Abortion is absolutely evil
We are not civilized if we allow the killings of innocent human life.
shareI think the character Reg put it very well:
Look at my own mum. Six of us in two rooms. It's all right if you're rich. But if you can't feed 'em, you can't love 'em, can you? (from script-o-rama.com)
It may leave a nasty taste in many people's mouths, but legal abortion is necessary. If it were illegal, many women would die. The birth rate would rocket, and you can imagine the ramifications that would have on our planet. What civilised society would let that happen?
Even if you disagree that any woman, no matter what her circumstances can have an abortion - how you can even disapprove of a rape victim having one?
I think a good comparison is breast implants. Let's say you overhear someone saying a woman got breast implants. You might judge the woman to be vain, shallow and immoral. But perhaps, what you don't know is that she had breast cancer, and both breasts had to be removed. Would you still think she was vain and shallow? Or would you realise that this poor woman not only has dealt with having had cancer, but is reminded of that trauma every time she sees her empty chest? And notices people looking at her, worrying they suspect she is a tranvestite. And doesn't bother socialising and trying to date because she doesn't think a man will accept her? Should she have a lonely, painful life? No - she is free to have breast implants and feel like her old self again and start afresh.
From the Fawcett Society website: • Reporting: There has been a progressive increase in the number of rapes reported to the police for more than 20 years; during 2005/6 13,712 rapes were reported.
This is only the number of REPORTED rapes just in the UK, which has less than 1% of the world's population. We'll never know the unreported figure, but they reckon it could be 10 times that. A reported rape victim is offered the pill, and I would imagine most take it. If just 20% of raped women actually get pregnant, then don't have an abortion, this would result in something like 3 million children being born EACH YEAR worldwide.
If you could only know what it feels like to look into your son or daughter's eyes and feel not only love; but pain and misery when you remember the circumstances under which they came to be alive? No-one should be forced to live that.
Now tell me you think raped women shouldn't have abortions - I dare you.
Now tell me you think raped women shouldn't have abortions - I dare you.
Okay. Raped women shouldn't have abortions. At least, no more than any other women should. Which is to say, not after the foetus has developed a functioning brain of its own, making it quite possibly a conscious individual in its own right.
It should be an unquestionable tenet of justice that no individual should have their rights abrogated on account of crimes for which they bear no responsibility. How is a foetus responsible for the actions of its father?
I certainly would not want to be killed on account of something that my father had done...
As for your other arguments, they are terribly overblown. The world of Vera Drake is decades in the past. This is the 21st century. Nowadays, in the Western world, at least, people have much better access to contraception, and much better education both about how to use it and about the benefits of using it, for both men and women. Even with protection, there would be "accidents" from time to time, of course, but not six times in the same family. That would be absurd.
And no, many women would not die. Again, this is the 21st century. Nowadays, in the Western world, at least, women dying in childbirth is virtually unheard of.
If you are referring to pregnancies in which there are life-threatening complications - also a very rare occurrence - then one can have an abortion and argue self-defence; I doubt that anyone would blame a woman in those circumstances, any more than they would blame someone for using lethal force against someone with a gun to their head. But I say again, this is a very rare occurrence.
As for women feeling the need to have abortions because of the shame of bearing a child out of wedlock, or because of they are too poor to raise a child, or because they would have to stop working, or because they simply don't want a baby... Well, I hate to repeat myself, but this is the 21st century! We are much less judgemental towards single mothers, we have unemployment benefits and child benefits, we have maternity leave, and we have professional adoption services. Few of the serious social problems that women in bygone years used to face raising a child on their own even exist any more; or, at least, they are nowhere near as serious as they were. The proportion of abortions that are for genuine health reasons is minuscule; most are now performed because the mother would simply find it inconvenient to have a baby at that time - "too young", "not ready", "would interfere with education/career/etc." These are not sufficient reasons to end someone's life. share
"no more than any other women should"
Even though this woman didn't have any choice about becoming pregnant? Even women who become accidentally pregnant with a partner made a degree of choice about whether to sleep with that man. A rape victim is forced on every count. So she must take responsibility for the crime committed? That's really, really harsh.
"Nowadays, in the Western world, at least, women dying in childbirth is virtually unheard of."
Unheard of by you maybe, but it happens. If the pregnancy has a risk of killing the mother, you think she should just take the chance? Who are you to decide whether a woman who is already living her life, or a foetus who hasn't even been born yet, are more deserving of being killed?
"The proportion of abortions that are for genuine health reasons is minuscule; most are now performed because the mother would simply find it inconvenient to have a baby at that time - "too young", "not ready", "would interfere with education/career/etc.""
Back this up or it didn't happen.
Can't you let a woman decide for herself? What authority do you have over us?
cupboardie: Now tell me you think raped women shouldn't have abortions - I dare you.
chobar: No more than any other women should.
Jasperonix: Even though this woman didn't have any choice about becoming pregnant?
How can you take issue with that particular phrase: "no more than any other women should"? Would you have preferred me to say that some women should have more rights than others?
My answer is an egalitarian one. Every woman (indeed, every sentient being) should have the same rights over their body as every other woman (indeed, every other sentient being). Which is to say that they should have the right to do whatever they want with it, as long as it is not harming anyone. Your response seems to read as, "What, you don't think that women who have been raped should have additional rights, over and above the rights of other women?" In this context, being exempted from the "as long as it is not harming anyone" clause?
I don't think that women who have been raped should be granted an additional licence to harm anyone else, no.
Jasperonix: A rape victim is forced on every count. So she must take responsibility for the crime committed?
No. You cut off my quote before my qualifying sentence, which stated that I was only talking about the time after the foetus had developed a functioning brain. A victim of rape can take the morning-after pill up to three days afterwards, and can have a medical abortion or vacuum aspiration for a few weeks afterwards, before the foetus has any meaningful brain activity. They shouldn't wait until the foetus might have achieved consciousness before deciding to have it killed.
Jasperonix: That's really, really harsh.
More harsh than having someone killed? I don't think so.
Jasperonix: Unheard of by you maybe, but it happens. If the pregnancy has a risk of killing the mother, you think she should just take the chance?
Death after abortion happens, too. I'd be interested to see more statistics comparing the rates of each.
Here's an article from the year 2000, discussing a study that claims to have found a risk of dying within a year after an abortion that is "several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth":
http://afterabortion.org/2000/abortion-four-times-deadlier-than-childb irth/
"Abortion Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth"
Posted on June 3, 2000 by EI
Make of that what you will...
Jasperonix: Who are you to decide whether a woman who is already living her life, or a foetus who hasn't even been born yet, are more deserving of being killed?
Who is anyone to decide that anyone should be killed? I'm not advocating killing anyone. Why don't you ask the same question of those who think it's acceptable to take the lives of others? Who are they to decide to end someone else's life?
Besides, we are not discussing a choice between killing a woman or killing a foetus. If the woman continues with her pregnancy, then yes, there is a small risk that she will die. But if she doesn't, there is also a small risk that she will die - and, on top of that, a certainty that the foetus will die. Given a choice between, on the one hand, a small risk of one death, and on the other, the certainty of one death and the possibility of two, why go for the latter?
Jasperonix: Back this up or it didn't happen.
There was a 2004 study carried out in America that surveyed 1,209 abortion patients to find out why they were having abortions:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2005/NRL10/NewStudy.html
"New Study Examines Reasons Women Have Abortions"
By Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D.
It says, "Ninety-two percent cited what might be termed 'social' or 'other' reasons, rather than medical reasons or sexual assault, as the primary basis for their abortions." Have a read of the article.
It might be different in the UK, but I can't find statistics on that. It would be problematic to get any, because ostensibly, the law says that all abortions have to be for medical reasons: hence the requirement for two doctors' signatures. Of course, this is mostly a pretence: women go to pro-choice doctors, and the doctors sign the forms on demand, regardless of whether or not there really are medical grounds for the abortion. Or even before any demand has been made, as was recently made public:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/23/abortion-forms-pre-signe d-spot-checks
Abortion forms being 'pre-signed'
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Friday 23 March 2012 06.29 GMT
And in any case, people are very reticent about discussing abortion here in the UK. So I'm not really expecting to find statistics on abortions for social reasons here. (However, if you come across any, please let me know.)
Jasperonix: Can't you let a woman decide for herself? What authority do you have over us?
Exactly the same thing can be asked of any act of killing. Can't you let me decide for myself whether or not I want to have David Cameron killed? What authority do you have over me, to say that I shouldn't?
I'm sure you think those are ludicrous questions. Of course they are.
When the prospective victim is anyone other than an unborn child, nobody asks such questions. I'm sure that in bygone times, there were slave owners who asked, "What authority do you have to tell me how I should treat my own slaves?" Husbands who asked, "What authority do you have to tell me how I should treat my own wife?"
If anyone asked you those questions, you would not only see the logical fallacy in them, but you would, I am sure, be appalled.
We all know that everybody has to have rules imposed on them, to prevent them from harming others.
But many people have blind spots that make them oblivious to that fact, in other contexts.
Parents defend the concept of physically assaulting children, still asking, "What authority do you have to tell me how I should discipline my own children?"
Farmers defend the concept of killing animals, asking, "What authority do you have to tell me how I should treat my own livestock?"
And pregnant women defend the concept of killing their unborn children, asking, "What authority do you have to tell me how I should treat..." Heck, in this case, they'll often refuse to acknowledge the mere existence of the victim, and will finish the sentence with "my own body". (The cognitive distortions just boggle the mind.)
You may not be appalled by these questions, but they are every bit as fallacious as the questions about killing David Cameron, or beating slaves. Only the victims have been switched. They are all, essentially, the same question, and so they all have, essentially, the same answer.
People have always victimised those who are weaker than them, treating them in whatever way they see fit to benefit themselves, and they've always been able to spin their spurious moral justifications for it. But I'm really getting sick of it. Why can't people live and let live, and protect those who are weaker than them, instead of trying to oppress, exploit, or kill them?
We are not purely selfish, individualistic creatures, who are only capable of defending our own interests. We have the capacity - well, I like to think most of us do - to empathise with others, recognise their interests, and stand up for them, too. Mostly, we don't bother. Or we don't think we have the authority to do so. But we do. We all have the authority to stand up for those who are being oppressed, exploited, and killed. We have the authority of our consciences, which is all the authority we need.
I don't think that women who have been raped should be granted an additional licence to harm anyone else, no.
=========
Except they're not harming anyone else except for upsetting the likes of people who are pro-reproductive slavery