The pro-choice position is based on the notion that restricting or limiting abortion would be taking away choice and turning the woman into some sort of slave. But, it could be argued that women have an obligation to give birth, both ethically, morally, and within the accepted bounds and norms of the legal framework within society. Some bring up the so-called "violinist analogy". But a woman has a very special relationship with her child. It's akin to the mother-baby bond. She's the one that brought the little life into the world. She's the one who's responsible for it in some sense. (Now I'm not saying she has to raise it for 18 years; she just has to row the boat to the shore, so to speak) The gift of life through pregnancy is very natural. In fact it's the most natural thing in the world. None of us would be alive if our mothers hadn't given us life, while we were still in the womb. Now, I'm not talking about all those exceptions: health/life of the mother, rape, etc. Let's just focus on normal cases of abortion here and not get distracted. We can talk about those other exceptions after we've talked about the regular situation that occurs 95% of the time. A woman should have the choice, and in fact she does. In some sense. A woman has the right not to be impregnated against her will. No one disagrees with that. No baby can start growing unless she chooses to be inseminated, or chooses to engage in the act of procreation. Yes, yes, I know, human beings can't help themselves, they can't overcome their primordial animal instincts. And women should have the right to have sex with whomsoever they please and not have to deal with or be held to any consequences for it, fetus be damned... But is it really fair to shift the consequences onto her fetus? I know maybe she can't "help" herself, but she did choose the man who would be the biological father. It's not like she has to grow the sperm of some total stranger.
You're assuming the woman has the right to engage in vaginal sex, with absolutely zero chance of having to deal with consequences for it. She can certainly make her chances very small, if she wants to. But there's still an inherent risk that comes with the act. Some combination of tubal ligation, birth control pills, diaphragm, condom, or IUD. Combine 3 out of the 5. maybe even add the rhythm method on top of that for good measure. Chances of pregnancy will be less than 0.1%. If it's discovered the condom has torn, she can pop a Plan B pill. If she's only using birth control pills and that's her only method of contraceptive, she's pretty much asking for a pregnancy.
An abortion is one way of dealing with the consequences of vaginal sex, and some women will pick that option. If she feels an obligation to give birth, I support her giving birth. If you feel she has an obligation to give birth, I validate your feelings but they are not hers and she is not responsible for your feelings nor to act upon them with regard to her pregnancy or her vaginal sex.
I'm not asking for anything unreasonable. Pro-lifers are not saying the woman has to give birth every time she has sex. Just that there is a very small chance she might have to give birth, if she decides to have sex and does everything else right, taking all the possible precautions.
Yes it is, but not a very good one. It's a way of pushing most of the consequences onto the fetus, using it as a human sacrifice.
Seems like mistakes happen and there is no reason why a woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term. It is her body and no one can deny that. Even anti abortion people make exceptions for rape and incest. But there must come a point where the life she is carrying becomes a life also of value as a human being. Is that line birth? If so, is abortion acceptable a day before birth but murder a day after? At what point can a woman be told that she waited too long? Is there such a point in time? Is the developing human being only of as much value as the mother decides? And what of the father? The fact that it’s half his DNA is not in dispute. Should he have any input at any point? If it’s none of his business before the birth then why is he responsible for half afterward. In both cases, he is without a voice. Is this right?
Yes in the same sense as having a mole on one's cheek removed is pushing 'consequences' onto the cells in the mole. Not too concerned.
So now you're saying not only does the woman have a right to have sex, she also has the right to make mistakes, and not deal with any consequences for it. Not only not deal with it, but have zero chance of even possibly being on the hook for any consequences. And she can shove those consequences onto someone else.
A rape victim can pop a Plan B pill and immediately get her uterus sucked out as a preventative measure. Maybe women who are sexually active (and want to get abortions) should be required to attend biweekly ultrasound examinations. Just to be sure anything is caught early.
No I’m saying that she deserves the right to decisions involving her own body up to the point where the fetus she is carrying has developed to the point where it has acquired rights of it’s own. The question, as always is what that point is. I certainly think that any woman who has suffered the trauma of rape should not have to suffer for another nine months with the constant memory of that trauma.
It is an ethical question. It was never intended as a suggestion. I’m asking at what point does the fetus gain value as a human being?
Maybe it gains value little by little, throughout the pregnancy. Maybe even a baby who has already been born isn't worth quite as much as an adult human being. Oh well, so much for "Equality"...
True but sentience does not impress much as a standard once you realize that botanists can make the same argument for every weed in your garden.
Ok so we have a fertilized egg so ending the life at that point is ok but not a month or two later? Where is the line? That’s what I’m asking. I knew a woman who thought an abortion was appropriate all the way until birth. She thought that was a proper feminist right. I’m asking people if they think this sounds right?
Do you think that when a weed is sprayed with weed killer it has even the slightest awareness of what’s going on?
Does it have to be all or nothing? Are there ways to incrementally protect its life, depending on the gestational stage?
Imagine you were born deaf or mute. Like Hellen Keller or something. Surely you do not argue it's okay to euthanize the retarded because they cannot speak.
