The dichotomy of "choice" and the right of privacy over self

In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the right to an abortion is a fundamental right of personal privacy over choices that impact the self. en.wikipedia.org...

This judgement has become so interwoven with American politics that the whole abortion debate is almost as fruitless as arguing with a brick wall, in either direction. But, time after time, the courts have upheld the ideology used to set the precedent from the bench in cases involving even the hint of inconvenience where obtaining an abortion is concerned.

As with all things in America, enter the hypocrisy. Why, oh why, is it that in a country which considers "abortion on demand, no questions asked, holy hell we'll even find someone to pay for the procedure for you" to be a fundamental right of private choicemaking:
1. we're fighting a war on drugs because people are overdosing?
2. we have people using "self harm" as a reason for stricter gun control?
3. we waste billions of dollars on emergency care of those who have clearly made the choice to kill themselves, either via drugs, suicide, or other?
4. we consider any self destructive choice to be a sign of mental illness SO LONG AS AN UNBORN BABY ISN'T PART OF THAT CHOICE?

What a load of hypocritical SNIP. Unless and until we revisit Roe v Wade, I honestly don't understand why suicide or the opiod epidemic are even a talking point where our lawmakers are concerned. In the same way as we are expected to at the very least show deference toward a woman who has an abortion, if not celebrate her choice in some twisted ritual of group validation, shouldn't we be indifferent to anyone who makes the choice to end their own life or chooses to poison themselves with whatever drug they select? Why in the hell is this even a factor in our national policy matrix?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

1. we're fighting a war on drugs because people are overdosing?

No. We are fighting a war on drugs to fill prisons and pad budgets. We do not care about the people.

2. we have people using "self harm" as a reason for stricter gun control?

People use all sorts of excuses to push their agendas. This is just one of many.

3. we waste billions of dollars on emergency care of those who have clearly made the choice to kill themselves, either via drugs, suicide, or other?

Ok. So what do we do with them if their attempts do not succeed? Do we, as a society, cut-off access to medical care in those cases?

4. we consider any self destructive choice to be a sign of mental illness SO LONG AS AN UNBORN BABY ISN'T PART OF THAT CHOICE?

I think this is just hyperbole. Any self-destructive choice to be a sign of mental illness?

Hardly. Each and every one of us make self-destructive choices on a daily basis and not only do we not think it is mental illness, we think it is perfectly fine and normal.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The thing that separates abortion from all other issues listed is that abortion involves another individual. That being the unborn child.

Now current law does not address nor does it allow for the rights of an individual be placed on the unborn, but all other issues only address the impact of the individual, therefore, only individual rights are impacted.

a reply to: burdman30ott6
Oh no
What a box of worms that is
There is no easy answer
Anyone who doesn't understand your issue is disingenuous beyond comprehension
It's a valid argument that is worth spending more time considering than opposing

I will consider it and not get back to you

Nice question

Want to comment...


...know that it's pointless.

The same handful of people will end up regurgitating the same points over and over.

Non-debatable subjective conclusions:

- A developing human being, even at the zygote stage, has its own unique DNA, therefore it is a separate human being

- Just because 99.999999% of mammals are born alive and therefore are somehow attached to the mother to develop until birth does not mean that this separate being is included in the broad description of what a woman's body is

- Since most states have laws that charge someone for murder if they kill the developing individual in the womb of a woman, then there is precedent to consider these human beings as separate individuals

- Elective abortion not done out of medical necessity is abhorrent behavior

- I reluctantly concede that abortion should be an option for the small numbers of pregnancies that result from rape situations

I'm just here sharing my opinion on the matter--like it or don't, that's irrelevant to me. However, I have debated this topic too many times to count and have been baiting into bickering matches over it more times than I want to admit, so I'm just here to share an opinion, not to bicker over a tired-ass topic that has gotten nowhere fast in this country.

#1,003,364*











* That's the average amount of individuals aborted each year, on average, between 1970 and 2014, according to Wiki. At least the trend is that the number is decreasing since the height of abortion numbers in the 80s and 90s. In 1984, at its worst, there was a 364:1,000 ratio of abortions to live births. 2014 saw the lowest number of reported abortions since 1973.

originally posted by: introvert
Ok. So what do we do with them if their attempts do not succeed? Do we, as a society, cut-off access to medical care in those cases?

In the context of this discussion, if an abortive procedure removes the fetus and i is still alive, "cut off access to medical care" seems to be a fairly mundane way of describing what the practitioners actually do (though they are breaking the law in doing so, it seems to be commonplace practice.) savethestorks.com... consistency matters.

I think this is just hyperbole. Any self-destructive choice to be a sign of mental illness?

Hardly. Each and every one of us make self-destructive choices on a daily basis and not only do we not think it is mental illness, we think it is perfectly fine and normal.

OK, I'll give you the hyperbole on that one in part. I over reached on my wording. That said, there is an element of mental health professionals who believe any known self destructive choices are signs of mental instability, even to the point of someone smoking or not wearing a seat belt.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

For the record, I sense you and I are on similar pages on the abortion topic. I'm not trying to debate the moral terpitude of abortion, I'm trying to figure out why there's a massive disconnect in the US legal system which not only allow a choice that ultimately kills another life (or life to be in the sake of not turning this into a purely abortion argument), but visciously assault any inconveniences placed on that choice while putting roadblock after roadblock, law after law, and dollar after dollar in the way of people making essentially the same type of choices when it is only their own life on the line.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You forgot one:

1. Why is suicide by gun a horrible thing we must prevent by taking away all guns while at the same time we are advocating for people to have the right to die by their own hand?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You forgot one:

1. Why is suicide by gun a horrible thing we must prevent by taking away all guns while at the same time we are advocating for people to have the right to die by their own hand?

See, that's an even bigger sticky wicket. Most advocate for physician assisted suicide, not direct suicide. I don't know what gives there unless we want to turn this into a massive conspiracy and say that what's really at play here is the medical community is somehow always connected to "approved" choices, in which case maybe they're the ultimate problem?

The biggest problem I have is that lawmakers are in the position to pick and choose what what is wrong, or illegal, when it comes to individual choices that concern an individual's body. That behaviour is more disturbing than aborting a baby in its 3rd trimester for no good reason.

As for point 4 in the OP's post, abortions are not self-destructive acts. More times than not, the abortion itself does not harm the woman, so I don't know what the point was with that.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

OK, let me reframe it then:

We can openly advocate for euthanasia via lethal drug overdose, but we cannot abide the death penalty using the same.

originally posted by: Peacetime
As for point 4 in the OP's post, abortions are not self-destructive acts. More times than not, the abortion itself does not harm the woman, so I don't know what the point was with that.

If true, then the entire backbone of the pro-abortion argument is a lie. One of the most often used defenses for it is "there is no separation between the fetus and the woman, the fetus is not an individual." If that's accurate, then saying there is no harm to the woman upon removal of living, healthy tissue is as grossly inaccurate as it would be to state that chopping off a healthy limb just because causes no harm to the person.

a reply to: ketsuko

Gotcha. It's a good point.

Hell, the death penalty could be added into this as well. Many who support euthanasia and abortion are very opposed to the death penalty, despite the fact that committing capital crimes is a choice.

a reply to: Peacetime

As for point 4 in the OP's post, abortions are not self-destructive acts. More times than not, the abortion itself does not harm the woman, so I don't know what the point was with that.

Killing someone doesn't harm the murderer either so what is YOUR point?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: burdman30ott6

OK, let me reframe it then:

We can openly advocate for euthanasia via lethal drug overdose, but we cannot abide the death penalty using the same.

That is odd... euthanasia via drugs is compassionate but it is cruel and unusual for death penalty cases. Completely inconsistent logic.

Kind of like how you can get paid to screw random guys/girls on video... but if two consenting adults do it in their home for money but don't film, it is prostitution and illegal.

a reply to: Edumakated

I can almost buy the argument that the person receiving the death penalty never asked for it, but very often, it is argued that the death penalty is cruel and painful based on how those getting it will gasp and seem to be in pain as you said.

If that's how it looks like to die under lethal injection, that's not going to change based on whether or not the person wants to die.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the right to an abortion is a fundamental right of personal privacy over choices that impact the self. en.wikipedia.org...

This judgement has become so interwoven with American politics that the whole abortion debate is almost as fruitless as arguing with a brick wall, in either direction. But, time after time, the courts have upheld the ideology used to set the precedent from the bench in cases involving even the hint of inconvenience where obtaining an abortion is concerned.

As with all things in America, enter the hypocrisy. Why, oh why, is it that in a country which considers "abortion on demand, no questions asked, holy hell we'll even find someone to pay for the procedure for you" to be a fundamental right of private choicemaking:
1. we're fighting a war on drugs because people are overdosing?
2. we have people using "self harm" as a reason for stricter gun control?
3. we waste billions of dollars on emergency care of those who have clearly made the choice to kill themselves, either via drugs, suicide, or other?
4. we consider any self destructive choice to be a sign of mental illness SO LONG AS AN UNBORN BABY ISN'T PART OF THAT CHOICE?

What a load of hypocritical SNIP. Unless and until we revisit Roe v Wade, I honestly don't understand why suicide or the opiod epidemic are even a talking point where our lawmakers are concerned. In the same way as we are expected to at the very least show deference toward a woman who has an abortion, if not celebrate her choice in some twisted ritual of group validation, shouldn't we be indifferent to anyone who makes the choice to end their own life or chooses to poison themselves with whatever drug they select? Why in the hell is this even a factor in our national policy matrix?

People who compare abortion to drugs and suicide need to head back and learn some basic biology and maybe learn a bit of about humans in general.

I swear American's are proud of their ignorance of some of the most fundamental things.

Until being able to talk to Americans on this website I used to think the rampant stupidity of people there was exaggerated l...now I'm really starting to believe the opposite...

a reply to: dug88

Which part of science?

The part where a zygote at fertilization is genetically distinct from it's mother making it not exactly comparable to just another lump of her own tissue?

The problem most of us have with the idea is that abortion is the only procedure where the termination of the life of another human being can be completely left up to the arbitrary discretion of another, and there is even legal precedent recognizing that human being as such if someone else arbitrarily terminates that same human being (i.e. murderers receiving two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman).

a reply to: burdman30ott6

We need to legalize all drugs, suicide, prostitution, etc.

It will solve a ton of problems.

If a woman miscarries her body decides to abort, if she has an abortion, her brain decides.

Nobody finds this concept weird?

The anti-abortionists think their own feelings should matter more than the mothers logic or assessment of her capability to raise said baby.

They think their own feeling are more important than the women's logic.

Lol...idiots