Which is why the answer to the OP is no, without some universal agreement on the status and nature of a fetus. Some people would say that when a woman becomes pregnant, there are now two people with rights. Others (and I would think you would place yourself in this group) would say that a fetus is some kind of tumor, if that’s how the woman wishes to view it. There’s not much negotiating room between those two positions.
The fetus has the right to life, but it doesn’t have the right to insist (or for others to insist on its behalf) to remain within the body of someone who doesn’t want it growing there.
BTW, where the hell are so many folks getting the idea that abortion is a recent-years only phenomenon? It was being done before it was illegal, it was being done during the years when it was illegal, and it’s being done now. Before the medical technology existed to do abortion as we know it, miscarriages were intentionally precipitated with clumsier mechanisms.
You wanna call it killing, you wanna say “but this fetus was alive and human”, fine, say it, then get over it. The authority to make that decision, with all its gravity, blood and gore included, is part of what it means to be a woman.
When the situation, opportunity, and means of availing themselves of it come together, millions and millions of women have “voted with their feet”. End of story on that one. That’s the vote that counts. With damn few exceptions no one was forcing them to go to those clinics. With damn few exceptions they were adults of sound mind who made those choices. This is what we mean when we say “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one”. The people who are having the abortions are pro-choice when they want to end a pregnancy, and the right to life folks either have to cause them to choose otherwise or authorize governmental scrutiny and invasion of privacy sufficient to stop them from doing this if and when they seek to do it. Being illegal didn’t stop it from occurring before Roe.
You want to reduce or eliminate abortions, you better find some way for them to not be pregnant when they don’t wish to be. And saying “then keep your legs closed, slut” isn’t an effective response. Women are going to insist on the right to not be pregnant when they don’t want to be and are going to be sexually active notwithstanding, and aren’t, apparently, going to accept this “you had sex, you relinquished your right to choose to not be pregnant, if you didn’t want to be pregnant you shouldn’t have had sex” line. Over, done with, and end of story on that one too.
True. My involvement in this debate was purely to correct what I thought was a misapprehension on the part of the OP which turns out not to have been a misapprehension at all but an attempt at shorthand which I, being dim, didn’t understand as such. 
And the basis for this proclamation is…? I say it’s political power, nothing else. And that’s fine, but it should not be spun otherwise.
How did we get from your elequent post above to this erratic diatribe?
I’m going to ask the same question I do every time this debate comes up (but isn’t usually answered – perhaps it will be now)… why is everyone so hung up on making the woman responsible for her actions? Doesn’t that imply that her child is just a consequence? Why would anyone want a baby to be born under those circumstances? I mean, they’re difficult enough to raise when they’re conceived out of love and desire. Why on earth would someone subject said potential human to whatever life they might have to satisfy “punishment”? I think that’s grossly unfair to the unborn child even in a best case scenario as adoption.
I’ve had friends who were adopted and although it works out for many, some hate it, never adjust to it, spend their whole life trying to wrap their mind around things like not being wanted by their mother, being second best to the natural born kids who stay with their folks, not knowing and feeling lost (just to name some right off the top of my head). So, I simply do not understand this stance. Insisting that one woman be held accountable will not affect another’s decision. As stated, if it’s absolutely necessary, one will find a way and if not, it’s the child who’ll suffer if put out in a world that could view it as somehow less than ideal. Therefore, like those who feel the death penalty serves as a deterrent, I disagree. The reasons behind the decision is what’ll make it something that has to happen or not. What others do or don’t would be irrelevant.
Again, I’d be more concerned about the future once s/he is here rather than in utero. Pro-lifers insist that this potential human being not be denied the right to whatever is available to them after birth. Ok. But then you (general) ARE considering the possibility of happiness, fulfillment, etc., etc. However, if that plays into why they should come to term and then be kept against one’s will (by being forced into taking responsibility) or given away, then the opposite side must be taken notice of too. It can’t be dismissed as just a hypothetical, because the aforementioned is as well. The conclusion is, that it is ALL merely a guess if either is a good call. I’d think that the outcome for the child would be most important and unless the choice was made in an intelligent, rational way, with their well-being held as top priority, that does triumph over whether bystanders’ opinions take precedence.
Lastly, ending up abused (either sexually, mentally or physically – or all combined in myriad combinations), neglected, permanently confused or unloved and adrift is NOT better than never being born. Just for myself, I’d rather my mother aborted than so much of what I’ve gone through. Yes, there’s been plenty of wonderful moments/experiences in my 36 years, but at this point right now (or for almost the last decade), I’d have preferred the alternative to her following through on a commitment that she hated. Aside from that belief, I find the attitude that this is done lightly, routinely, as a form of birth control and the like, extremely offensive. I’m sure their IS (or has been) exceptions to the rule, as there are in everything, but overall, I’m sure that’s a small group. Certainly IML(imated)E, I’ve never witnessed anyone behaving that way and when I’ve heard talk of such reasons, it’s typically been a perception by folks on the outside looking in with their own agendas. My mother believes that way, yet she’s never known a single woman who’s had one. Go figure.
Nothing else to add, I suppose, that hasn’t already been much more eloquently discussed than I could offer. I simply feel that what might be their life is infinitely more precious than anything else, even the ideas of those other than the mother or father. No external pressure should be added for than it would have to do with what is best for someone else instead of the child. Like being labeled “illegitimate” or a “bastard.” :mad: It’s just not right especially if implemented out of a misguided effort to allow for a potential healthy existence. I mean, where’s all the concern, help and passion past those 9 months? We don’t hear or see quite so much about that plight. It’s incredibly sad that it seems to fall before without thought to the penultimate concept of after. Which is what all procreation is about, right? How we fare once on the planet. And if we’re not allowed the best beginning available, why is anything less a preference? That comes across as inherently wrong, immoral and dishonest. NOTHING should be held that high. Again, all just MHO.
For the people saying no one has a right to use your body:
Say a friend invites you to dinner, but tells you that if you come there is a 2% chance your friend will have to run out for 15 minutes and you will have to take care of his child for this time. You go to dinner and sure enough the 5% chance comes through and your friend leaves. 6 minutes later you decide you want to take your body and leave. You do. The child drowns in the bath tub. Are you responsible for the death or did you have an absolute right to take your body and leave?
Yeah, the “It’s my body” argument is ad hoc and applies only to abortion; which means it begs the question of whether abortion is really right or not.
In a word, it’s sophistry. Not only does it not refer to a widely recognized principle, but the contrary would almost seem to be true: that we are not free to do something with our bodies unless society lets us. Suicide? Illegal. Self-maiming? Illegal. Drugs? Illegal. Nudity? Illegal. Etc.
Snickers elucidated
On behalf of the viewing audience, thanks!
But to the issue at hand, I don’t think you read my posts carefully. We’re not talking (Well, I’m not talking) about a “child never existing at all.” (highlights above mine)
My point, then and now, is that if someone accepts that “it” is a child, than I think you’re hard pressed to make a compelling case that the right of privacy is more intellectually, legally and morally valuable than the** life of another human being. **
Rather than answering in an intellectually straight forward way, your post postulates that life may not be all that it’s cracked up to be anyway. And, by devaluing the future life and prospects of a given child through the example above, the notion of extinguishing the life of that child seems not just palatable, but downright compassionate.
Forgive me for being underwhelmed at the rigor of this argument.
Of course, the children can’t weigh in with their appreciation because they’re uh…er…dead.
But entertaining the bogeyman above, I’m wondering…
Who gets to decide when the child’s future prospects are so dim that death is a better alternative? I mean, no pregnant woman goes through the mental thought process you describe above do they? Would a woman essentially say that she----the mother— of this child will so thoroughly abuse this child that killing it is a better fate? Read your paragraph above. Those concerns might be shared by anyone. But you’re not suggesting that someone other than the pregnant woman gets to have a say in the abortion decision are you? If not (which is what I’m guessing) what kind of woman goes through that kind of self evaluation and comes to the rational position that she must abort her child to save it from her? Who knows And if this pervasive, why aren’t we requiring abortions in situations where the grim existence you describe is inevitable? Here’s a clue… Because we don’t know. None of us do. the world is full of people who rose above grim existences and led happy productibe lives. Yet you’d have us believe that someone, anyone for Pete’s sake, should have the right to choose who lives or dies based on their speculation as to the ultimate quality of life that they will live? So, who plays God?
And what about the young woman from a great cultured home and whose child faces the prospect of a wonderful priveleged life? Should that child be allowed to be killed to preserve the right of some underpriveleged kid to be killed in the name of compassion?
If it’s a child----a human being---- no one gets to play God.
Of the 50 million abortions performed each year, (50 million!) how many would you suppose are the type of mercy killing that you describe above, vs a plain garden variety, “I don’t feel like having this baby” kind of thing? I can just hear the google servers revving up.
Lastly, there is still the recurring theme that a woman is not responsible for her choices. No one is punishing anyone. Every person should take responsibility for their choices. it’s for this reason that I have no compassion for the man who complains about having no say in the abortion decision, and yet is responsible for child support. If you choose to have sex, you are assuming the risk thay you’ll produce a child. IMO abortion is extremely effective in allowing someone to abdicate personal responsibility for their choices.
But who also gets to decide when they are markedly bad? It goes both ways, you know. Simply using myself as an example, I can see why it would never be a good idea for me, personally, to be a mother. My family has a (non-diagnosed) history of insanity and mental abuse. I’ve had a nervous breakdown and have been pretty much useless as a contributing member of society for the last 8 years. Now, I could conceive, but I think that would be highly irresponsible. Why? Well, if I kept the child, I’d undoubtedly be subjecting (at least tangentially) them to my mother and other immediate family. That in and of itself is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Next, I’d never want to take the chance that they could end up with the same problems I have and then go through similar trials. So, that leaves adoption. But that would still possibly pass on my condition to any offspring and then allow others who aren’t intimately used to it left to learn, understand and deal with it. Therefore, I take every precaution necessary, but there are accidents. That’s when it’s good to do the “responsible” thing if you feel it’s the best interest of the child’s LIFE.
[QUOTE]
But you’re not suggesting that someone other than the pregnant woman gets to have a say in the abortion decision are you? If not (which is what I’m guessing) what kind of woman goes through that kind of self evaluation and comes to the rational position that she must abort her child to save it from her?[?QUOTE]
Obviously, I can’t speak for the poster that you’re quoting, but I think the only pertinent participants are the father, mother and the future. No one else should have a call or say so unless they are prepared to raise the child after it is born. Financially, emotionally and anything else that’s necessary to a healthy upbringing. As to who makes these kind of self-determinations? Well, as is apparent by what I’m saying, I would be one. I do believe there are others that have replied to this thread who’d fall under the same heading. And this is just one little thread, in one forum, on one message board (although a large one) out of almost 50,000 and the gigantic freakin’ internet. If a couple of folks are represented out of all that right in this spot, then I think there’d be many, many others. Just my guess.
Since everyone (generally speaking) says that “Well, you can’t ask the aborted ones if they’d rather have been born… I’m sure they would have!”, one should also consider the flip side of the coin. I’m sure the reverse, for the kids of Andrea Yates, Susan Smith or the boy behind the “A Child Called It” books, might feel differently. As previously stated, I certainly would.
Wonderful point. In my opinion, due to the fact that one has to have a license to drive, fish or vote, why the hell aren’t people required to take a harder look at themselves and their facilities BEFORE they venture to procreate (and I do mean those that plan to). I mean, counseling is sometimes required before marriage and/or divorce. Why can just any ol’ person, no matter how unstable, unprepared, unemployed or decidedly NOT parental material have a baby? Boggles the mind. So in essence, something should be implemented to at least a minor degree. Unfortunately, I’m just not sure what.
Again, the person(s) who would bring said child into the world IS the one to make the call, because they do every day in the positive sense anyway, right? People feel they will do a wonderful job and bring forth the next president, Monet or a Nobel prize winner though their reason is holding their marriage together or out of spite or because they want something to love that’s their very own, only to have detachment disorder once the baby is born. The promise and the cause should go hand in hand, unless one chooses to proceed after an ‘oops!’ moment. But if you’re gonna say that’s playing to terminate, then it’s equally so to do so in the face of incorrect (harmful, et al) thinking.
That first part is disingenuous. No one has suggested basically ‘trading’ one life for another. I’m simply saying you can’t have one without the other. The view is always brought up that it isn’t fair to deny them the shot at a happy life. If that’s the case, then one must acknowledge the potential for a shitty, awful one too. Do they cancel each other out? Hardly. They aren’t even related. As I keep repeating, it should be up to the folks who’d be the guardians/caretakers/parents. THEY should make the decision in the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD’S POSSIBLE LIFE. Who else would know better? The guy down the street? Cashier at the market? Priest? Abusive uncle? Little sister? I’m betting it’s the ones who’d be responsible in almost every sense. It’s their call one way, so it would have to be the other also.
As to part two… Once more, this is an outside, anecdotal observation. Although my specific answers are also based purely on a small sample size of one, me, and I see this kind of accusation thrown around a lot, but does anyone have a cite on women that have abortions out of pure convenience? Because they really just don’t want to? They use it as a repeated form of birth control? Out of irresponsibility? Light heartedly? When is all this merely someone else’s conjecture or speculation on an outsider’s behalf or reality? Like I’ve mentioned, my family falls into this category, yet haven’t done any research, never read any unbiased information or know anyone personally that’s been there, done that. How can they be so certain about the actions of people they’ve never met when they don’t honestly KNOW a damn thing about the subject, not even remotely? I think that’s a terrible opinion/belief to force upon another. It’s none of their business.
To me, it’s not pertinent where you fall in the discussion on whether it IS or IS NOT a child on those that play God. It’s done every single day, the world over, since the beginning of time. My mother took that role and had me, despite the fact that she shouldn’t have. Her mother did the same. And on and on ad infintum. It’ll always work that way and sadly, she had that right in either direction. That’s what I contend anyway.
Yes, agreed. But sometimes taking responsibility also means choosing NOT to follow through on an action that would be detrimental to a child’s future. Having sex doesn’t mean one should then have an unwanted baby. That’s not being “responsible” and taking the consequences for whatever has been done. If YOU don’t want what you’re bringing into the world and see no other truly viable, realistic option, one that would be right for this potential human being, then that is the irresponsible pick. IMHO again, of course. A child is NOT a mere responsibility, consequence or punishment. S/he IS something that should be wanted, loved, looked forward to and raised as best as possible. Anything else is less than acceptable.
Oh, and just to clarify, I’m not talking about folks who are poor, uneducated or anything else that may qualify as less savory than ideal. Everyone should have the right to procreation if love and interest of the child is top priority. Everyone. But if it doesn’t meet those two criteria, then no.
So there is no definite purpose to being pregnant? No plan? And it depends entirely on chance whether or not you get pregnant? Nuns, for instance, are just as randomly likely to become pregnant as anyone else?
Like I said, wow.
Regards,
Shodan
We aren’t talking about watching a kid for 15 minutes. We’re talking about 9 months of forced blood and tissue donation.
Here’s the main reason I’m pro-choice. Birth control fails! The reason I’ve bolded this statement and put the final word in red is because it seems to me it’s an argument that gets overlooked too easily. I’ve been responsible with my sex life. When I’ve had sex, it’s only been with a man I love and respect dearly, and, as important, one I can discuss my views on abortion and contraception with before the need for such measures becomes a possibility. I also know that, short of a complete hysterectomy, a woman can become pregnant even if two forms of contraception are used. Don’t believe me? Ask some of our female Dopers who’ve had that very experience.
I don’t think the United States has a built-in mechanism which provides adequate support for pregnant women. We have the Family Medical Leave Act, which requires that employers provide three months leave for someone who becomes pregnant, but that’s unpaid leave. With my last employer, health insurance didn’t kick in until you’d been with them for three months. Even with health insurance, if I’d gotten pregnant on that job, I’m afraid it would be dodgy for me to support myself for three months without pay. I might have been able to manage it, but I would have had to tap my retirement savings. If I’d become pregnant during the seven months I was unemployed and without health insurance, I’m not sure what would have happened. Yes, I know there are additional resources, and I’m sure my church would have come through. On the other hand, I’ve got friends in the pagan community who would not be thrilled about walking into an Episcopal church and asking for help with an unwanted pregnancy!
There are people in this country who are opposed to the morning after pill because it keeps a fertilized egg from implanting. I’ve read the letters to the editor, and they are fighting to keep it illegal or prescription only for that very reason. I’ve read on this very board the opinion that life begins at fertilization, not implantation, thus anything which prevents implantation (IUDs, for example) is an abortifacient, thus should be illegal. Even the birth control pill can prevent implantation, thus using it’s immoral.
I understand the deeply felt moral outrage some people on the other side of the divide feel at the prospect of innocent babies dying. I understand it, but I also dislike the notion that, if things go horribly wrong and birth control does fail, I may be forced into wrecking my career, my life, and, potentially, the life of another human being or, allowing for the gentleman who fathered the child, two human beings, because of someone else’s beliefs.
I’m nearly forty years old; I’ve got at least ten years before menopause, and I’m in love. Should I have a hysterectomy or refrain from sex for the next decade because I am personally opposed to abortion because any sex act in which sperm gets in or near the vagina could result in pregnancy? Should I have been celibate my entire life because of that possibility? Obviously, I’d prefer not to, yet sometimes I feel that’s the only choice those who are politically pro-life offer me.
Respectfully,
CJ
Of course it does - sometimes. But most of the abortions done in the US are not due to contraceptive failure. And such failure is not random.
The problem being, your logic can equally well be applied to a living child, or a dependent parent, or some other socially inconvenient life.
I understand your reasoning, but it sounds very much (to the pro-life side) that you are arguing that your desire to have a sex life including intercourse makes it OK to kill people who might interfere with it.
Because they think that a fetus is an innocent human life. That is the unresolvable issue.
Regards,
Shodan
Are unemployed people “just as randomly likely” as the employed to have random drug testing a part of their employment? Are people who do not play the lottery just as randomly likely to win as those who do? Are people who aren’t registered to vote just as randomly likely to be chosen for jury duty as those who are? (Depending, of course, on the jurisdiction and how they create their pool of potential jurors.)
Just because the initial pool is narrowed for one reason or another doesn’t mean that the selection from that narrowed pool isn’t random, or as near to random as we can determine, being a product of imperfect knowledge.
Since you still don’t get it, here ya go again. Ooh, look, I’ll even put in a phrase that any twelve-year-old would already understand.
random: lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by or depending on chance
1000 sexually active women can use the same birth control the same way. One becomes pregnant, 999 do not. With perfect knowledge, we’d be able to predict which one, but we don’t have that knowledge now and might not ever have it. That’s pretty random, isn’t it?
No, and therefore the events you mentioned are not random.
No, it is not.
Since we have taken to repeatiing ourselves, I will repeat my cite. Notice especially the part where it specifically mentions that contraceptive failure is not random.
If contraceptive failure were random, it would be randomly distributed across income levels and age cohorts. It is not.
In other words, you’re wrong. Contraception failures are not random, pregnancy is not random, abortion is not random.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, if you’ll excuse me, I’d like to personalize this. If I ever find myself considering abortion it will because the contraceptive I was using failed, I was raped, or both. As I’ve said, I’ve been responsible and I’ve avoided bad luck so far; while I plan on continuing to be responsible, nothing I can do can completely rule out either of the two possibilities I mentioned. Two years ago, I quite literally did not have the financial resources to carry a child to term and deliver him or her. Given my mental state at the time (I was laid off in a tough job market, and suffering clinical depression to boot), it’s quite likely I didn’t have the mental resources to do so, either, especially if I’d gotten pregnant because I was raped. To be brutally honest, if I’d become pregnant in such a situation and had not been able to have an abortion, I may well have committed suicide. Yes, this is an extreme situation, and I’m glad I didn’t experience it.
If you believe abortion is taking a human life because of someone else’s irresponsibility and that I think people who interfere with my ability to have a sex life should be killed, that is your privilege, even though I obviously disagree with the second half of that. Nevertheless, by making abortion illegal, you don’t do so just for someone who uses it as birth control, but for someone like me who does what she can to act morally and responsibly, but is aware that, despite the best intentions of human beings, sometimes things go wrong. I don’t consider abortion a good choice, but I can foresee situations in which it would be the least bad choice, and that is why I will do all I can to keep it safe and legal.
Respectfully,
CJ
I think for some of you folks the problem is that you’re trying to derive the right to an abortion (or the lack of such a right) from “more basic, more fundamental” rights, e.g., “Susan has a right to an abortion because it is her body and she gets to decide what happens in her body”, or “Susan does not have a right to an abortion because the fetus is alive and human and therefore a person, and we should not kill people”.
I’d like to suggest that you cannot derive every right from a previously established right. Something has to be posited as a “given”.
I think the outcomes of a world where women can terminate pregnancies when they don’t want them is highly preferable to one in which they are prevented from doing so, but most women I’ve heard defending their own personal right to make that decision don’t defend it in terms of outcome or by reference to any “prior” right that it gets derived from. It simply is. As in, I have to right to abort a pregnancy if I wish, full stop, no justification to follow.
Why not consider it a postulated basic right, one from which other rights might be derived, perhaps, but not necessarily one that need itself be derived from any others? We don’t tend to say “Explain why you or any other person has a right to freedom and liberty”. We don’t tend to say “Defend the notion that you have a right to life”. We don’t generally ask “Why do you think you have the right to your own opinions?”
I suggest that the conventions of ethical argumentation and the logic that permeates it are historically male conventions.
Last time I had a fertile female cat giving birth to a litter of kittens, she inspected them, nipped the birth sac off them and licked them, except for one that she nudged off to one side and did not attend to, allowing it to die, which it fairly quickly did.
Females of our species, as with most other mammalian types, have to put up with periods and PMS and the varied hassles of pregnancy itself on occasions, and then along with all that they have this role in which their body gradually gives rise to another person, the miracle of childbirth, the bringing into this world of a new life (yes, we know women do not conjure life up without male genetic help, but for all practical purposes every molecule of its body is created from the reservoir of female bodily material, and then she has to bring it forth, no picnic that, either). It has been called a “sacred mystery” even long after our species had a solid understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between sex and pregnancy.
And one of the mysteries involved here is that in the beginning she is a single Self and at the conclusion, lo and behold, here is Another, there are Two, and all the science in the world doesn’t erase that sense of marvel and human astonishment. Because it is unique. In no other human situation does a single self somehow become also an additional person. It isn’t comparable to anything else. It isn’t akin to anything else.
And, as I’ve said before, women since the dawn of time have sought and exerted authoritative control over the process. Infanticide in the female-only birthing tent, herbal or inorganic substances to precipitate a miscarriage, ways to dilate the cervix and introduce devices into the womb and cause an abortion, vaccuum aspirations pumps to remove the uterine lining and the fertilized cell or early embryo, pharmaceuticals that prevent the zygote from implanting, pharmaceuticals that cause the uterine walls to contract and expel the embryo, caesarian section and removal of unviably premature fetus, whatever’s available to them, whatever the technology of the time made possible, they’ve tended to make use of it.
Obviously not all the time or we wouldn’t be here. Most women respond to pregnancy by giving birth. But it’s been consistently true that they’ve claimed for themselves the decision-making authority to do otherwise if them deem it appropriate to do so.
To prevent it — based on what we know from the last time abortion was pretty universally illegal in the United States —you’d have to not only pass laws against it but also implement highly invasive monitoring of citizen’s behavior, very private behaviors at that.
I think it entirely reasonable to posit abortion rights as a “given”. It comes with being female. A woman has the right to kill, under these circumstances, to make that life and death decision, without any interference, and to avail herself of whatever techniques and technologies she finds useful. It’s part of being a woman, and as a right it, like life and liberty, requires no further defense or justification.
This is a perspective worthy of respect. However, there is still the conflict between the desire of the individual and the imperative of the species or society to reproduce itself. Historically, societies have exerted a great deal control over the reproduction and child-rearing practices of its individual members. The prevalance of abortion in Japan and European countries is having genuine and measurable impact on the reproductive success of those societies. In a word, we have shrinking populations, due in part to the freedom to abort. Contrariwise, China has successfully used abortion to reduce the population, or at least retard its rate of growth.
Indeed, I think this is the only way to go: simply to grab the right by sheer political force. Unless we are talking about a mystical right that is just “there,” which is hogwash.
[/quote]
The reason here is fairly simple. People almost universally see the examples above as good things, whereas many people see abortion as an outright evil. One does not have a “right” to commit an evil, anti-social act. This puts proponents of abortion in the difficult position of justifying the procedure itself. The result is dishonest, counterintuitive propaganda (it’s just “tissue” etc. etc.).
This begs the question of why females overwhelming supported these conventions for millenia. Ask your average woman in 1850 or 1950 whether abortion on demand is a good thing.
Good sentiments, but the relevence to what precedes and follows is unclear.
You have some genuinely skilled sophistry here. I admire it but must point out the flaws in reasoning. Do you mean to imply in this sentence that women have primarily and at the same time effectively controlled reproduction since the dawn of time? I would say that in most societies until recently the only major forms of control exerted over reproduction were the regulation of marriage and then the practice of infanticide (or lack thereof). In both cases, men usually had more power than women, although women certainly had a lot too.
This is very nice propaganda! As though modern methods of abortion were at all similar in effectiveness and scope of use to the potions of old. Still, I will grant the point that abortion is not new. What also is not new is that society in the aggregate greatly frowned upon the practice (well, maybe not any more).
This is not a smooth point. Societies in the past condemned abortion and it was not a prevalent practice. Nor could it be, as there were no safe and effective methods.
It’s obvious that you’d have to pass laws against. The part about “highly invasive monitoring” is just goofy. Doctors weren’t allowed to perform abortions and were severly punished if they did so. What do you think were the “highly invasive monitoring” methods in place in 1950? There were none. Society was overall against the practice and illegal abortions were relatively uncommon. Cecil himself debunked the lie that 10,000 women died every year from illegal abortions.
All you’re saying is “Let it be so,” whereas societies and their individual members have been saying “Let it not be so” since the “dawn of time” that you mentioned.
I understand the reasons why people want abortion on demand. Skipping over all the emotional arguments as to why abortion is unpleasant, unhealthful, and yucky, one may state the simple fact that societies have always sought to regulate the reproductive and child-rearing practices of their members. A society that does not do so successfully faces extinction, as the shrinking populations of Italy and Japan will testify. Hence the question: Does society have the “right” to regulate abortion to ensure its survival?
It’s a tough question with concrete implications.
Do what?? Women already have pre-conception reproductive choice through the various methods of contraception that are available. They have post-conception reproductive choice through the availability of either adoption or abortion. Now women are being given yet another choice through the enactment of Safe Haven laws, which allow the abandonment of newborns at specified locations, on a no questions asked basis.
Women are offered choice after choice in matters related to reproduction. It is men that are held responsible, under the threat of incarceration, for their actions.
It has been estimated that approximately 1.75 million conceptions occur annually due to contraceptive failure. Abortion rights activists insist that abortion remain a safe and legal procedure because a young woman should not have to suffer the consequences of having her life interrupted with an unplanned pregnancy. Should a failure of birth control or a “mistake” occur, the young woman should have the option to terminate her pregnancy for any reason. She may wish to continue her education, enter the job market or concentrate on her career. She may wish to travel, purchase a home or automobile, or just avoid the responsibilities of parenthood if she should so desire. However, the true agenda of the “pro-choice” movement is exposed when those who gallantly rush to the defense of a young lady facing an unplanned pregnancy, idly stand by while the same legislative and judicial systems, that recognize a constitutional tenet of “freedom of choice”, violate the concept of equal protection of the law by forcing an unmarried man into an eighteen to twenty-one year parental obligation.