What is it?

The real question behind the abortion debate is: What is it?
When asking this question, every other controversy becomes irrelavant. Is the embryo or fetus a human or not? If it is, then abortion must be wrong. If it's not, then abortion must be right.

Any other questions can be driven back to this one by replacing the word fetus with toddler.
Example:
Person A (let's call her Martha): If a woman has been raped, then you can't say abortion is wrong in that situation. It can be detrimental to her mental health!
Person B (let's call her Mary): Let me ask you a hypothetical. Say a woman is raped and the baby is born. Would it be okay for her to kill it?
Martha: No! Because it's already born! (If Martha said yes, there would be something seriously wrong with her)
Mary: So, what we're really trying to figure out is, what constitutes a life, what is a fetus? A human or a glob of cells?


Now, I will admit this doesn't work in the case where the mother's life is in danger. That goes back to the question, "Is it okay to kill someone in order to save another life?"

 

Not in the slightest, what it is is almost irrelevant. What you have assumed is that human life is somehow special.

Fails from the start due to the presumption that a woman with a born child only has the option to kill it to gain separation, not the case, where as a woman who is pregnant only has that option.

You need to realize the difference between biological dependency and social dependency
You need to realize that a born child causes no serious literal injury to the woman where as all pregnancies cause serious literal injury to the woman. The woman who decides to continue the pregnancy consents to the injuries a woman who wishes to end the pregnancy does not.
You need to realize that Individual consent in most societies and most legal system is of primary importance.

There is no real relevance whether the fetus is human or not, and to use the term "glob of cells" is just a hyperbolic emotional projection used to try and demean the pro-choice position.

Presumption again that the risk to life is the only reason deadly force in self defence can be used .. it is not.

 

If a pregnant woman doesn't want the baby, she can just give it up for adoption.

 

And if a pregnant woman doesn't want to be pregnant or endure childbirth, she can just have an abortion.

 

Abortion isn't necessary when adoption is always an option.

 

Says who?

 

It's a fact. Adoption is legal in all states.

 

Does not mean abortion is never necessary.

 

Why is abortion never necessary, if adoption gives the woman the opportunity to avoid the inconvenience of raising a child?

 

That would be up to the woman, not you or me.

 

Abortion isn't necessary. If the woman doesn't want to raise a child, adoption is always an option.

 

It isn't up to you or me to decide what is necessary for others. So sorry you don't get to make medical decisions for women...

 

Abortion is a convenience decision, not a medical decision.

 

Keep telling yourself that.

 

Prove me wrong!

 

Sam's ego is actually correct.

From multiple studies by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, rape/incest/life of the mother account for <8% of all abortions. Rape and incest alone account for around 1.5%.

So 92% are all "convenience" based: wrong time, interferes with career or education, not married or in a relationship, finances, just not ready for another child, etc.

 

You are both actually incorrect. "Convenience" does not apply to reasons for having abortions. That is a gross trivialization of the hardship, sacrifice, and risk to health and life that pregnancy and childbirth entail. Pregnancy/childbirth is a major event that changes the course of a woman's entire life, and that can hardly be described as an "inconvenience."

 

Popularly abortions are considered as "hardship cases" such as rape, incest, life of the mother; and "abortion for convenience" or "abortion as birth control" such as poor timing, interferes with career, etc.

Hardship cases are forcibly imposed upon a woman (rape) or are so severe as to be life threatening. Americans tend to give those cases great latitude in terms of letting the woman decide about abortion.

Abortion as birth control is the result of irresponsibile behaviour. Sex involves a risk of getting pregnant even if birth control is used. If pregnancy is inconvenient, then make sure you dont get pregnant by either not having sex or using multiple protection (such as condom with spermicide for him, pill for her). If a woman is just too "in the moment" to use protection and gets pregnant, thats not a good reason for an abortion.

But it all depends upon whether its a human or a "mass of cells". If its not a human, then nobody cares about abortion. If it is a human recognized legally and socially, then a woman better take sex very seriously because the consequences can be life changing.

 

Nine months of having her body injured without her consent .. I wonder if you would do the same, and what gives any person the right to tell someone they have to endure injuries without consent.

 

consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and what may seem like convenience to you is not what others think. Why should your opinion be made to over ride another persons individual rights. I'm sure you would just accept it happening to you (not)

 

That's actually only "popular" among the anti-abortion crowd. Pro-choicers have too much respect for women to refer to abortion as "convenience."

True, only extremists oppose abortion choice in those circumstances.

Basically, you want to punish a woman with pregnancy/childbirth for a very human failure. It makes more sense to allow the person most involved to be the one who decides if it's a good reason.

No, it all depends upon WHERE it is, not WHAT it is. Within a woman's body...it's HER choice.

 

Always? No exceptions, Sam?

 

I must disagree....the fundamental question would be this:

Does one person have the right to control someone else's life based on personal opinion?

 

No, when surveys go to the level of detail of dividing abortions between the hardship cases and the rest, the nation strongly supports the womans choice to abortion for hardship, but support is weak for the other situations.

"Human failure" is not an excuse at all for avoiding the consequences of a voluntary action. Every crime, sin, and moral breakdown can be explained as a human failure.

Again, it all comes down to whether its a human being or not. Location is a mitigating factor, but it is not a determining factor. We do not grant human status based upon location.

 

It all hinges on the status of the baby - if its not human then nobody cares about abortion. If it is a human, then it gets the rights and protections of all humans.