andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2004-01-18 10:31 pm
andrewducker) wrote2004-01-18 10:31 pm
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.
no subject
no subject
It can't have independent rights until it becomes a separate entity.
no subject
Bearing in mind the information available to us with the benefits of modern medical science, we should be aware that the foetus/unborn child is actually a sentient being in it's own right from the current legal 'late abortion' gestation period of 26 weeks, if not sooner. To me, stating that the woman has the right to cut off 'life-support systems' without consideration of that entity is like saying that the computer controlling atmospheric and temperature control in a space station has the right to cut off life-support sytems to the crew because they are not necessary to it's existence.
Perhaps I am one of those whose judgement is clouded by sentiment, but surely only serious medical or social reasons should motivate terminations at such a late stage.
no subject
Only serious medical or social reasons do motivate terminations at such a late stage.
As has been pointed out elsewhere a late termination is a major operation and has serious risks.
Anyone who finds themselves accidentally pregnant and simply does not wish to continue the pregnancy will obviously save themselves the trauma of a late termination by having an early termination.
It's only in exceptional circumstances that anyone ever finds themselves in need of a late termination.
As to
> the right to cut off 'life-support systems'
I suppose the nearest equivalent I can think of that might apply to a man is that say, for example, someone is dying of kidney failure and their only hope of survival is for you to donate one of your kidneys, and suffer some potential risks as a result yourself.
It would be a good thing for you to do if you agreed to donate, but it would be utterly morally abhorrent for the law to force you to donate.
no subject
Actually, there's a better one - once you have begun performing mouth to mouth on someone to keep them alive, to then cease doing so. I remember being told on my first aid course that it was illegal to do so, but my memory may be faulty.
no subject
Resuscitation teams in hospitals, for example, make decisions to stop that sort of thing all the time, and there's no legal come-back.
Anyway, I'm not sure resuscitation is really equivalent to pregnancy, because the worst that'll happen to the person performing it is that they'll feel faint if they don't remember to breathe enough themselves.
Pregnancy is a potentially disabling and life-threatenning condition.
The only equivalent risks men might take for the sake of others are probably kidney and bone marrow donations.
Or possibly going in to a burning building to rescue someone - which, again, is not something the law can or should force anyone to do.
no subject
Kidneys? Hmmm, expressed in those terms, your opinion is much easier to understand, thank you.