Abortion is an abhorrent crime and has absolutely nothing to do with women's rights. This is such a nonsense argument. It is about the protection of human life and your only argument against abortion would be that an unborn baby is not developed enough to be worth protecting. Again nonsense in my opinion but at least it's a point you could defend.
Abortion
- Thread starter Pagh Wraith
- Start date
What's your opinion on cases where the woman's life may be in danger, out of interest?
Or where rape or incest is involved?
Apply the same laws we do in other cases of manslaughter. When you kill an armed shooter who is threatening your life it's not murder but self-defence. Same thing when the mother's life is being threatened by the child she is carrying. Only a doctor should be allowed to make that call, though.
Unless most doctors argue that a fetus when aborted is not yet a sentient being, but more akin to a cluster of cells and an abortion isnt the same as murder? Either side with medical science or don’t. You can’t hve it both ways.
I can understand being against abortion from a sentimental standpoint, but there’s not much of a scientific case against it.
What if the doctor is personally anti-abortion and makes the wrong call deliberately, therefore endangering the woman's life?
Additionally, as was asked above, what about cases like rape?
Sentimental would be watching Cantona put the shirt on again for a friendly. Its a human life.
Not in this country...
Doctors have to abide by the laws of the land. If they deliberately endanger the woman's life then they obviously have no place being a doctor. We sometimes see these cases where religious loons withhold life-saving medication because they don't believe in it. But some doctors being bad is not an argument against modern medicine as a whole. Not sure that is the best analogy but I don't think your objection is really relevant to the issue at hand.
The rape question is difficult admittedly. Personally, I value the protection of life (be it by opposing wars and military interventions, the death penalty or in this case the killing of the unborn) above everything. But rape is such a heinous crime in itself that I can see both sides of the argument.
On what grounds? Better be a religious reason you tell me because otherwise you're being a child about it.
Is it though?
That’s ofcourse what the discussion is all about. The pro choice movement argues that the thing that makes us human is t developed yet. A fetus at that stage is not sentient, it has no cognition or conscience. It also hs no ties to anyone except to the one person who hs to make the terrible decision to have an abortion. The part about the brain not being developed yet isnt an opinion, that’s simple fact. Whether you classify it as murder is open for interpretation ofcourse, but wouldnt that make using a korning after pill attempted murder?
Does life begin at conception?
I don't agree with you but that's at least a coherent argument. What does this have to do with women's rights (which I strongly support) though? Because that is the main point that always seems to be made in favour of abortion.
It clearly does. But I wouldn't even use that as an argument for banning abortion. We kill plenty of other life on this planet all the time after all.
If it does, then basically all sexually active women are serial killers by your argument.
@Raoul - made this post right as the other thread was created
Funny. That's exactly why I can't be anything other than pro-choice.
Abortion is horrible in many ways but it must be allowed given what else we allow.
I suppose her right to chose whether she want to have a baby? Especially in rape cases she should in my opinion be given the choice if she wants to carry a child of a rapist. I do agree that women shouldnt just have abortions willy nilly without a care in the world, but no one is doing that. The only one being really impacted by an abortion is the mother varrying the child. I don’t see why people are so dismayed about something that has nothing to do with them.
The aborted fetus doesnt care, only the mother does.
Because we're talking about their bodies. Obviously.
You dont strongly support women's rights if you oppose them being able to make decisions about their own bodies.
Because it relates directly to the level of control they have over their own bodies.
If you accept that that's a viable argument (even one you disagree with) then you should be able to see why a woman should also have the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or not. If you remove that right from her, she is effectively acting as nothing more than a vessel for the fetus because the state has declared it so. If the consequences for a woman getting having sex and getting pregnant are much greater, she should also have the ability to control the situation as much as possible. Forcing unwanted pregnancies on women - what's pro-life about that?
I'm not out to ban the morning-after pill
The point I'm trying to make is that at some point it becomes ethically unjustifiable to end a life. Some people are vegetarians because they value the life of an animal equally to that of a human. I don't. I don't have problems killing animals because we are above them in the food chain. But I could never justify killing a 12-week old fetus expect for the reasons stated above.But it's not just their own body. Vessel doesn't sound nice but essentially a pregnant woman is also that. There are two people now and they are both equally important in my eyes.
We kills pigs and cows that are more intelligent and capable of feeling pain than the babies that are killed in the case of abortion. You can justify your rage by saying we're up on the food chain so fcuk them (basically) but to me, this is where I can't listen to pro-lifers unless it's a religious argument (which I still disagree with) or they're vegan (which I'm not either). If it's disgust at the actual procedure (which I see a lot), I just shake my head. I feel like this can only be a view from someone with such a sheltered existence.I'm not out to ban the morning-after pill
Abortion isn't good. But right now, the right must be upheld.
If you want to stop it - offer women a genuine alternative.
Yeah. Carrying for nine months is life changing. Telling a woman who has been a victim of rape that they can't abort the foetus, have to carry it for nine months, be potentially scarred permanently through some of the potential side effects like becoming incontinent, stretch marks which could be a permanent reminder of what they've gone through not to mention needing to take time off work, the resulting baby and having to go through the process of giving it away and being asked by work colleagues "how is the baby" etc then either having to explain to them the baby is gone or just try and keep quiet about it. To want abortions to be banned is anti women's rights. Simple as.
Your viewpoint is forcing a woman to carry something inside her body, potentially at health risk to her. You cant promote that view and simultaneously claim to support women's rights.
Oh god...one step forward, eight back.
I addressed rape and health risks earlier. If the fetus is a threat to the mother then abortion can be justified as an act of self-defence. We are talking about cases of simply not wanting the child.
Even accepting that, it shouldn't be that hard to see that it directly relates to women's rights. If you're putting restrictions on abortion then you're putting restrictions on what women can do to their bodies. You are legally requiring them to continue being pregnant and ultimately give birth, as opposed to having the right to end that pregnancy.
You might think the right to choose to end the pregnancy is worth less than the right of the unborn to life but I'm not sure you can argue that the former isn't part of the debate.
You might support other rights for women but by definition you're taking away or severely limiting this particular right.
I’m not talking about the morning after pill.I'm not out to ban the morning-after pill
I’m saying the female body sometimes naturally expels a fertilized egg.
Since you brought it up though, if you believe that life begins at conception, and you’re not “after banning the morning after pill”, then going by your own logic, you tacitly support a method of abortion.
Which is her decision.
And again, as much as you have the right to judge a women who goes down this route, what is it explicitly that you see as a crime?
Fixed
I don't want to argue semantics but one is preventing fertilisation and therefore pregnancy, the other is terminating pregnancy.
Which still fits into what I said. Most forms of birth control aren't 100% effective. So you're still telling someone who didn't ask for a child (but did what they could beforehand to try and avoid pregnancy) that they've got to have all the permanent reminders of being pregnant just to result in an unwanted baby who could end up having a poor quality of life.
Preach!
It isn’t semantics.
Sperm fertilizing egg is conception. You defined conception as “life”.
1) The female body can naturally expel a fertilized egg from the body, post “conception”.
2) Plan B can expel a fertilized egg from the body, post “conception”.
So going by your definitions, women are natural killers and Plan B is an abortion.
Not wanting the child is not a crime, ending its life is or at least should be. There is also a feminist argument to be made in favour of banning abortion by the way. Namely that women are often forced into having abortions by third parties, mainly men.
Word.
So your answer to that is to force all women into having babies they don't want?
What happens to the unwanted babies? Are you going to force them to keep the child too?