It's an article I never published. You're right; it's too long and it belongs in a blog.

----
Pro-Choice, a Misnomer

Advocates for legalized abortion often defend their position by appealing to the concept of personal choice: more specifically, since a woman should have control over her own body and since a fetus is an insentient part of her body, she should have the right to choose the outcome of the pregnancy (up to a certain stage, at least). The goal here is not to examine the merits of the Pro-Choice argument. Rather, the Pro-Choice argument will be assumed true and its implications will be examined. As it turns out, many Pro-Choice advocates, who portray themselves as defenders of personal choice, are really nothing of the sort. They appeal to the autonomy of personal choice when it suits their interests and ignore it otherwise.

Assume—as many Pro-Choice supporters have—that an individual should have autonomy over her own body. This leads to some interesting conclusions. For example, if an individual should have autonomy over her body then she should have the right to decide what goes into her body. Therefore, Pro-Choice advocates should, in theory, frown upon “sin taxes” which raise the prices of alcohol and cigarettes to prohibitive levels. After all, it is a personal choice to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, and sin taxes are simply an indirect attempt to interfere with personal choice.

The same argument applies to nearly every area of consumption—from fast-food to narcotics. The Pro-Choice advocate should assert that while the choice to eat fast food in mass quantity is unhealthy, it is nonetheless a personal choice and should be given the sanctity as such. Thus, Pro-Choice advocates should oppose the idea of punitively taxing fast-food corporations. Similarly, the Pro-Choice advocate should oppose anti-drug laws in principle because it interferes with an individual’s autonomy of his or her own body. In fact, the whole point of anti-drug legislation is to deprive individuals of personal choice in the matter.

Or consider prostitution. Recall that an underlying tenant of the Pro-Choice argument is that a woman should have autonomy over her body. If this is so, then a woman should have the right to prostitute herself. After all, the choice to take up prostitution is nothing more than a choice as to how to employ one’s body. Ultimately though, many Pro-Choice advocates refuse to acknowledge this. Instead, they will drag out red herrings about exploitation. They will assert that prostitution is exploitative, making it inherently bad. But this idea fails to hold up to scrutiny.

There is no doubt that in many parts of the world women are forced into prostitution. I am not attempting to trivialize that. On the other hand, in the United States, along with much of the developed world, the overwhelming majority of men and women who work in sex trade do so largely out of choice. Pro-Choice advocates, by their own rationale, should respect those choices (not that they ever will, or anything).

But instead of discussing peripheral issues like cigarettes and prostitution, perhaps we should discuss the general autonomy of a woman’s personal choices, among these: how she uses her time, how she spends her income, and with whom she associates. If Pro-Choice advocates were consistent, they would respect these personal choices, just as they respect a woman’s reproductive choice. But they rarely do.

Consider a woman who owns a small business. She decides how her time, energy, and money are best invested: what equipment to buy, which employees to hire, and how to run her business. At a very basic level, these are personal choices for the business owner—and the business owner alone—to make. Some may say this is being unfair to the employees. But just as the small business owner makes her personal economic choices, so do the employees. If employees believe it is in their interests to go elsewhere, then they will do so. The goal here is not to describe how a business work, but to illustrate a point: that is, the driving mechanism behind economic activity is personal choice— the choices of workers, the choices of business owners, and the choices of consumers.

But when it comes to personal economic decisions, many Pro-Choice advocates take their most valued principle—the autonomy of personal choice—and gleefully discard it. They are all too eager to have government tell businesses which employees can be hired and under what conditions they can be employed. They are all too eager to have government tell individuals what portion of their incomes they can keep and in what manner it may be spent. They are all too eager to have government dictate which commodities can be traded and with whom they can be traded. It never dawns on these Pro-Choice supporters that maybe—just maybe— this type of economic regulation interferes the personal choices of individuals.

For the most part, Pro-Choice advocates are no more “pro-choice” than the shrill anti-abortion protestors. Both groups are eager to use the coercive power of government to legislate their aesthetical tastes onto everyone else. Whereas the anti-abortion protestors seek to interfere with the reproductive choices of women, Pro-Choice advocates often stick their noses into the personal economic lives of everyone else. Both groups deserve each other.

The next time a Pro-Choice advocate approaches you or when a representative from NOW gives you a pamphlet, listen attentively to what she has to say. After she explains the evils of having government meddle in the reproductive affairs of women, politely inquire if it is just as wrong for government to meddle in the economic affairs of individuals. She will most likely give you a blank stare. You may also hear a loud “Whoosh!” But don’t worry: that was the sound of your point going over her head.

---

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 10:57 AM. Reason : Now cue Socks' bitching.]

10/5/2005 10:53:52 AM

Stopped reading after the second paragraph. Very predictable, and just as equally shallow.

10/5/2005 10:58:03 AM

FACE REALITY...

"pro-choice" = pro-murdering babies



that is all

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 10:59 AM. Reason : 1]

10/5/2005 10:58:33 AM

Looks remarkably like a human being. Not a person though. But keep bringing more gore.

10/5/2005 11:04:21 AM

does anyone else have the sudden craving for bbq wings?

10/5/2005 11:12:35 AM

Quote :

"Not a person though"

And what do you mean by "person"?

An unborn child has the genetic makeup/DNA of a human being and is clearly alive. An unborn child is CLEARLY a living human being.

10/5/2005 11:24:11 AM

this reminds me of bill o'reily, trying to make the argument that if you are pro-choice, you should also be "pro-choice to how you invest your retirement money," talking about social security.

10/5/2005 11:26:19 AM

Your penis has a genetic make-up of a human being and is (hopefully) not dead. Doesn't make it a person. A fetus is part of the mother's body until the birth.

P.S. Bill O'Reilly is pretty shallow.

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 11:27 AM. Reason : ?]

10/5/2005 11:26:53 AM

Keep using extreme examples of abortions of which the majority of pro-choice people are against anyways.

10/5/2005 11:28:27 AM

a sperm and an egg have the complete DNA makeup of a human being

as for your article Keynes, it sounds like a big slippery slope. There is a big difference between a woman being able to decide to have a certain medical procedure done to her own body and cigarettes and drugs and prostitution and all other sorts of non-sense.

10/5/2005 11:28:27 AM

if you are pro-life, you shouldnt want to go to war, or have the death penalty

10/5/2005 11:29:07 AM

or allow killing in self defense

10/5/2005 11:30:07 AM

couple problems with your argument (and I'm a "pro-life"-er):

Quote :

"since a woman should have control over her own body and since a fetus is an insentient part of her body"

the factual nature of this statement has not been proven. in fact, this is the real sticking point, and as GrumpyGOP has pointed out, it rarely gets discussed, especially by Pro-Choice advocates.

Quote :

"After all, it is a personal choice to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, and sin taxes are simply an indirect attempt to interfere with personal choice."

not exactly. the sin tax could be seen as an attempt to prevent the choices of one person from affecting the ability of another to make choices. (IE, some people don't want to see a man walking around drunk on the street. Alternatively, the end result of the "sin choice" might lead to a conflict of the person not being able to make a choice later on, as in medical care. So you finance their later choice needs by taxing the current choice which leads to the future choice. Of course, the one who also gets screwed over in this scenario is the one who chooses not to engage in the sin choice, as he still ultimately ends up paying for the other person under the current system...) It might also be seen as trying to affect the choice, while not actually taking the choice away.

Quote :

"Thus, Pro-Choice advocates should oppose the idea of punitively taxing fast-food corporations."

See above. Providing for the choice-making ability in the long term requires "guiding" of choices in the short term."

Quote :

"Similarly, the Pro-Choice advocate should oppose anti-drug laws in principle because it interferes with an individual’s autonomy of his or her own body."

Well, the views of a Pro-Choice advocate usually do coincide with this notion. I've seen very few who agree with anti-drug laws. But, I've also seen very few actively try to get rid of anti-drug legislation. Inaction is not the same as approval.

Quote :

"After all, the choice to take up prostitution is nothing more than a choice as to how to employ one’s body. Ultimately though, many Pro-Choice advocates refuse to acknowledge this."

Their argument is not fallacious from the "choice" perspective, as they don't see those who are in prostitution as "choosing" to be in it. They often see it as necessary, and that makes the difference, because when something is necessary, there really is no choice in the matter.

Quote :

"They are all too eager to have government tell businesses which employees can be hired and under what conditions they can be employed."

not exactly. The gov't doesn't tell businesses which employees can or must be hired. Rather, it lines out a set of properties upon which the hiring decision cannot be made. More aptly, the gov't is delineating the business's choice of hiring criteria, not its actual hiring decision. Furthermore, Pro-Choicers will likely argue that allowing complete autonomy to a business limits the choices of those seeking employment, which further limits those people (need money to make many choices).

Ultimately, the fallacy in your arguments is that you are not actually addressing whether a choice can be made and acted upon and Pro-Choicer's opinion on that. Rather, you are arguing about a limiting of choices, or a guiding of choices. Limiting and guiding choice are not the same as taking that choice away. If I were to limit your choice of foods, then you would still be able to eat, and you would still be able to choose to eat. You couldn't choose to eat the foods that I tell you you can't, but you can still eat. If I were to tell you that you can't eat, then I have completely taken the choice of eating from you. However, in the case of illegalalized abortion, the actual choice in dealing w/ one's own body is not simply limited, but rather completely taken away. Thus, a Pro-Choice advocate would take issue with that.

Secondly, you don't deal with the issue of what happens when one person's choices come into conflict with another's. To a Pro-Choice-er, they simply want to tell us how to proceed, as not doing so puts both parties at a deadlock. However, in the case of abortion, itself, the Pro-Choicer looks at the choice as involving one person and person alone. Thus, the decision itself can be made without affecting any other person's choices. Of course, the fallacy in this line of thinking is two-fold: if the unborn child is also deserving of choices (a point they NEVER address), then there is a conflict; also, Pro-Choicers ignore the issue of whether the father has any choice (they basically assume the notion that a pregnancy is irrespective of the father, a notion which is entirely untrue).

Also, its worth noting another fallacy in the Pro-Choice argument, from the standpoint of "choice." Often mention is made of "limiting the reproductive rights of the woman." Two problems with this argument: First off, the "reproductive rights" of men are totally ignored under the current system. Pro-Choice advocates never address this from the standpoint of choice. Instead, they argue from the standpoint of personal choice over one's body, which removes the male from the equation. However, human reproduction does not occur independent of another human (at this point), so to call this "reproductive rights" is fallacious, and thats the second problem with this argument. Its not the right to reproduction that is denied (because people can still have sex, and people can still choose to reproduce), but rather its the "right" not to have to deal with the consequences of the right to reproduction.

10/5/2005 11:41:40 AM

Quote :

"A fetus is part of the mother's body until the birth. "

No.

The unborn child is inside the mother's body until the birth. The unborn child is a seperate human being from the mother, with a different genetic makeup/DNA. A mere "part" of the mother like her arm or leg has the same DNA as the mother.

10/5/2005 11:42:46 AM

Quote :

"if you are pro-life, you shouldnt want to go to war, or have the death penalty"

The label "pro-life" confuses the issue. People who are opposed to abortion are opposed to murdering children. They are "anti-murder."

Now, can killing in war or killing by death penalty be defined as "murder"?

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 11:45 AM. Reason : 1]

10/5/2005 11:44:47 AM

um, yes

10/5/2005 12:03:56 PM

Quote :

"Now, can killing in war or killing by death penalty be defined as "murder"?"

depending on your definition of "murder," yes it can.

10/5/2005 12:17:55 PM

Quote :

"The unborn child is inside the mother's body until the birth. The unborn child is a seperate human being from the mother, with a different genetic makeup/DNA. A mere "part" of the mother like her arm or leg has the same DNA as the mother."

Who told you a differnet DNA implies personhood? So certain parts of a woman's body can have a different DNA. Yes, that DNA *will become* the DNA of a new person (after the birth). Before the birth though, a fetus is a part of mother's body with this peculiar feature of having a different DNA. Who said all body parts have to be identical?

10/5/2005 12:22:19 PM

Quote :

"Yes, that DNA *will become* the DNA of a new person (after the birth). Before the birth though, a fetus is a part of mother's body with this peculiar feature of having a different DNA. "

I'm curious. Exactly how does the unborn child's DNA "become" the DNA of a "new person" after birth? By magic? Isn't the unborn child's DNA the same both before and after birth? What happens to the DNA to make the unborn child a "new person"?

10/5/2005 12:27:15 PM

What if you cut open a fat man and stuffed in a toddler - would it become part of his body?

(The toddler gets a snorkel so that he can breathe.)

10/5/2005 1:42:01 PM

The toddler is not dependant on the fatmans body to live.

Next.

10/5/2005 1:55:39 PM

Already born babies and toddlers are dependent on their parents/guardians to live. Does that make them "non-humans"/"non-persons" as well?



[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 1:58 PM. Reason : 1]

10/5/2005 1:57:21 PM

Quote :

"I'm curious. Exactly how does the unborn child's DNA "become" the DNA of a "new person" after birth? By magic? Isn't the unborn child's DNA the same both before and after birth? What happens to the DNA to make the unborn child a "new person"? "

Cancer has different DNA that the person it is in, but does that mean it's murder to kill the cancer?

Also, I do think that abortion is pretty much killing, but like wars and other situations society has deemed it's okay, it's justifiable.

10/5/2005 2:01:54 PM

I never said that seperate DNA from the mother ALONE makes a human being. Viruses and bacteria have different DNA than the mother. I'm not saying that bacteria and viruses are human beings. You know all this. You're just trying to distract from the issue.

An unborn child is a living human being, and killing an unborn child in an abortion is murder. Anybody who says otherwise is a flat-earther.

Supporters of abortion just need to come clean and admit that they support child murder. Give it up with the lies about unborn children being "non-persons" or "non-humans."

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 2:21 PM. Reason : 1]

10/5/2005 2:06:48 PM

10/5/2005 2:16:32 PM

Quote :

"Recall that an underlying tenant of the Pro-Choice argument "

Tenet. I dismiss your entire post due to this misspelling.

10/5/2005 2:17:37 PM

Quote :

"I never said that seperate DNA from the mother ALONE makes a human being. Viruses and bacteria have different DNA than the mother. I'm not saying that bacteria and viruses are human beings. You know all this. You're just trying to distract from the issue. "

You yourself, I bet, don't even know what you are arguing. There are multiple things that meet the definition of what you are calling human life, that aren't recognized as human life.

Also, it seems you have not properly read my previous post.

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 2:25 PM. Reason : 2]

10/5/2005 2:25:34 PM

Quote :

"An unborn child is a living human being, and killing an unborn child in an abortion is murder. Anybody who says otherwise is a flat-earther."

10/5/2005 2:27:18 PM

Quote :

"Already born babies and toddlers are dependent on their parents/guardians to live. Does that make them "non-humans"/"non-persons" as well?"

They are not dependent on the parents/gaurdians bodies.

10/5/2005 2:31:48 PM

Quote :

"An unborn child is a living human being, and killing an unborn child in an abortion is murder. Anybody who says otherwise is a flat-earther."

I don't believe you.

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2005 2:33:14 PM

Quote :

"They are not dependent on the parents/gaurdians bodies."

Yes they are. They are dependent on their parents/guardians...who exist in the physical realm as bodies.

Only before birth there was a umbilical cord. After birth they are dependent on their parents/guardians to use their bodies to transfer food/water/milk to the child by other means.

You guys supporting child murder are really desperate aren't you? The pathetic lies and desperate arguments you guys are spouting off here are absolutely mind-boggling for their stupidity.


[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 2:39 PM. Reason : 1]

10/5/2005 2:36:03 PM

You put more spin on things than a hip-hop DJ.

It doesn't have to be a parent or gaurdian that supplies the baby with food or shelter, it can be any human being or even a fucking wolf. What I was saying is that a born baby does not DIRECTLY depend on the physical manifestation of their biological parents bodies as it does when in the womb.

Quote :

"The pathetic lies and desperate arguments you guys are spouting off here are absolutely mind-boggling for their stupidity."

You're right, my desperation level is reaching an all time high. I simply stated something that is true and you try to twist it around like a fucking lawyer. My statement was a mere refutation of that toddler in a fat guy joke.

10/5/2005 2:43:47 PM

An unborn baby is dependent on THE mother, where as the born baby can be taken care of by a well trained monkey, if necessary.

It's subtle distinction, but it affects your argument. You have not so far adequately justified your claim that "an unborn child is CLEARLY a living human being." You can continue to repeat your statement, but it won't make it less flawed.

10/5/2005 2:44:27 PM

Quote :

"Before the birth though, a fetus is a part of mother's body with this peculiar feature of having a different DNA."

Then why does the mother's body act as though the "fetus" is foreign to the body? When the embryo first attatches to the mother's womb, the mother's body begins to attack it as a foreign entity. The killer cells (known as T cells) are only kept away by a defense from the embryo. Now I'm not talking about martial arts defense or anything, but the embryo produces a special enzyme to fight off the T cells. If the defense fails, miscarriage results.

Now, lets say that the baby is a part of her body. What would we do with a woman who willfully mutilated her own body? If we saw a woman make a conscious decision to cut off a limb, what would happen? We would put her in protective custody and treat her for insanity.

Ok, I'll stop now and try not to get biblical or anything

[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 3:07 PM. Reason : post # 1000!]

10/5/2005 3:07:32 PM

Quote :

"Now, lets say that the baby is a part of her body. What would we do with a woman who willfully mutilated her own body? If we saw a woman make a conscious decision to cut off a limb, what would happen? We would put her in protective custody and treat her for insanity."

this kind of attempted manipulation of other people should be punishable by death

10/5/2005 3:09:45 PM

maybe she likes the taste of human arm enough to cut hers off, cook and eat it

10/5/2005 3:13:47 PM

true

10/5/2005 3:14:54 PM

you could rig something up so that George Bush was dependent on Bill Clinton's body to survive.

10/5/2005 3:37:21 PM

I hope SCOTUS does overturn Roe v Wade and leave the decision up to the states as to whether abortion is legal.

10/5/2005 3:40:44 PM

Quote :

"Then why does the mother's body act as though the "fetus" is foreign to the body?"

It does the same thing it does to many other growths.

Quote :

"Now, lets say that the baby is a part of her body. What would we do with a woman who willfully mutilated her own body? If we saw a woman make a conscious decision to cut off a limb, what would happen?"

Depends on what part of the body it is. If she removed her own tonsils or wisdom teeth or her appendix or such, parts that server her no purpose (like the fetus), I don't think anyone would consider her crazy.

10/5/2005 4:03:37 PM

Food for thought...

parasite:

Quote :

"An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

Technically, as bad as it sounds, a fetus is a parasite... it can't survive on its own.... does that make it ok to sever it from its host essentially killing it... the world will never agree, so why keep arguing about it?




[Edited on October 5, 2005 at 4:35 PM. Reason : .]

10/5/2005 4:18:59 PM

^Kevin Federline, by definition, is a parasitic fetus. Lucky bastard.

10/5/2005 4:43:24 PM

you have a point... haha

10/5/2005 4:48:18 PM

Quote :

"Then why does the mother's body act as though the "fetus" is foreign to the body? When the embryo first attatches to the mother's womb, the mother's body begins to attack it as a foreign entity. The killer cells (known as T cells) are only kept away by a defense from the embryo. Now I'm not talking about martial arts defense or anything, but the embryo produces a special enzyme to fight off the T cells. If the defense fails, miscarriage results."

So what? The body similarly attacks cancer cells. The cells are still not separate people. I mean I don't see what your point is. Growing a fetus isn't something a mother's body takes lightly - ok, so?

Quote :

"Now, lets say that the baby is a part of her body. What would we do with a woman who willfully mutilated her own body?"

We would buy such a woman earrings. Such a man would be called Jewish... or stupid.

10/5/2005 5:30:06 PM

if it has brainwaves and a heartbeat, its alive as far as i'm concerned

10/5/2005 5:53:05 PM

Quote :

"Supporters of abortion just need to come clean and admit that they support child murder. Give it up with the lies about unborn children being "non-persons" or "non-humans.""

Quote :

"Growing a fetus isn't something a mother's body takes lightly - ok, so?"

But its perfectly OK for the woman to take it lightly

10/5/2005 5:54:45 PM

this is an issue that i am at odds on with my fellow liberals

they need to stop pretending that a fetus with brainwaves and heartbeat isn't a live person

10/5/2005 6:04:38 PM

hey, its much easier to kill and murder when you keep telling yourself that it isn't human. Just ask Hitler (oh, damn I just used a hitler reference )

10/5/2005 6:07:55 PM

Heartbeat starts around week 7 or 8 I believe. I wouldn't have a problem with banning abortions after it starts beating.

10/5/2005 6:13:15 PM

ahhh, but then the problem will become "well, 7 weeks aint enough time... blah blah blah... some people don't know for a while that they are pregnant, blah blah blah..." then it will also become "well, I wanted to have the abortion before 7 weeks, but I couldn't, cause my doctor is an evil chauvinist," or "well, I wanted to make sure before I did anything, and it took me longer to decide... blah blah blah..."

10/5/2005 6:16:24 PM