Oh Shagnasty, I’m so very sorry.
Checks to make sure
She did. Or at least that’s where it is now. It may have been moved when I wasn’t looking.
You’re not enemy #1 (or an enemy at all, IMO) to pro-choicers. All we want is for people to be allowed to make their own decisions, and that seems to be your position as well.
Where was this stated? Only by you. Straw man argument.
OK, another pro-lifer here. First of all, let me state that, in our current society, I think that laws banning abortion would have very little effect, and will continue to have very little effect until we address the root causes of abortion. Pro-lifers would better spend their efforts on allieviating economic injustice, improving sex education, and removing the cultural stigma on unwed mothers.
That said, if we could make the necessary cultural changes, laws might be a good next move. So to address the OP:
First, I do not consider abortion before the development of neural tissue in the fetus to be a moral issue. Before the development of neural tissue, the fetus cannot be a person, so there are no more moral issues in killing the fetus than there are in killing a tumor or cultured tissue sample. This would include IUDs and morning-after pills, as well as (I think) treatment of ectopic pregnancies. Since it’s only proper to legislate morality, I would not support a ban on such procedures, and in fact I would recommend such a procedure in the event of rape (though of course the actual decision would be the woman’s).
Second, if at any point the woman’s life were in danger, it should be allowable to take whatever measures give the best chance for her survival, even if these measures would endanger the fetus. This does not extend to all threats to her health, only to her life, and if there were an equally-effective option available to the woman that would entail less risk to the fetus, that option should be preferred. If the option that gives the mother the best chance is different from the one that gives the baby the best chance, then again, the decision is ultimately the woman’s to make (some women might choose a greater personal risk, for the sake of the baby). One real-world example of this might be a woman with cancer: Many cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, would be very risky to the fetus. A woman should be legally allowed to opt to start chemotherapy as soon as possible, if that’s what will give her the best chance of survival, even if that entails risk to her fetus (of course, she might also opt to delay the chemo until after full-term birth, or to induce delivery early).
[QUOTE=DianaG]
No, it’s been here the whole time.
D’oh! I could have sworn it was in GD. My bad-I’m sorry.
:smack: :o