That would not even have merit if you actually knew what “my theory” is. But you do not, because you have not really bothered to read through this thread. I suggest you do so before your next post.
Well it may be unfair, but there is nothing that can be done about it. Women have the burden of pregnancy from a mishap and men don’t. That’s just the way it is. But it really is childish for a woman to rebel against this attack on her “sexual freedom” by using abortion as a form of birth control. To me, it’s downright evil.
I agree there is nothing wrong with having sex. On the other hand, getting pregnant and killing the fetus because it was an accident is abhorent.
But that’s dependent on the fetus being… human, or a person, or a human being, or whichever quality it is you feel makes it murder for it to be killed. Putting yourself in a pro-choice person’s shoes, who would not believe that, it would not be abhorrent, right?
That aside, presumably you wouldn’t say that a person who has an abortion is themselves “bad” at all for it, assuming they do not agree with you on your quality of murder.
Do pro-choicers think it’s OK to use abortion as the primary birth control method? I mean, if it’s just a fetus… Granted, it’s an invasive form of birth control, but is there anything wrong with it?
It changes from pro-choicer to pro-choicer. Speaking personally, it depends on your terminology; I have different answers to your first and second questions. No, I see nothing wrong at all, morally or ethically. with abortion as a mean of birth control. No, I don’t think it’s ok to use abortion as a primary birth control method, because there are far easier and cheaper methods to use primarily, and it’s a more invasive process for the woman that has a higher chance of things going wrong.
That aside, I’d question whether the number of people using abortion as the* primary* birth control method was significant.
Perhaps so. Are there degrees of “abhorrent”? Should everything that is “abhorrent” be illegal? Is it equally “abhorrent” to abort a full-term embryo almost ready for birth than to scrape off a few cells in the very early stage? Where do you draw the line?
Personally I find the mistreatment of animals – abused dogs, the fear and pain of a cow in a slaughterhouse – to be far more abhorrent than the removal of a few grams of cellular tissue from a woman’s uterus. It’s the difference between “what is” and “what might be”. But I’m not going to protest your consumption of beef, though it will determine how I conduct my own life. Would that more people could learn to mind their own business.
Criminalizing abortion achieves absolutely nothing except a sort of sanctimonious smugness, along with the possibilities of great emotional harm and the social burden of potentially unloved, unwanted children. It should be no surprise that societies that permit abortion are generally more compassionate to real, living people than those that prohibit it.
Fair enough. That is a reasonable assumption to make.
If we keep saying for the moment that the fetus is a person, as you have allowed me to do, would it not also be reasonable to assume that if you were the fetus you would want to live? It is one of the most basic human desires and there seems to be no reason to assume that this desire only kicks in at the moment of birth.
If we say that, there is a conflict between the wishes of the mother and that of her unborn child.
Yes, reality outranks potential. To that I agree.
What is relevant to me is not the potential of the fetus but what it is right now. (That is the reason why I agree to the abortion of an embryo - it is nothing but potential.) I believe a sufficiently developed fetus is alive and wants to live in the same way that a newborn baby wants to live. It is it’s present reality.
Remember: I am not saying that the woman should *entirely *not be allowed to have an abortion. The situation we are debating now only occurs, if she has had the option to have an abortion during the first trimester and has decided that she wants to keep the baby. That is why I reacted a bit edgy to the insulting post of elbows. I admit that my preference to disallow late abortions (outside of medical emegencies) still puts a limit on the woman’s freedom. But I believe that if we can create a situation where the woman knows what limit is going to be put on her freedom and for how long and she *decides *that she will accept that, then it is permissible and is not an instance of disempowering women.
A lot of us do not agree with this. An accident is not “your fault.” An accident is no one’s fault at all.
It’s bad medical practice; an abortion is a non-trivial medical procedure.
It would be like deliberately getting sick in order to skip a day or school or work. It isn’t wise.
No one promotes abortion as a primary birth control method.
Nope. That’s projection. The fetus cannot “want” anything.
And, hey, who knows? If the fetus could know what life was going to bring – the panic and pain of birth, teething, bullying at school, puberty, going to war in Libya, losing a finger to a lathe, marriage, divorce, marriage, divorce, and then a slow death by cancer – it might very well say, “Are you nuts? Abort me now!”
That’s projection too. Unless you know something that you are not saying.
Wouldn’t bother me, other than thinking it was a dumb-ass thing to do, and as long as I wasn’t paying for it. Otherwise, knock yourself out with as many abortions as you like.
I am sure it would badly piss off the pro-life part of society, so I’d be somewhat worried about civil unrest. And then there is the practical matters that others have mentioned.
Other than that, as long as it is a first trimester abortion, I would not object.
It’s not up to me to make that decision. I can only describe the terminology I prefer.
Well, if I was a fetus with a well-formed and self-aware brain that was cognizant of the stakes and concepts involved… sure, for the sake of argument, I would want to live, even if doing so posed a considerable burden on another human being.
I’m not sure what this proves, though. I can picture myself sacrificing the interests of lots of others in order to continue living - I make no false claim to a spirit of noble self-sacrifice or whatever. It’s probably a good thing that I don’t get offered choices like that. I’m not sure anyone should.
Well, it’s not a specifically human desire - any life-form with a self-preservation instinct has that desire. The animals we routinely kill in huge numbers for food all have that desire.
To the extent that a fetus can have wishes… sure.
Well, I’m as indifferent to the fetus’s “personhood” as to its wishes. Even if a fetus was a fully-formed (if miniature) human with all the mental faculties of an adult from the moment of conception, I don’t see why it gets to enjoy residence inside someone else’s uterus against the uterus owner’s wishes.
Anyway, I appreciate Canada’s utter lack of abortion laws. From that perspective, a “disallowance” (I’d rather just call it a ban) is indeed a dis-empowerment, moving in the pro-life direction from an ideal pro-choice position. If you want to create that situation, create it in the U.S. by junking all current laws and replacing it with the one you propose. This would (in many states) represent movement in the pro-choice direction.
And I don’t think the law you propose would catch any criminals (because there aren’t any to catch), but it might make life more difficult for some innocent people who are already having a difficult time. Does a woman in the seventh month of a wanted pregnancy who suffers a mysterious miscarriage (and this is tragically common) have to be concerned that her doctor might report her to police as suspected baby-killer? Fuck that.
Is abortion safer, less expensive and more reliable than other forms of birth control? Probably not, but I can picture some descendant of RU-486 that is virtually free of side effects, costs very little, and that a sexually-active woman could take once a month and which would neatly terminate a pregnancy (if she had one) with near-100% certainty. This might prove preferable to existing methods. Maybe instead of taking it every month, she only takes it if she thinks her period is a bit late, whatever.
In any case, as long as abortion is legal (and I hope it remains so), I might cluck my tongue at people who spend their money poorly and undergo medical procedures they could have avoided, but it’s pretty much none of my business.
That’s not a miscarriage. That’s an abortion. (Assuming the thing the woman did was intended to end the pregnancy.)
That sounds horrible, if true, and must’ve resulted in hundreds of women being convicted. Can you remind us how many were convicted?
This incidentally raises an interesting question - when and where have abortion laws led to the greatest number of convictions of women? I suspect the actual effect is to drive doctors out of the abortion business (and perhaps there have been times when they were convicted in serious numbers), which has the effect of denying access to safe abortions rather than punishing women who get abortions.
I’m open to edification on this point.
It does seem as though this is the case; if the woman has no right to make a decision, then she ceases to be a person (at least until the state-mandated birth has occurred).
As a real-life example in the news today: the ten-year-old Paraguayan girl, allegedly raped by her stepfather, ceased to be a person and became an incubator for the state until she gave birth, today (at age 11). Apparently this is seen as quite a good thing:
We humans take more care with our domestic animals, declining to breed them until they are old enough for a pregnancy to be healthy for them:
For dogs:
For horses:
http://www.naturalhorsetraining.com/trainingtips287.html
What a charming species we are, to be sure.
I’m no expert, but it’s my understanding that most abortion laws are purposely aimed at doctors. For several reasons: hit it at the source, like you said. Kill many birds with one stone. Don’t get accused of hating women.
We’re also more humane with respect to end of life decisions for our pets and livestock but that’s a subject for another thread.