Abortion: For Or Against?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

It's his DNA. And if she has the child, he is responsible for it. He should have a say in whether his child can be born. All this "it's her body" is crap. The baby inside was made by both of them, it's not hers alone. See 1.

EDIT: If that is the case, then why are men forced to pay child support for children that they didn't want their girlfriends to have? It's her body, right? It's her decision? Why should he be forced to pay for her decision?

---

He had sex with her. Babies are a byproduct of sex. :dry:
No one has the right to control another's body, however.

1. As far as payment, paternity has next to nothing to do with it. That is all about the state not footing the bill for taking care of the child themselves. It helps keeps welfare down (at least for the mom). The state will pin fatherhood on the closest man standing near a pregnant woman if they could. The law doesn't allow such luxuries but it's damn close and rather scary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I think where I fundamentally disagree with "pro choice" is that I believe the above extends to the child. No-one has the right to interfere with their body, particularly by killing them.

The balance is - 9 months out of one persons life (substantially less actually, because they wouldn't know right away). Or taking away someone else's entire future. I believe the child's rights take precedence, all else being equal.

However where the choice is death for on or the other, then the balance obviously moves. I believe in that instance the mother takes precedence, unless she choses to let nature take it's course (which I believe is any person's right).

In order for "pro choice" to have an argument the child must be devoid of all human rights, I do not believe this is a reasonable position.

---

The problem is that there are those that consider an embryo not to be a child.

Then there are those that consider an embryo the same as a crying 1 year-old.

I say it's the (possibly not)mother's right to choose. And I'd rather someone who knew they couldn't take care of their child or wouldn't care for it did it. It isn't right what some people do to unwanted children.

But that it should be considered carefully as it can be very bad for someone who goes through it, what with feelings of guilt and everything. Not to mention the fact that the world might lose a possible genious or somesuch. So I don't like people who'd do it just 'cos they don't feel like having a child right now or because it doesn't fit their career-plans or something. Or for that matter 'cos it turned out to have some handicap in the making.

If every unplanned child got aborted I wouldn't have been around today.


EDit1&2: The father should have a say tho', if the mother to be decided to keep the child and decided he was to be its father, can't spring one of them surprises on someone like eighteen years later or force someone else into taking care of a child.

The mother should have the right to decide if she was to be a mother, but not if the biological father was to be a father.

I tend to think of when one becomes human in terms of processing power. An embryo the size of my finger does not have the capability to form coherent thoughts the way someone older can, it's probably not sentient as it is.

Bugger if we all have souls tho', 'cos every soul would deserve at least one chance at life, I think.

testing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skizo

What happened to my reply? :unsure:

---

:lol:

hey, if it means i have one less person to compete with for some bread, then sure. Abortion is totally blown out of proportion. Anyone who thinks a rape victim etc shouldnt have an abortion should have been aborted themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

That is the entire crux mate. How one thinks of the unborn.

However those who take the former position, also decide that the embryo has no rights. Which to me is very harsh indeed, even if one considers them not to be a child one cannot deny that they are some form of human being.

---

I will here reproduce a selected relevent excerpt from a recent column by William F. Buckley, which is, I think, a very succinct summing-up of JPaul's point.

I echo both the point and sentiment.

Herewith:

By one line of reasoning, a woman has the right to do what she chooses with her own body. That position can be taken, and was taken before Roe v. Wade came into town, by many who defended the right to abort. What the Supreme Court contributed was a constitutional validation. If abortion is a “right,” then perhaps the people who exercise that right are no more contumacious than people who write articles and take political positions. That would be a fundamentalist view of human rights, and there are those who believe that...(any who)...affirm the right to abort...(are)...doing nothing more merely than affirming the exercise of human rights in general.

Other analysts...(are)...fooled by the respect...(they feel)...for the Supreme Court. Since the Court had ruled that abortion was okay, what more argument was there to dwell upon?

There is, of course, the difficulty that the Supreme Court is capable of judgments which, on reflection, observers are free to question, and even to oppose. The overriding question being, of course, whether in the exercise of a “right,” the right of someone else has been transgressed upon. In this case, obviously, the right of the unborn child. If the child has a right, surely it is to live. Therefore, to end his life is to go beyond the plausible limits of the mother’s right.

On abortion, the views of some, pre-Roe and post-Roe, were that no judicial reasoning can validate the expression of freedom when it is invoked in order to obliterate another human life.

Whilst I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here, what concerns me is that if we do not draw a line under the limits of 'rights to life' we are in danger of creating a climate that is not only anti-abortion, but also, fundamentally anti-contraception.

The use of the coil actively prevents implantation of a fertilized egg which therefore constitutes abortion.

In my opinion, time limits should be low and carefully monitored and we need to know that there is a difference between contraception, abortion and murder.

I tend towards the view that as the women is the vehicle for conception and carriage of the fetus she has the over-riding say in the matter.

Consequently, I lean towards what is called "choice". However, I do not think that abortion is the best means of birth control and I am increasingly uneasy with just how commonplace it has become.

Notwithstanding ethical or religious arguments, for the want of a condom or pill or coil, valuable medical resources are being used for something that is almost entirely preventable; rape or over-riding medical concerns being obvious exceptions.

I would like to see less reliance on abortion and greater use of intelligent "choice" before the event of conception. This can include abstinence if the individuals feel moved to go down that route but I cannot agree with those who would die in a ditch over extending education and availability of other birth control techniques. There is an underlying socio/religious agenda in the pro-life campaign that repels me and, I suspect, the broader public.

In short I have opted for the third way. :ermm: This is not an endorsement of New Labour.