Abortion

[andrewducker]

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.

Comments

[nickys.livejournal.com]

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.

[cx650.livejournal.com]

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.

[nickys.livejournal.com]

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.