If you are pro-choice on the issue of abortion but support public smoking bans and bans on large soda, do you lose credibility?

Asked by: TN05
  • Yes. You're either for free choice or not. Pick one.

    I say we just stop trying to dictate other peoples' lives and trying to save them from themselves. Let everything be the choice of the individual. It makes you look like a total hypocrite when you say "of course a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body" , but then go and say "people shouldn't be allowed to put that in their body lets ban it". Like come on now. Put an end to the nanny state!

  • Stop the Blind Ideological Conformity

    People like that are usually 'liberals'. I typed that with scarce quotes, because I'm referring to self-proclaimed "liberals" who are more concerned with following an identity cult instead of thinking for themselves. 'Conservatives' are just as bad.
    I support the right to abortion because I'm pro-bodily autonomy. I believe that bodily autonomy ought to be held as a foundational right for all human societies. Likewise I support the right to ingest what ever you want whether it's a soda or heroin and to alter your body however you want. Concerns for public safety can rightly regulate where these activities take place. For example, PCP and bath salts should only be legal in clubs under licensed supervision. Towns can zone certain things away from residential areas, public parks, and schools. As to banning smoking in public places I believe limited licensing and an 18+ age limit for entry should be allowed. If just some places allow smoking then you still have plenty of recreational and occupational opportunities at places that don't. You could still go there if you wanted but that's your choice. It always was, but keeping kids out of these places and guaranteeing adequate recreational and work opportunities for non-smokers is a legitimate consideration.

  • Not really pro-choice at all

    Ideally, a pro-choice person would support the right of people to do whatever they want with their body - this includes smoking and drinking large sodas. However, liberals like Michael Bloomberg are hypocrites on this issue because they support the right of a woman to kill her unborn baby on the basis that she can control her body, but they would oppose the right of that same woman to buy a 16 oz soda.

    Posted by: TN05
  • Two Completely different Subjects

    While all of the mentioned issues involve "choice", the gap in severity of the two actions has a very wide margin. Public smoking puts the health of others at risk that aren't under your care, and is not under consent. Bans on large soda is a different matter. I honestly can't see a reason why someone would want to pass that and in all honesty that might impede on one's claim of pro-choice but then again abortion and soda are two different things.

    Posted by: Fayz
  • Pro personal autonomy

    If you remove a woman's right to make a choice which concerns her own well being then that is an abuse by that person who has power of that power. You are no longer respecting that person as a person of equal worth. However, that same person or people who have the ability to decide what is allowed and is not have an inherent responsibility to the people they rule over, both to protect their autonomy and to protect their lives, therefore a middle ground must be formed. Absolute removal of autonomy for the sake of an unborn future person is unjustified, as the act of removing autonomy removes the sense of person we agree with in a freedom of speech and from oppression society. The ruling power, however, can put in place restrictions for the sake of the health of the majority by limiting the freedom of area in which a particular thing is exploited, for example smoking. Thereby limiting a freedom, and not removing it.

  • Pro-choice only counts when your actions only affect YOU.

    Yes, pro-choice should include being able to make your own decisions about abortion or how much soda you drink. The only reason I disagree with this statement is because of the public smoking ban aspect. Public smoking bans exist because of the effect they have on people around them. Second hand smoke has been proven to be worse than first hand smoke. People who don't smoke don't want to get stuck sitting on an airplane beside someone who is smoking the whole flight. These bans are in place because of the effect they have on OTHER people. I could care less if other people smoke, they are subjecting themselves to the health risks of smoking. But if I am in a public place I should not have to be subject to the second hand smoke coming from a person near me, since I have made the decision not to smoke.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.