We've already had this discussion and debated it extensively in another thread. I'll make it short and summarize for you, the pro-choice argument generally points out the differences between organ donation and pregnancy. (i.e. one is permanent, the other is not; one is perfectly natural, the other is not; one results in loss of a distinct body part, the other does not; the question of whether the woman created the situation necessitating the organ donation) I still prefer the conjoined twin analogy, because the woman is sharing her body with a fetus. Viewed in that light, it's not really so much a "gift". (i.e. her uterus is no longer really "hers" for a period of time) You see, "choice" implies that she had a right over something in the first place.
And yet, there has been a recent trend of states legalizing abortion in the third trimester. (more specifically, passing new laws that make it all but impossible to stop or do anything about)
The effects of pregnancy are permanent too. That is a difference, but not a relevant one. Naturalness is not a difference that matters legally. But that body part isn't needed. Hence, irrelevant to legality. And if I was in the middle of my kidney removal, I still have a right to stop it, even when I created this situation. Creating a situation doesn't mean you lose your right to your body. Her uterus will always be hers because it is part of her. Does the government has more of a right to her body than she does? Who has the final say about what happens to her body when she is pregnant?
Which I disagree with. If you can remove the fetus without killing it, then removal while killing it is wrong.
What if you're only 1 week away from the fetus being able to survive? And, if the fetus can survive, is it okay for the woman to expel it, with the risk of lifelong disability to the child? See, your argument doesn't really make any sense.
Then her right to her body trumps her body takes priority. That is the principle of it. There are a lot of practical questions to consider as well. For example, if in the future the fetus at day 1 could be extracted and continue development in a test tube, should we ban abortion completely? What if that procedure cost a million dollars?
Even if she only has to wait one week, to be able to give the gift of life? I don't think your argument really makes any sense. Are you really advocating that abortion is not okay at week 24 because the fetus could be taken out and the woman wouldn't have to carry it anymore? Do you know that a fetus at 24 weeks only has about a 50/50 chance of surviving, and if it does survive, will very likely have severe lifelong disability from being taken out so early? The whole argument that abortion is magically not okay at week 24 presumes that the fetus will be taken out at that point. Look, I know we need to ascribe a cut-off, but I'm just asking why should that necessarily be at the point of viability?
The real world is messy and it can be difficult to put principles into practice. Given that very early extration of the fetus is obviously very risk-prone and expensive, I obviously don't want to allow doctors to do that except when medically necessary. Its difficult to draw a line but we have to draw a line somewhere. Most states ban abortions after 22 - 25 weeks, and I tend to agree somewhere in that range is where we can draw the line.
I just find it so ironic that the argument seems to be "We can force the woman to have to gestate the fetus once the baby no longer needs to gestate inside the woman to stay alive". Do you see how that is very paradoxical? If the baby needs to stay inside of her to survive, we say she can take it out. When the baby no longer needs to stay inside of her to survive, we say she can't take it out.
Yes, viable fetuses have protection, not rights. And if the woman's health or life is at stake she can have the fetus removed after viability. As you have been told many, many times, mentally stable women do not have abortions after viability for no reason. IF a woman asks a doctor to perform an abortion on a viable fetus that is not endangering her she is given a psych evaluation not an abortion.
Why do we protect them right after the very moment when they ostensibly no longer need the protection of the womb? "Hello woman. The fetus no longer needs to be in your womb anymore to survive. Now we're going to take away your choice and you're not allowed to take it out." You have to agree, this is all rather senseless, in a way.
So mentally unstable women get a free pass and can have all the abortions they want? And I've pointed out to you in the past those rare cases where women may not realize (for various reasons) that they're pregnant until surprisingly late into the pregnancy. One of the women was quite thin, actually, but it's just the way the baby happened to be situated inside her body it didn't show much of a bump. You yourself, FoxHastings, said in the past that a woman was perfectly within her rights to get an abortion at the later stages if her life situation changed, and she no longer felt it would work for her to have a baby.
THE FULL UNEDITED TO AVOID THE TRUTH POST YOU QUOTED: Yes, viable fetuses have protection, not rights. And if the woman's health or life is at stake she can have the fetus removed after viability. As you have been told many, many times, mentally stable women do not have abortions after viability for no reason. IF a woman asks a doctor to perform an abortion on a viable fetus that is not endangering her she is given a psych evaluation not an abortion. WHERE did I post that? NO where....and there is my post to prove it. Is it honest to edit posts so entire answer isn't there? No, I did NOT. Why do you think it's OK for raped women to die in childbirth?
I'm not sure how society was ever convinced to call it "Pro-CHOICE" ? Who's choice? Who does the "Choice" affect most? Seems to me it's actually "Pro-DEATH". I think a lot of the abortion problem could be handily resolved if there was a cost for having an abortion in the absence of mitigating circumstances (such as rape) Got pregnant having fun? Like Child support makes a parent responsible for their child, make people responsible to society for the loss of the life. As it is now, consider the effect on society if the requirement for the non-custodial parent (usually a man) to pay child support was removed. I guarantee you the birth rate would explode. Attach a "cost" to abortion and watch how quickly people find ways to be "more responsible" overnight.
You know, in Finland they set up a system where the level of a fine is in proportion to your income. The idea is to make everyone feel the hurt equally. Maybe the money could be used to help orphans and women who chose life.
What are the chances she was both raped, and is going to die in childbirth? Honestly? Probably somewhere in the ballpark of being hit by lightning.
Oh come now, don't you believe it's a bit disingenuous to be comparing the permanent effects of pregnancy (after it's well done and over) to those of losing an organ?
P.S. If anyone doesn't believe me about those probability calculations here it is: Rape - 1 out of 100 pregnancies (and that's a very generous figure, it's likely lower) Death - 14 out of 100000 pregnancies Multiply together, that 's 14 out of 10 million The chances of being hit by lightning in any given year is 1 in 700,000. Wow, they're about the same. (Lightning strike being very ever so slightly more likely) I think I've mathematically shown that the chances of any given pregnant woman both having gotten pregnant due to rape, and dying due to childbirth (assuming no abortion) are no more likely than the chance of being hit by lightning that year. So the claim was not just hyperbole.
Could you explain to me what the woman is permanently losing? You know, they even have "tightening" surgeries these days, so her plumbing can be as good as new.
