You’re just crazy. What if those women decide to do something other than what I want them to do? Can we trust her own version of morality when she obviously has already has sex with a man? I am just not comfortable with women having fun and getting away with it.
All in all you’ve summed up my view. Abortion is not pretty and I don’t think many women go into it lightly. Many women feel the need to abort for various reasons and we can’t know the circumstances in each case so we can’t judge. It comes down to whether we trust others to run their own lives or not.
To the OP, abortion rights are important to me as a man, not because they grant a license for free sex (would that that were true) but because they represent a line that the government cannot cross, the right to do with your body as you see fit.
By owning a house, I understand that an uninvited person might break into it.
Even if I leave my door unlocked, that doesn’t mean that I’m inviting any burglars in though. I might make it much easier for them to enter, but they’re still not invited. Even if I leave the door wide open, I can still compel them to leave.
I emphatically deny that there’s any implicit consent to be pregnant just by virtue of engaging in sex. But even if there is, that still doesn’t matter.
Let’s say I initially agree to hook myself up to the violinist, but then later change my mind. The initial act of agreeing to help him does not compel me to continue helping him. You might call me a complete asshole for reneging on the agreement, but I don’t believe that I’d legally have to continue helping him.
Don’t they have back alley abortions in Ireland? When I was young ,abortion was illegal in most of America. People still got them but not in a clean clinic by a professional staff. They were done on back alleys by people who could make some quick money off desperate people. It was a bad time. Many people were seriously injured or killed getting one in the old days.
The other option was for the wealthier. They could jet off to a country that allowed them and have it done by a doctor in a hospital.
I’m not sure why this is relevant. We can’t compel people to donate use of their bodies to save people’s lives, even if compensation is given for it later on. It doesn’t matter if we offer the man hooked up to the violinist a million bucks for his trouble. We still can’t force it on him.
And as far as power of attorney goes, I’d deny that a zygote/embryo/fetus is the type of entity that can be legally represented by anyone, anymore than a rat would have someone represent it in court. But even if I assume arguendo that this is pertinent: isn’t it the parents who get to decide whether to pull the plug on their children if they require life support? Since we can only know with absolute certainty that the mother is the parent (at least in the very earliest stagest of pregnancy) the decision to “pull the plug” (terminate the pregnancy) would still go to her by default.
And a flight to Britain can cost about €50 if you smart about it - less if you are willing to go further.
The cost difference between an abortion in Ireland and one in Britain wouldn’t be huge even if it was legal.
In fact, if it was legalised, I suspect many women would continue to go abroad to ensure that no-one found out about their actions.
Wow…do you really think everyone can afford $128 (looked it up Dublin to London $36 + $92 taxes & fees = $128 USD), time off from work, cost of the procedure, probably a stay overnight at the destination (especially if they mandate some waiting time) and so on?
Access to clinics is an issue here in the United States for this reason and it can be a real problem for women in rural areas (major urban centers usually have clinics that are not difficult to get to).
Let’s assume it was zero in the decade leading up to Roe v. Wade, because we’ll assume the “back-alley butcher” is a myth and that American women who did want an abortion in 1963 could get one from any reasonably competent and cooperative person with some minimal medical training and vastly improved antibiotics meant that even if something went wrong, there would be no resulting fatal infection. Also, even if local law enforcement heard rumours of abortions being performed, let’s assume they were often inclined to look the other way, or at most they might administer slap-on-the-wrist justice and the abortionist would pay a minor fine and then get back to work.
The march of progress, no? Now, let’s assume abortion is banned in America and it is going to be rigidly enforced. Abortionists will be jailed now. If the abortionist is also a medical professional, licenses will be permanently revoked upon first conviction. Serious fines and jail time await anyone who acts as middleman. In the course of investigations, police will check out anyone who purchases medical instruments or medications associated with abortion, requiring they explain the reasons for these purchases. Abortificants like mifepristone (aka RU-486) are banned, with importation and distribution punished severely.
Now, how long do you think it would take for the first woman, deprived of competent assistance using proper instruments and safe medications, to die? A question I like to ask those suggesting or advocating an abortion ban is just how rigidly do they want this ban enforced. Would an on-paper-only ban satisfy them (i.e. there’s a law against it, but no funds are spend enforcing this law) or do they really want cops to jump in and start making arrests? Since the demand for abortion is likely to continue unabated, won’t this have the effect of forcing the procedure underground where is unregulated and unsafe? At best, we might recapture the heady days of our assumed 1963, ten years before Roe, where abortions remain quietly available. Is that an acceptable goal for someone advocating a ban?
Is medical confidentiality that porous in Ireland?
Making it into a punishment is what the anti-abortion movement is all about.
As I and others have said, yes we can (to a degree). There’s nothing there to BE a person, and any definition that would include a lump of cells as a person would also give the “right to life” to a tumor. Just because there is a grey area doesn’t mean there’s no black and white zones where we are sure.
No, there aren’t. The anti-abortion side is motivated by malice, not principle and uses dishonest and irrational arguments. This is a very black and white, good versus evil dispute, and the anti-abortionists are on the evil side.
Once the chromosomes fuse, an new, unique human genome has been produced. I would not call that a person, but one could argue, legally, that the new cell with the new genome is a new “person”.
If you bleed or have a tumor, those cells do not contain a new, human genome.
Those analogy don’t hold.
I’m sorry, but once the egg is fertilized, there is a continuum of development into a fully formed baby. Any line we draw is necessarily arbitrary, and depends on our moral outlook toward the developing entity. We can do the best we can to be as scientific as possible, but we can still disagree about where the line is to be drawn.
So we can abort clones, right? Or one of a set of identical twins?
Anyway, let’s be scientific. What are the observable results of banning abortion? Can we do studies and conduct comparisons? Compile relevant statistics? I assume we can be “scientific” about more than just fetal development.
Sure they do because you are moving the goalposts.
You are now saying the important part is that a “new” genetic code has been created and that is what is important. A tumor, your blood and so on all have your genetic code in them. So unless “newness” is the key then the analogy holds fine.
Having confronted serious issues related to reproduction personally, abortion rights are very important to me. My right to make decisions about my own body, family size and pregnancy circumstances are mine and mine alone. I don’t give a damn about anyone else’s body, religious beliefs or personal morality.
If a woman cannot control her uterus she cannot control anything else in her life. The anti-abortion completely movement repulses me. They take a minor point and they ignore all other possible considerations. I don’t care what the Pope believes. I don’t care what the local Evangelical leader or imam has to say. What matters and matters only is what the woman in question feels and decides.
Only if you are using an absurd definition of “person” that contradicts how we use the term everywhere else. And a definition that among other things fails to explain why we should value a thusly defined “person” more than a potato - in fact, drop the word “human” and a potato would qualify as a person by that standard. All you’ve done is created a definition of “person” where being a person is nothing of particular moral relevance.
Tumors do, they mutate rapidly and can become very genetically different than their host.
And of course, you have twins and clones. And you fail to explain why a “new, human genome” deserves any rights whatsoever.
Once the egg fertilized means nothing. No person is even remotely guaranteed. The egg could fail to implant. The egg could be chromosonally abnormal. The egg could be a chemical pregnancy. The egg could be an early miscarriage.
Dozens of things can go completely wrong between fertilized egg and person. Even a normal healthy couple will often take three to six tries before getting pregnant with a viable baby. Even in a young and healthy woman roughly 50% of all her eggs are aneuploid.
To me abortion is a crime against women and against femininity in the extreme. To deceive a woman into thinking that it is best for her to have her own child murdered is beyond contempt and degrades the beauty that all women have.
That said making it illegal is not the answer, the state never can help anyone, but just provide arbitrary rules that some must follow under threat of punishment while others are exempt.
