Do you really support the right of women to choose what to do with their own bodies?
Published on April 4, 2004 By messybuu In Politics

When one speaks of abortion, the common argument from pro-choicers is that since the fetus is inside a woman's body, only she should decide whether or not she wants to keep it. After all, it would be wrong for us to tell a woman what to do with her own body. However, are pro-choicers really pro-choice or just pro-abortion? Find out if you're really pro-choice or willing to take away a woman's choice with this fancy quiz I designed!

Pro-Choice or Pro-Abortion?
Simply decide whether or not you agree with the following statements.

1. Women should have the right to have abortions if they so desire.
2. Women should have the right to have their brother's or father's child.
3. Women should have the right to genetically engineer the fetus inside them to their liking.
4. Women should have the right to take as many drugs as they desire while they are pregnant.
5. Women should have the right to stab the area in which the womb resides while they are pregnant. IGNORE THIS STATEMENT
6. Women should have the right to have an abortion performed by a shady unlicensed abortionist.
7. Women should have the right to drive an ice pick through the head of a fetus from her body.

Wasn't that easy? If you agreed with every statement, then congratulations! You do honestly believe that women should have sole control over their bodies, and for that, you earn my respect. However, if you disagreed with any statement, then you are a hypocrite that would happily steal a woman's right over her own body to promote your own agenda.


Comments (Page 2)
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Apr 05, 2004
You clearly do not understand the what the Act says. Otherwise why would abortion doctors flock to capital hill to raise their fears?
The act, in and of itself changes nothing. What was interesting and sad was what was said during the hearing.
on Apr 05, 2004
I understand what it says, I understand how that works under the courts current interpretation of the constitution, and I know how eager beaver DAs can twist it.

That doesn't change what I said.

Cheers
on Apr 05, 2004
No, it doesn't change it across the nation. A fetus is still not a person, the law simply states it is a more heinous crime to harm a pregnant woman.

Funny, but the YUnborn Victims of Violence act defines an unborn CHILD as follows:
"d) As used in this section, the term 'unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term 'child in utero' or 'child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

If it is a CHILD, it is therefore a PERSON at any and all stages of development. The act also allows for those who murder a pregnant woman to be charged with two counts of murder, one for each PERSON they killed.
on Apr 05, 2004
I just have a few comments to add

Isn't the proper terminology: "pro-choice" and "anti-choice"?


Isn't it pro-choice and pro-life? That's why I initially asked when I posted first. Thanks for clearing it up superbaby it's a good post.

Didn't Bush pass a fetus protection act?

I find it pathetic that so many have embraced our throw away society to the point that someone else must die because of a mistake they made.


What about rape and incest? Should we turn a cold shoulder to those situations and just pretend they don't happen? Don't we live in a free democratic country? You find it pathetic so I take it you have dealt directly with abortion in your life. I thought only God could judge people but yet you judge why is that?
on Apr 05, 2004
Now, hold on, some pro-choicers are pro-life, they just feel a woman has the right to choose

Cheers
on Apr 05, 2004
Right that's how I feel. I think they should have the choice but I wish it wasn't that way. I am not arguing that, I was actually wondering what the "politically correct term" for it was.
on Apr 05, 2004
I believe abortion should be a state issue. I'm pro-choice politically, but I am morally strongly against abortion.
on Apr 05, 2004
Here is my take on it. First off, If a pregnant women is killed, the killer is charged with two deaths. Why is it that if only one is killed, no one is charged? Next off, if you don't want to have kids, then don't have sex, it is as simple as that. Or don't have sex during ovulation. Next off, in rape or incest, that is a very hard question. A woman could have the baby and give it up for adoption, which would be the greatest act of kindness ever, and that child would surely thank you for letting it live. Any comments?
on Apr 05, 2004
Don't you see anything wrong with that jul?
on Apr 05, 2004
Yes, but it just makes things better for the rich people who will get them anyway and the poor people will get them too, but they will use dangerous ways to get them aborted.
on Apr 05, 2004
What about rape and incest? Should we turn a cold shoulder to those situations and just pretend they don't happen? Don't we live in a free democratic country? You find it pathetic so I take it you have dealt directly with abortion in your life. I thought only God could judge people but yet you judge why is that?


What about them? They are unfortunate things that happen. But should the child that results from these crimes be put to death? Is that democratic? Of course not.

No I have not had to deal directly with abortion. But I have never dealt directly with murder, theft or torture either. Does that make my opinion about them invalid? As for only God judging, are you suggesting that we do not have laws, courts and prisons?
on Apr 05, 2004
i agree with smitty. and I don't get what jul is saying. what makes things better? Abortion? Abortion is not totally harmless to the woman carrying the child either. Many unfortunate abortions can bring terrible things, physical and spiritual, things to the woman as well.
on Apr 05, 2004
And who is to say whether it is just "self-mutilation"? Stabbing oneself in the stomach, is not like getting a tatoo. If you stab yourself in the stomach you will bleed to death unless you get medical attention.


That makes sense. I'll remove that statement from the quiz.

It's quite simple really. The first choice that needs to be made is: "Do I want this fetus to grow into a person". Pro-choice means giving women the right to make that decision.
The other questions you ask deal with: "If I chose that this fetus will become a baby, do I have the right to do things that will harm its' future well-being?" A very different matter altogether. I think one of the basics of our society is that we are all free do do as we please, as long as we don't harm someone elses interests. If a woman choses to have a baby, she is bound to take the wellbeing of that baby into consideration.


So, only as long as they intend to kill it, can they do what they want with their own bodies, and not killing it magically makes it a human life that should not be hindered?
I don't see how ending a potential life of a child is any better than hindering a potential life of a child. I say that if the government has the right to tell women how to live while pregnant, then they should have the right to tell women not to get abortions.
on Apr 06, 2004
Does anyone else agree with me?
on Apr 08, 2004
Tarsier, I do. However it seems this article as lived its' life.
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last