Voting for something to be a choice, does not mean you support it. No way you can spin that one. Homosexuality is also LEGAL, so does that mean you support it?
It's despicable that the religious nutso right is trying to play this against her this way.
The religious right won't be happy until a theocracy comes about.
The government has a duty to uphold basic rights. This is in no way religious so stop bashing religion.
My argument against abortion:
Of course, there is a bit of trouble when one's rights conflict another. Though, I thought this dilemma was solved with the end of slavery. The logic behind slavery, in my opinion, is comparable with abortion.(I hope me using slavery doesn't make me come across as insensitive,however, it is such a great comparison I must use it. )
Ironically, the Democrats continue to use the same logic with abortion today as they used with slavery in the mid 1800s.
Slavery argument: A man has a right to property. A slave is property. It is legally owned by it's master. It slave is not a human. A slave is not a person. It may be a human, but it doesn't look like me and is not as intelligent as I am. Henceforth, is not a person. Taking the slave away would impede on the it's owner's property rights and since slaves do not have rights since they are not people, the abolition of slavery is unjust.
Pro-choice argument: A woman as a right to all her bodily functions. A fetus is part of a woman's body. It is a parasite consuming her precious resources. A fetus may be a human, but it doesn't look like me and is not intelligent as me. Henceforth, is not a person. Forcing a fetus to continue to reside in a woman's body would impede on here rights to reproduction and since a fetuses do not have rights since they are not people, abolishing abortion is unjust.
Again, I apologize if you get offended by the slavery comparison. But the logic the logic is analogous to abortion.
Both arguments both are based on the same false premises.
1. A human is not necessarily a person.
2.One human(mother/slaveholder) is greater than the other(fetus/slave). And his/her rights are greater than the other even if it is not fundamental.
3. The right to property/reproduction is extremely important.
______________________________________________________________
My argument against these premises.
1. Person hood is a horribly arbitrary and unfair labeling. Society has always had a biased view towards individuals. From a few decades ago and back this view was against colored people(unfortunately it may still partly be the case). Now it is towards fetuses since they look like sacks of skin rather than cute laughing babies.
This bias is oppressive to anyone that seems different. However, all humans capable of reaching life is an individual being and I believe that calling them non-people based on your bias is wrong. Therefore, all humans should be people.
2. The preamble of the Declaration of Independence has two assertions,
a. Everyone is equal.
b. There are fundamental rights endowed by God.(God in a religious or non-religious interpretation) This includes life and liberty.
The a pro/anti slave/choice argument is:
Mother reproductive rights vs. Fetus's right to life
and
Master's property right vs. Slave's right to liberty.
If everyone
is equal according to assertion (a.) then the who's right is it factor is eliminated giving:
Reproductive rights vs. Right to life
and
Property rights vs. Liberty
3. Now we have our two choices life or reproduction. Property or Liberty.
A have to insert some bias into my argument.
There are many rights. But which rights unalienable? According to assertion (b) to the Declaration, these are life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It should intuitively clear that some rights are more important than others.
Life is more fundamental than reproduction rights.
Liberty is more fundamental than property rights.
In conclusion, slavery and abortion are unjust by impeding on fundemental rights on equal humans and government has a duty to create and enforce their interdiction .