andrewducker | Abortion

Abortion

I say that I'm pro-choice, but the truth is that I'm actually anti-abortion. Rather, I'm pro-making sure that women have the resources and education available so that there's no need for abortions save those performed for medical reasons. The best way to stop abortions is to stop the need for abortions -- not with abstinence education that tells girls they're naughty for getting knocked up but doesn't tell them how to prevent it, but with realistic sex education and more resources for young women who find themselves pregnant and unable to afford prenatal care and postnatal expenses of raising a child

Which pretty much sums up how I feel.

Stolen from the ever-vigilant Lady Sysiphus.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

I have no problem with a woman's right to choose. Until it conflicts with the right to life of the unborn. My question is trying to establish when that is most likely to be so.

I don't see a conflict. A woman's right to choose overrides any "rights" invented for a foetus.

All rights are invented.

All rights are really "rights".

I feel the need to charter an airplane and sprinkle the world with tiny tags with "IMHO" on them.

Um. I tend to assume people will take the tag "IMO" for granted - of course it's my opinion, why else would I be saying it - but maybe your aeroplane is a better idea. Mix the tags up: IMO, IMHO. IMNSHO...

What about the woman's right to accept responsibility for her own actions? Under 'normal' circumstances, she is presumably 50% responsible for the pregnancy in the first place.

Strange how anti-choicers keep equating "a woman accepts responsibility for her actions" with "a woman forced to have a baby she doesn't want". I really don't see the equation - the two don't seem to me to have anything to do with each other.

I don't think I have stated anywhere that I am anti-choice. I am just asking questions as to when the rights of the foetus/unborn child begin.

Why would a foetus need rights?

Forgive me for the confusion: due to some piece of Jungian humour, I have been arguing with anti-choicers who used that very equation several times: that forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want somehow equals the woman "accepting responsibility".

OK, so someone who happens to be bigger, stronger, faster and more co-ordinated than yourself decides that they have the 'right' to decide whether you live or die. What then?

I'm not a foetus.

That fact accepted, what is your answer to my question?

That fact accepted, your question has nothing to do with this discussion: if you want to start a new discussion over on your own journal, please let me know.

Already did, yesterday.

The only two discussions I can see you started yesterday also have nothing to do with the question you asked me.

Pardon me for playing Devil's Advocate and asking for an opinion from the foetus' point of view.

Are you also going to ask for an opinion from the dilators?

The foetus doesn't have an opinion, no more than the tools used to induce an abortion have an opinion.

Prognosticate then.

Predict the future?

If the pregnancy is not terminated, if the woman doesn't have a spontaneous abortion, if the foetus is born, then a baby exists. If the baby is born in the UK, the odds are that the baby, once adult, will be of the opinion that a woman has a right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy: that appears to be the opinion of the majority of people in the UK.

But the foetus, as a foetus, has no opinions, and never will. That is a sure prediction - unlike the demographic guess that if the foetus stops being a foetus and becomes a baby, in twenty years time the adult the baby grew into being will probably be pro-choice.

I'm beginning to think that we are discussing at cross-purposes. What is your definition of a n unwanted pregnancy?

If the woman who is pregnant doesn't want to be pregnant, it's an unwanted pregancy. What's your definition?

Is this a wind-up?

No.

You asked me what I meant by an unwanted pregnancy, and I've told you. Then, which seems fair, I asked what you meant.

(no subject)

cx650.livejournal.com - 2004-01-20 16:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

yonmei.livejournal.com - 2004-01-20 16:14 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

cx650.livejournal.com - 2004-01-21 13:37 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

yonmei.livejournal.com - 2004-01-21 14:21 (UTC) - Expand

The issue is not how developed a foetus is, but it's location. As long as it's inside the body of a woman it cannot be given independent rights without directly denying those same rights to the woman.

The law generally accepts that nobody is obliged to put themselves at risk, even to save a life. Nobody is forced, for example, to donate a spare kidney, or to donate bone marrow, or to dive into the sea if they see someone drowning. People do these things, of course, but it has to be of their own free will.

Similarly, nobody should be forced to continue a pregnancy - it has to be a choice that is freely made.

Pardon me for being an idealist sometimes, but I like to think that a middle ground could be found somehow. I have no desire or intent to deny any woman her rights, but I would think the world a better place if viable foetuses were allowed rights too. After all, medical science allows life to many children who would not have been viable without significant intervention.

Unfortunately, as we've pointed out repeatedly, there is a direct conflict of interest between the woman and the foetus while it is in her body. It is impossible to give the foetus independent rights without depriving the woman of her rights.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All