False dichotomy. It is indeed a complex issue, but not because of finances.
I have no problem acknowledging that, as a general rule, women are more independent of men than they were 50 years ago. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether women should be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
You are stipulating that at present: “If the woman chooses to keep the child and does not have the necessary finances, again, she receives financial assistance.” Why wouldn’t you just say that should have been the case 50 years ago, too? Abortion should have been outlawed, but aid to needy mothers should have been increased.
Not necessarily. I believe that it doesn’t matter if it’s a full human being, or a person, or whatever, because the woman’s rights trump the rights of anyone using her body.
The shortest version of my opinion on this controversial topic is: I think abortion is the worst method of birth control. I don’t have a uterus. I will never know what it’s like to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. I don’t think it’s any of my business to say what a woman can do with her uterus. So, I’m pro-choice.
Robert163, you have every right to change your mind like that. I think you should stick to your convictions and if you ever get pregnant don’t get an abortion. However, the question of concern to most people is what the law should be. So tell us something about the law you would pass that forces pregnant women to carry to term and the amount of money the public will pay for every child born to women who are not rich.
Fundamentally I would agree. On the other hand I believe that the fetus - especially after it has developed sentience - also has rights. These rights need to be balanced with the rights of the woman.
That is why I prefer a time gated approach. That is, allow abortion during the first trimester. That gives the woman ample opportunity to exercise her right to choose. If she decides to keep the baby, she should be held by that decision.
I would allow later abortion in case of medical emergency, because these are usually unforeseen.
Ok, good point, hadn’t thought of that. I still think one case, the old situation, is worse because in the new situation, 2015, the woman can still keep her job, a high quality job, something that was not really available in 1965 or 1837.
Ok, sure, but what about plain old fashioned responsibility? I am trying to be honest with you and state my opinion, bias included. That also means my comments are not very polite. I am not trying to be deliberately rude however.
As a subset to this topic, the “feminist” ideal that “a man can’t tell me what to do” or, “I will make my own choices dammit” look, I’m really not trying to be rude on purpose, I promise, but at some level I think women sometimes want to just “do what they want to do”. I’m not sure I agree with that.
Please accept my apologies for the bad parts of my comments.
Well, for the moment, I am discussing this as a concept only. I don’t think I would ever arrest a woman for having an abortion or throw them in jail. BUt you could prevent doctors from administration one.
Well, the question seems to be excessively politically charged. I simply declined to reply. But you seem to want clarification and my answer is that it is not a simple black and white issue so there will not be one answer to fit all. To some people there will be but not to me. As stated previously, my opinion is in between “it’s a clump of cells” and “it’s 100% fully human”.
Actually, John, the women’s independence issue is the issue that finally changed my mind from one position to the other. It is not the primary tenant of my argument. Not that I don’t think it is important but I am not sure how much debate it merits since it is simply the one factor that changed my mind, not the one factor that solely defines my position.
Too late to edit: I DO find it pretty offensive to cast the right to an abortion as an issue of a woman just being a petulant child regarding some man’s rights to her uterus.
Yes, women want to do what they want to do. This is not a shocker.
Ok, well, who’s responsibility is it? (That’s a loaded question, right). I think this really comes down more to a sanctity of life issue (for lack of a better term). I know that is very complex and do to that complexity I was previously pro choice even though in essence I was pro life. I guess I have just changed my mind recently.
Well I am not all together sure that is not what it boils down to in some cases. Well, not exactly that but as long as we (both of us) are going to use such hyperbolic language then it will be difficult to talk about.
I do think that the inconvenience issue is a factor. I don’t know how else to put it but are you going to deny that some women do not simply have abortions because the “timing is not right?”
You said it was women saying “no man is going to tell me what to do.” You also said that you though you might be being offensive. Yes, you were being offensive.
I never denied that timing and convenience matter, so I have no idea where you are getting that.
I think your forays into this debate so far are not well-thought, well-stated, or worth much discussion, so unless something arises in this thread that increases the interest level, this is likely my last post.
Well I consider it offensive that a woman would have an abortion because “the timing is not right”. But, since you only seem to be concerned about what offends you, then, yes, I suspect we have little left to say on this topic.
How does this support your opinion? You said that in the event of rape, abortion is okay with you. Does rape somehow tilt the balance between “it’s a clump of cells” and “it’s 100% fully human”? Does it alter the fetus’s right to be carried to term?