So the second question, then, is are you aware that half the nation and much of the civilized world completely disagrees with your definition of what a “person” is?
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and it’s not “wrong” – it’s simply an opinion that you hold, just as I hold a different one. And I can certainly respect your right to hold that opinion.
If that’s all there is here, then I don’t know what we’re arguing about.
But what also exists among many who hold such an opinion – perhaps not yourself, but many – is the presumption of some awesome prerogative to impose that opinion and that value judgment on an entire nation by force, with direct and potentially grave consequences for many. Whoever holds such a view would need to explain where that awesome prerogative to intrude so brazenly into someone’s intimate personal life could possibly come from.
I can’t shake the feeling that this post sounds familiar… Downplaying the needs of what we know is a real, living, breathing, viable human being in favor of the needs of a sack of cells which may or may not make it to the third trimester is downright barbaric. This philosophic position that a fetus is a living human with all the same rights as the rest of us is not supported by good argumentation, and believing it leads to some very, very unfortunate consequences. Also, “needs”. :rolleyes:
You seem to be blaming conservatives and anti-abortionists for resistance to granting legal status to pre-born individuals (your phrase). Do you really believe that liberals and pro-abortionists would support such legislation, and that only conservatives are preventing this from happening?
If you do believe that, please provide a cite for some liberal proposing the grant of legal status to pre-born individuals, and show that it was opposed by anti-abortion groups of any stature.
When you’re the one solely responsible for someone else’s life and your “needs” are weighed against that someone’s dying. Quibble all you want, but that’s a unique situation and you won’t find another similar one. The only time abortion should be allowed is when it is life against life. When it is convenience against life, it is clear which should take precedence.
Your comparisons are good right up until you bring up mandatory organ donation. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about that, because nobody is sacrificing anything but there is a great gain. Nobody has the need to keep organs after they’re dead. But the need to have two working kidneys? The need to keep one’s own blood? The need to finish high school, continue working, and not bankrupt oneself dealing with an incredibly expensive mistake you’re absolutely not prepared to deal with? Totally incomparable.
Just to provide some emphasis on that last point, let me give an example. A while back, a friend of mine got knocked up by her idiot boyfriend. She was 15 at the time. She asked me for advice, and I told her one thing: get an abortion. She balked at the suggestion and had the kid, instead. Virtually every single problem in her life moving forward stemmed from this decision. Call him a little bundle of joy as much as you want, but it ruined her life. It ruined her relationship with her parents, it decimated her grades (she was never a great student but now she’s struggling to pass, and it would be even worse if the school wasn’t one of the few schools good enough to offer resources to help students with that kind of problem), it forced her into a life-long relationship with a boy who turned out to be an abusive rapist… It was not her only mistake, but almost every problem she has now, you can trace back to when she decided not to have an abortion. I find it hard to believe that that’s even a particularly negative story compared to others who became unplanned teenage mothers.
“Needs”. Yeah. Gotta have those scare quotes - after all, it’s not like raising a child is a massive fucking responsibility with a massive cost of both time and energy.
Wow, just wow. I sort of knew this to be possible, but to actually hear someone trying to ban abortion answer “why would a woman want an abortion?” with “… I’ve never really thought about it”. Wow.
I think we can answer the question in the OP with “in some cases, a simple lack of empathy towards women”.
So why does it matter that you’re “solely responsible”? Would the situation change if there were numerous donors? If you could transplant that fetus to anyone else’s womb, would you change your mind, and decide that abortion is okay? Look, in all cases, we have a clear situation - one “person” needs a host body to live; the other person (no scare quotes this time, because this one is without any reasonable doubt a person) has a right to not grant that host body. It’s really that simple. It would only matter that you’re personally responsible if you intended for it to be that way. And I sincerely wonder how many planned pregnancies are terminated.
Decisions about one’s own body are always “intimate personal life”. If you want someone or something out of you, you have the right to expel it, at any time.
Yes. Get rid of that cluster of cells with few defining characteristics that has a pretty good chance of being miscarried anyways, and go on with your life. You can always make another.
If you could transplant it, it wouldn’t be abortion.
Wrong. What happened is that person has already granted the other person her body. Now she is withdrawing the “grant” and killing the other person. It’s really that simple.
If you would like an analogy (as invalid as the analogies you provided, but hey - an analogy) - let’s say a hospital has someone on life support. But the hospital has “needs” and doesn’t want to continue. So it withdraws the life support. Kills the person. All cool and peachy, right? After all - “needs”!
Not if that someone is inside your body, and you want them out. That’s always personal. I recognize that opinions may differ, but on this issue, mine is at least as strong and implacable as yours.
Since we’re not likely to come to agreement on this issue, why don’t we try and continue to reduce the teen pregnancy rate, using the methods that have been working (and have also reduced the abortion rate) for the past few decades? We should be able to agree on that.
“Granted”. Do you even know what the term “unplanned” means? There is no explicit or implicit agreement involved in a pregnancy that is not planned. “You had sex, therefore it is your responsibility” is not a convincing argument when the success rates of modern contraceptives is so damn high. A woman on the pill who forces her partner to use a condom by no means “grants” a fetus a lease to her body. She’s doing everything in her power to prevent that fetus from entering her body to begin with!
Well, what “needs” does it have? I’d say that’s kind of a distinction that matters, no?
Even in the case of rape - tell the police after you kill your rapist that it is an “intimate personal” matter and they should not brazenly intrude in it. I’d like to hear their response.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here at all.
If you’re saying that a woman killing her rapist is equivalent to a woman expelling a fetus that she wants out of her, then you’re supporting my argument.