Great article defending pro-choice

[Green_Lantern]

It is about consent and choice.

The argument, explored in Part I of this Article, briefly is this: If a woman does not consent to pregnancy, the fetus's effects on her body constitute serious harm impinging upon her bodily integrity and liberty. The quantity and quality of the fetus's harm to a woman when it imposes a nonconsensual pregnancy on her justifies the use of deadly force to stop it. Bodily integrity and liberty are fundamental rights.(13) Although the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not obligate the state to protect a person's bodily integrity and liberty, the Equal Protection Clause does mandate contingent protection. Namely, if the state protects the bodily integrity and liberty of some people, the state is obligated to provide protection to others who are similarly situated.(14) When harm results from a fetus, that harm similarly situates a woman to other people who have suffered harm to their bodily integrity and liberty.(15) The state does act to protect people from harm in most situations; hence, the state is obligated to act to stop harm to a woman's bodily integrity and liberty resulting from the fetus.(16) The state's refusal to fund abortions as the necessary means to stop that harm is thus an unconstitutional deprivation of equal protection.

Part II discusses objections to the claim that harm results from a fetus when a woman does not consent to pregnancy and that the Equal Protection Clause obligates the state to stop that harm.(17) The Conclusion summarizes why the time is right for reframing abortion rights on a consent-to-pregnancy foundation

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3243/is_3_62/ai_n28731577/?tag=content;col1

[Warpy]

1. I've been arguing it from a self defense standpoint for years

but saps that see a fertilized egg as a three month old baby, just smaller, are saps that are incapable of wrapping their heads around the fact that an unwanted one threatens a woman's life, liberty, health, finances, social support, employment, and so much more. They're sentimental idiots who refuse to see a woman as a complete human being with a right to protect herself when they've sentimentalized her attacker as a cute little baby in a clean diaper.

However, that's really how Roe should have been argued, IMO.

[damntexdem]

2. Yes, unfortunately, the anti-choice people do not appear susceptible to reason.

I was on a list where an antichoicer made some arguments culminating in "those who want to destroy life will find any excuse to do so." I then made a reasoned argument about the subject. The response: "those who want to destroy life will find any excuse to do so." I asked whether he had any responses to my argument -- he answered: "those who want to destroy life will find any excuse to do so." I then told him that he wasn't worth talking to, much less debating with, and have ignored his posts ever since.