Woman: I have a right to have an abortion because I have the right to choose what to do with my own body.
Man: Do I have the right to choose what to do with my own body?
Woman: Of course.
Man: What if I choose to rape you?
Woman: You have no right to choose rape, because that would impinge upon my right to do what I want with my body.
Man: Then you are saying that your right to your own body supersedes my right to mine?
Woman: No. I am saying that my right to be protected from violence supersedes your right to a moment's pleasure.
Man: But what if I was not motivated by pleasure. What if I was choosing to reproduce? Do you deny my reproductive choice?
Woman: Your right to reproduce does not supersede my right to be protected from violence.
Man: Yes, on this we agree. Now, let's say I have fathered a child through consensual relations with my wife and she is considering aborting the child. Do I have a right then to exercise reproductive choice and insist she bear the child?
Woman: No, because it is her body that must bear the baby.
Man: Let's say I fathered a child because I was lied to about birth control, and now my wife wants to bear the child and I want her to abort it. Do I have reproductive choice in that case? Can I choose for her that she abort the child?
Woman: No, because again, it is her body that is pregnant.
Man: So what you are saying is, that while a man can choose not to impregnate someone, he can never really positively choose to be a parent.
Woman: No, I guess you can't, but it is only because your reproductive choices are limited by nature.
Man: So nature has assigned me to the role of sperm donor rather than child bearer, and so therefore my reproductive choices are limited by my natural reproductive role.
Woman: Yes, by that and by your obligation not to impose your will on another by violence.
Man: Okay, so let's review what we have established so far. We have the right to reproductive choice and control of our bodies, but that is limited by nature and all that is superseded by another person's right to be protected from violence. Right so far?
Woman: Right.
Man: It may surprise you that I agree with that hierarchy as well. Now let's consider your reproductive choices in light of the rights of another person: the child. We have established that protection from violence is a right that supersedes other people's reproductive choices, right?
Woman: Yes, but an unborn fetus is not a person and not protected from violence.
Man: Obviously, in a biological sense she is an individual of the species Homo sapiens, so what you are saying is that you do not recognize that this individual is a person in the legal sense, am I right?
Woman:Yes. Legally it is not yet a person with legal rights.
Man: So if she was a person with legal rights, then you would concede that she has a right to be protected from violence.
Woman: No, because even if it was a person, it is dependent upon my body, and I have a right to reproductive control of my body.
Man: But we agreed reproductive choices are sometimes limited by nature. I cannot overcome the limitations of nature by using the violence of rape or forced abortion against a woman in order to exercise my reproductive choices. To apply that standard equally, then, you cannot overcome the limitations of nature by using the violence of abortion against a child in order to exercise your reproductive choices.
Woman: There is no child. There is no person. It is a fetus with no legal rights.
Man: So then all this talk about choices is really pointless, isn't it? It is a cloud hiding the real issue of disagreement between us. The question is not about your choices and your rights. I grant you those. The question is about whether the baby has a legal status that recognizes she has choices and rights.
Woman: Yes, I suppose it is.
Man: The only rights and choices that are in question are hers.
Woman: Yes.
Man: Then perhaps you should change your, "Pro-Choice!" slogan, because in regards to the only choices and rights that are in question here, you are certainly not pro-choice. Perhaps, "No Fetal Rights!" would be a more accurate statement of your position.
Woman: Somehow it lacks rhetorical power.
Your creativity and insight are remarkable, refreshing, and challenging. Your unique perspective on things enriches me, and I look forward to reading your posts every day.
This one is even better than "Are You Bad Enough . . ." and "AYBE" was outstanding.
I almost regret not having you higher in my Top Ten list.
Almost.
Posted by: Mike | February 05, 2005 at 02:10 PM
"What Choice?"
"The Baby's Already Alive."
Hence, there is no option regarding the life of the baby (even if only a bioligical mass). If Choice proponents exercise their so-called "choice," they must kill the child.
The "choice" for life was made before conception. To exercise that "choice" required the sex act to bring forth the "chosen life." But once life begins, there is no choice left regarding its existance. It does.
So it is impossible for Pro-Choice proponents to chose life. That decision has already been made and acted on. To exercise a "Pro-Choice" position requires the destruction of living human tissue. (A very young boy or girl for most of us). "Pro-Choice" is, in reality, "Pro-Death."
Posted by: Vaughn Adams | February 05, 2005 at 02:46 PM
Wow. I'm forwarding this to some friends of mine.
wow.
Posted by: Rey | February 05, 2005 at 03:24 PM
Excellent!
Posted by: Kim | February 05, 2005 at 06:39 PM
Bam! You nailed the essence of that argument. Beautiful work.
Posted by: Milton Stanley | February 05, 2005 at 08:56 PM
Most pro-choicers mean a fetus has no moral rights when they say it's not a person. They don't mean legal rights, because changing the law to deny Roe v. Wade would then force them to become pro-life, and they don't tgink the law has that kind of authority.
I think there's a fallacy in the argument. What you're calling nature is just the right of someone to have absolute control over their own body. Men have that as well as women do. What men have no right to is control over the result of a fertilization from sperm, but the most careful arguments for allowing abortion say the same about a wman's egg, i.e, that she doesn't have a right to the death of the fetus, just to its removal, assuming she has a low enough level of moral resonsibility for its being there in the first place.
That means abortion-on-demand is out, as is any procedure after the possibility of viability that doesn't try to save the child's life, but it's a consistent position that allows some abortions. What's wrong with it isn't to do with inconsistently applying the moral principles involved.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce | February 10, 2005 at 04:44 PM