Posted on 02/06/2003 10:07:11 AM PST by chance33_98
Why am I pro-choice:
In my essay on the morality of abortion, I go to great lengths to refute the claims of Robert George and Hadley Arkes. In this essay, I wish to merely offer a clarification of my position and brief explanation of why I am pro-choice.
To give an extremely simple answer, I am pro-choice because I am a feminist. I believe that a woman has a natural, constitutional right to procreative autonomy. She has a basic freedom to choose when she wants to bare children. Personally, I don’t think any reasonable person can reject this claim. After all, if women have no such right to procreative autonomy, then couldn’t women be forced to bare children if it were in the best interest of the state? Such legislation couldn’t be said to be a violation of rights, for there would be no right to violate. But this scenario would be clearly condemned as a violation of rights; hence, it must imply that within the concept of freedom, there's the freedom to choose when to bare children, namely there's a right to procreative autonomy. Thus, procreative autonomy should be considered central to a women’s liberties, allowing them to be able to make that sacred and incredibly personal choice. The issue only becomes complicated in light of the claims of an embryo and a fetus, namely when the women is already pregnant. It immediately becomes questionable whether the issue of privacy even comes into play; after all, the whole controversy is whether it’s a private matter! For if the fetus is an actual person, then clearly abortion couldn't be described as private matter. Hence, the use of the right to privacy, protected either in the "prenumbras of the emanations" as in Griswold or within the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, can only be relevant given prior analysis on the status of the fetus, as Blackmun recognized in Roe v. Wade. Is the fetus actually alive? Is it actually a person? Hence, the abortion debate is essentially about a conflict of interests and potentially a conflict of rights - the rights of the mother versus the rights of the embryo/fetus. But what exactly are the rights of the embryo/fetus?
In my previous essay, I argued that a fetus and embryo is not a person and, consequently, doesn’t have the rights as a person; hence, it’s simply false to equate abortion with murder. Since murder is killing an innocent person with rights, abortion is not murder, for it kills an innocent life without rights. But this isn't very morally problematic. A plant is also an innocent life without rights, but no one seeks to protect its life. Or to take a different example, a pig is an innocent life (far more complex that a fetus or embryo in the early stages of pregnancy); nevertheless, the pro-life movement doesn't rally against the selling of bacon or pork. In addition, the mere qualification of `it's human life' isn't sufficient to provide a morally relevant distinction. As a consequence, I concluded that abortion is not murder, and that it fundamentally misleading to characterize it as such. After all, the issue can't be a conflict of interests or rights anymore, for the embryo/fetus has no rights or interests to speak of until very late in the pregnancy (probably around 26 to 30 weeks). Nevertheless, an embryo and fetus are obviously something, and it’s hard to think that abortion should be taken lightly, especially as it becomes later in pregnancy. Personally, I believe that except for extreme circumstances, such as severe physical and psychological health risks to the mother (for instance, possibility of death or in cases of rape and incest), abortions in the third-trimester should be disallowed. In addition, I believed partial-birth abortions should also be outlawed. But within the first and second trimester, it’s obvious that a fetus doesn’t have any degree of consciousness or awareness. In addition, it is unable to feel pain, and it's hard if not impossible to describe the embryo/fetus as actually having interests or possessing any rights to speak of. The simple fact is that most animals, especially mammals, have greater interests and ability to feel pain than does a fetus at that time. Since I believe interests and ability to feel pain correlate to rights, I believe that an animal has greater rights than a fetus does during the early stages of pregnancy. This doesn’t mean that abortion should be taken lightly; rather, I still think it should be taken seriously. The fetus is still alive, and on the basis of that, it does have some intrinsic value. But in my mind, its value is considerably less than the value of conscious, sentient human beings. It’s also less than the value of animals with the ability to feel pain and suffer. But yes, it does have value.
Still, the stakes are very high for women. And I think it’s a decision they should be able to make themselves. They should be able to decide on the value of that life, which is so closely connected to their own. They should be able to decide on their own whether they want to become a mother or not, and they should be able to decide when they want to become a mother. On a constitutional level, I believe there's no question that the right to abortion is protected. Procreative autonomy is implicit within the concept of ordered liberty; hence, it's constitutionally protected by the 14th Amendment. In addition, the fetus/embryo isn't a constitutional person. While a state can obviously seek to protect a fetus/embryo, it cannot do so by violating constitutional rights; hence, as was held in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, a state cannot legitimately prohibit or excessively restrict abortion. Given the important rights and freedoms at stake for a woman, I believe the right to abortion is worth fighting for, and I believe that it must be protected and preserved in our society.
Darren Geist, July 2002, Princeton University
The ESA is the best-known wildlife protection law, but there are others, [16] particularly the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 - 711. This law forbids anyone to "hunt, take, capture, kill, . . . [or] possess" any bird protected by one of the treaties or to disturb their nesting sites. 16 U.S.C. § 703; 50 C.F.R. §§ 10.1, 10.12.
There are over 800 species of migratory birds, including many common ones like Canada geese, barn swallows, and two kinds of starling. See 50 C.F.R. § 10.13. Indeed, very few birds are not migratory for regulatory purposes. Courts have held that even the accidental killing of a migratory bird can be a criminal act under this law. See United States v. FMC Corp. , 572 F.2d 902 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Corbin Farm Service , 444 F. Supp. 510 (E.D. Cal.), aff'd , 578 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1978). Occasionally a businessperson will find that a flock of birds is interfering with her enterprise. Her inclination may be to put out some poisoned corn, but she does so at her peril.
The law also prohibits possessing any part of a migratory bird or its nest, egg, or product. See 50 C.F.R. § 10.12. Thus having a robin's egg or feather is a federal crime, though this is enforced only in commercial situations. Indian lore projects need to stick with turkey feathers, which are commercially available.
An education wasted upon a fool. I nominate her to be a human shield in Baghdad. I will foot the bill to send her there. People like her should not be in the gene pool.
I will buy the plane ticket :)
I think that the children should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to go naked or not.
Because you are selfish, cold hearted, uncaring, and ignorant.
I believe that this is a Princeton-educated man (Darren. He refers to women as "they"). He probably wants to "bare" children just like Scott Ritter.
And with that line, she disregards the entire pro-life beliefs.
I believe that a woman has a natural, constitutional right to procreative autonomy.Considering that natural human procreation is intrinsically dualistic -- as in male and female -- I submit that no one has a natural right to procreative autonomy.
Another point is "she doesn't kill the baby, a doctor and staff does"....What oath???
Darren seems to be one of those feminized men so disgusted with his masculinity that he gives control over procreation over entirely to women, ala "autonomy". The idea that it takes two parents to procreate is completely lost in the desire to grovel with some woman's boot up his rear.
Secondly, Darren is really too stoooopid to be at a major university if he can't tell the difference between "baring" children (making them nekkid) and "bearing" children, the process of giving birth.
Perhaps part of him was aborted - say his brain and his testicles.
The spell checker would pass "baring" children in a heartbeat. I certainly agree with you that he can't think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.