When people talk about the right to choose and say that they are Pro-choice they are only talking about one choice. The choice of stopping a beating heart, or the politically correct term, abortion or termination. When we talk about euthanasia or suicide we are talking about only one choice. The choice to end a life. No one walks around enjoying their life and says I made the choice to live today because in day to day life we don’t make a choice every day to not kill ourselves. We take life for granted. Being alive is situation normal for us. Death is abnormal. To take active steps to cause death is a choice but surely the right to choose includes the right to choose life?
Should the government, have the right to take away a woman’s right to choose life? In China, the right to choose life was taken away from Chinese mothers who were told they could only have one child. Those who ignored the law were forced to have abortions no matter how many months pregnant they were.
If we disagree with the government taking away a woman’s right to choose life should we disagree with the government taking away a woman’s right to choose
There is no conflict between the “right to choose” and “the right to life” in the context of abortion, because the former includes the latter. If the state were ever to require a pregnant woman to undergo an abortion — as China in effect did with its “one child” policy — there would be a conflict. But in the United States, the right to choose includes the right to choose life rather than abortion. It also includes the right of women to choose abortion for themselves.
So, what are the anti-abortion right-to-life advocates complaining about? They do not want any woman to have the right to choose abortion for herself. They want to have the state chose for her — to deny her the right to choose between giving birth to an unwanted child and having an abortion.
…What gives other people the right to decide, when they are not the ones who will have to bear the consequences?
If I told you that you had to die (as an adult) because of the choices that your mother made last week would you expect the government to prevent her from hiring a hitman to take you out? Why should you bear the consequences of her actions? The argument is that the government by making abortion
murder illegal is forcing your mother to not hire a hit man abortion doctor to get rid of you, thereby forcing her to bear the consequences of her actions herself instead of making the problem going away by having you the baby killed aborted.
If the government takes away a woman’s choice to hire an abortion doctor to abort her child isn’t that a moral law just as the law against murder is a moral law?
So, the issue is not whether there should be choice, but rather who should make the choice. What is more than ironic that so many conservatives, who believe that the state should not make other choices for its citizens, insist on the state making this highly personal choice for all women.
…The issue of “who decides?” is a complex one in a democracy governed by the rule of law and the separation of powers.
…This is not an easy question, even for those of us who strongly support a woman’s right to choose, as a matter of morality, justice or religion. Not every moral or religious right is a constitutional right, enforceable by the Supreme Court. There is nothing explicit in our Constitution regarding abortion. There are vague references to the right of individuals to be “secure in the persons,” which imply a right of privacy. But there are equally vague references to the right to “life.” Any honest reading of the words, history and intended meaning of the Constitution, must lead to the conclusion that the framers did not consider the issue of abortion. They did not explicitly include either the right to choose or the right to life in the context of the abortion debate: it was not occurring at the time of the framing. But the framers almost certainly did include the power of future courts to give contemporary meaning to the open-ended words they selected for a document they hoped would endure for the ages — as it has done.
Many of the reasons for abortion could be applied to killing my adult children. Some women have abortions because having a child is expensive and they don’t want to give up their freedom or affect their career. Their relationship may have ended and they don’t want to do it on their own. Their age may be a factor as they are too young or too old to be a mother.
If you think a baby is expensive you should try two adult children still living at home. They are inconvenient and cramp my living style. I am too old to have to look after them, what if my marriage ends? I might not want to look after them on my own. I might not want to be a mother anymore. Why can’t I hire a hitman to take them out? Shouldn’t I have a right to kill them? They are my body, after all. I made them can’t I unmake them? If an unborn child inside my body is considered my body and I have the right to do as I choose with part of my body then logically once born they still are a part of my body. Why should the government force me to allow them to live by imposing their laws about murder on me? Why should the government deny me the right to not be a mother?
In 1973, the Supreme Court did interpret the Constitution to accord pregnant women a right to choose abortion, at least under some circumstances. This decision, Roe v. Wade, was not the Supreme Court’s finest hour with regard to constitutional interpretation. Many scholars, including me, criticized its reasoning and methodology. But it has become the law of the land. Over the past 44 years, it has been slightly changed by subsequent cases, but its core has remained the same; a pregnant woman has the right to choose whether to abort the fetus or give birth to the child. The debate continues around the edges: when does “life” begin? When, during the course of a pregnancy, does the right to choose end? But at its core the right of a woman to choose — abortion or life — remains solidly ensconced in our jurisprudence.