. And I think we might be headed in that direction. After all, it's only a woman's individual personal choice we're talking about, and we all know how little regard many Progressives have for individual personal choice. Well, at least when it comes to many other areas. We've already seen this play out in the Soviet Union and Romania. Those Communist governments banned abortion, not because they had any moral qualms with abortion (in fact the Soviet Union had actually been the first country in the world to fully legalize abortion 16 years earlier), but because they thought government social policy trumped personal choice and they wanted a higher birthrate. In Communist China we've seen women being forced to have abortions, in many provinces. The Chinese Central government has always denied it but it was obviously going on. It's only been within the last 10 years that this policy has stopped, although there have still been a few rare isolated cases that have been reported since then. (There are also rumors of forced abortions in North Korea but those stories can't be substantiated) I think we are naive if we think the Pro-Choice movement (i.e. making abortion something legal and acceptable) is not eventually going to lead to this direction someday, even if it might be a long time from now.
This is absurd. But first lets start with your evidence that pro choicers are in favor of laws that coerce 'people' to get vaccinations. Can you provide links to this evidence so that we know exactly what you are talking about, which prochoicers, which people and what vaccinations? Lets see just how far away we pro choicers actually are, from becoming communist Chinese government officials forcing abortions on defenseless women.
There's a movement by Progressives to make vaccinations mandatory: https://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-news/july-2018/zero-tolerance-vaccine-laws-in-america.aspx Most of these places where this movement is strongest are also places where there is the most support for abortion. The state of California, for example, a few years ago made vaccinations a requirement if they go to public or private schools, and children have to receive an education in that state. (The state has also waged attacks against home schooling in the past) Additional info here: States Move To Restrict Parents' Refusal To Vaccinate Their Kids There's been initiatives in many other states trying to make it mandatory, but thankfully those initiatives have been fought off by groups concerned over individual liberties and potential vaccine risks.
Is it? Or is it just another example of Progressives on the Left being duplicitous and holding double standards? Act one way in one situation, and then turn around and act completely different in another situation, denying they are the same people who supported that other thing. If that's not the case then it's funny how clueless Progressives are to the beliefs of many others within their own ranks. RiaRaeb, I suspect you may be what is termed a "classical liberal", but there are many other Progressives whose beliefs are very antithetical to personal freedom.
In which case using the same criteria this makes you a classic extremist rightwinger. You are ERRONEOUSLY CONFLATING two entirely DIFFERENT CONCEPTS! Vaccinations are about PUBLIC HEALTH! Those of us who are old enough recall that diseases like POLIO meant that children became CRIPPLED FOR LIFE! The polio vaccine was a major benefit to ALL of society. Only those who don't know about the ravages of these diseases are gullible enough to believe the bovine excrement being touted by the ignorant anti-vaxxers. And that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the INDIVIDUAL REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS that any women can exercise for herself. It is fundamentalist theists who want to DENY women these RIGHTS. Which means that the fundamentalist theists are the ones who have EVERYTHING IN COMMON with those Communist Regimes. If you want to deny women the right to an abortion then how does that make you any different to those regimes that are doing it?
And abortions are not about the wellbeing of society? How about mandatory abortions for children that would be born crippled? Are reproductive rights somehow fundamentally different from other bodily rights? The reasons are different.
Women choosing to have an abortion are doing so for PERSONAL REASONS or did you not know that? Inane non sequitur! Deflection duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons. Irrelevant since BOTH want to deny women their individual rights.
Isn't there a connection? You advocate taking away bodily rights to prevent children from being crippled. Wouldn't that be a parallel to taking away women's bodily rights so there would not be crippled children?
Are you saying women are not so altruistic as the rest of pro-choicers when it comes to the reasons for their personal decisions?
Will you and other Pro-Choicers apply that same mentality when it comes to other political subjects? Or does it only apply to sex and pregnancy?
This is false: "we all know how little regard many Progressives have for individual personal choice." It is the conservative, who should be for freedom, who wants to tell people what to do with their body in matters of pregnancy.
I don’t think it’s a fundamental right in and of itself but I don’t see how it could be prevented against their will without impacting their fundamental rights in one way or another. This is one of the reasons it's a complicated area with no simple answers (regardless of how you try to spin the question ). The direction of coerced or forced abortions? That already happens, regardless of whether abortion is openly available, limited or entirely illegal. It could be argued that making abortion criminal or a socially taboo actually makes it more difficult for the victims of this crime to speak out or seek help.
I'm glad you don't support taking personal choice away from other people. Please don't vote for them either. I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are being genuine, and not stupid or a hypocrite who constitute the majority.
That's true, but don't you think legal abortion makes it easier for women to be coerced into it? What if, for example, we legalized sex between 13 year old girls and adult men? You don't think that might open up the door to lots of girls getting coerced into it? (In fact, isn't that the reason it's illegal?) Maybe bad example, don't reply if this is really off base and not applicable to what we're discussing.
Do you have any clue how those on the Left are against personal freedom, or not? (longer worded version: how those on the side of the Left have consistently shown they are against the notion of personal freedom on all sorts of issues) If the answer is no, then you're obviously pretty ignorant on the political scene. In that case you might want to read up more on this topic on a few conservative sites and then get back to us.
Not necessarily. Specifics are going to vary case-by-case but and legal and open system should have checks for exactly that kind of thing where an underground illegal operation wouldn’t. A lack of legal abortion options could also push that coercion towards dangerous home methods for terminating pregnancy. Quite a good example actually. There are children (girls and boys) coerced in to having sex with adults even though it is illegal and the illegality can make it more difficult for those children to seek help and support. I’m not convinced legality would increase the number of coerced relationships (it wouldn’t magically make children more willing), though it might increase the number of nominally consensual ones. It’s really another area where simple legal assertions can’t provide any kind of complete solution to the problem(s). Things like same-sex relationships, mixed-race relationships or sex outside marriage have never been prevented by simple criminalisation either.
