Abortion...think of it this way

[Pertinax]

IF (please note the conditional, which I realize is a big one), but IF the child in the womb is a human being, and being a fetus is merely a stage of development, like being an infant or an adolescent, then it seems to me that society owes that human the same protection as any other human. If it is okay to kill a five week old fetus, why not a five year old child? Saying the decision should be left to the mother is like saying the parents have an unlimited right to discipline a child. You know, the old 'spare the rod and spoil the child' approach. which has led to multiple cases of child abuse. As I said before, the critical issue is whether the child in the womb is human.

As to the Netherlands, I may be wrong. My only experience was in the spring of 1963. At that time, the situation was that one could get pornography, a prostitute, any kind of drugs, or an abortion, pretty much on demand in Amsterdam. And there were places where people engaged in sex on stage for the titillation of the audience. My only experience was seeing prostitutes advertising their wares in the windows of what was called the red light district. If my information was incorrect at the time, or if conditions have changed, then I apologize. Otherwise, I think 'anything goes' is pretty accurate.

[DesDownunder]

Strong Opinion

In our most primitive human state of development our ancestors would indeed have assumed 'anything goes', or at least given the appearance of adopting an 'anything goes' attitude. Yet, we must also acknowledge from our studies of other species that concern and empathy for other forms of life, does indeed exist. This is evident not only in our near cousins, but also in distant relatives of the biological evolution of all life as per Darwin. Please note that this is not a religious conversation, and the morality involved in abortion issues does not need to be derived from religion; it is a simple matter of survival.

However, primates, and humans in particular, have constructed cultures that involve moral attitudes, and by extension, societal decisions about abortion. Religious influence must remain a personal option.

What is acceptable in any given society is guided by the needs of the individual within that society if, the society subscribes to the notion of individual freedom. There can be no argument that birth is as common as death, but if we have a personal autonomy over our personal lives (and our personal deaths) then choosing to continue a pregnancy is the prerogative of the woman.

Furthermore, the society cannot and does not have a right which overrides the individual human rights of any individual; in this case, of the woman to continue or abort her pregnancy.

To those who argue that the race might die out if the decision to abort is left to the individual woman, I have to point out the obvious answer that is most unlikely, given the common desire to have a child. Even more to the point is the idea that women are the vehicle for a man to become a father, and which the woman has no right to object. That is precisely the point, that the woman has the sole right to not be used as a means to a man's desire. Forcing a woman to term or to terminate a pregnancy is nothing more than rape, post insemination though it may be.

No society has any right to insist that a woman or a man should participate in procreation. The termination of a pregnancy is likewise not the province of the society except to provide the woman with a safe environment for such termination. On an overpopulated planet there is a case for limiting birth, and that we do with our pets, but that is a different question.

If there is truth in the self evidence of individual human rights, it must then be extended to a woman's right to conceive and abort if she so desires.

Religious arguments opposed to abortion are a matter for religions, not for the state.

.

[Nigel Gordon]

If there is truth in the self evidence of individual human rights, it must then be extended to a woman's right to conceive and abort if she so desires.

Religious arguments opposed to abortion are a matter for religions, not for the state.

.

Des, I totally agree. Fortunately so does my religion.

[vwl]

So, the question that has to be asked is this: When, between conception and, say, one year of age, does the state have an interest in protecting this being?

[DesDownunder]

So, the question that has to be asked is this: When, between conception and, say, one year of age, does the state have an interest in protecting this being?

As I said above, "it is a simple matter of survival." This means that if the foetus can survive outside the womb, then the state has an interest in protecting the baby as if it were delivered at full term. This is reflected in laws which permit abortion up to around the 22 week from conception. (This period may vary depending on the jurisdiction.)

The important thing here is that lawmakers do not infringe on the woman's right to decide the termination of her pregnancy in that period before the foetus can survive outside the womb. If your religion or ethics conflict with this arbitrary demarcation then that becomes a point of discussion, but the religious arguments must not be used as a basis for determining the time frame for the abortion in secular law. The advances being made in medical assistance to sustain life outside the womb, and this would include any future ability to transplant the foetus from one woman to another, with the woman's permission of course, then those 22 weeks may well shrink.

The bio-ethics of fertilisation of an egg outside of the womb is an ongoing discussion which prompts many questions, including cloning, and artificial womb environments. My original concern is with males telling a woman what she should, or should not, do with her body. I submit that men do not have the right to order a woman to carry a foetus that cannot survive outside the womb. This would validate contraception, the morning after pill as well as medical intervention to achieve an abortion prior to that 22nd week.

However, this is a matter for rational discussion, and in particular, in concert with medical advances in sustaining life outside the womb.

Need I add that I'm so happy that my husband and I have failed to impregnate each other, but it wasn't from lack of trying.

[Pertinax]

I think I will stop at this point. I have made my arguments. What I see put forward against it seems to me barbaric and cruel, not all that different from the crimes against humanity tried at Nuremberg.

[Rutabaga]

I'll just say again that I'm with Pertinax on this.

R

[TracyMN]

This is why I love AD best.

[Cole Parker]

This is why I love AD best.

Just to be sure I got your point correctly, Tracy, you're saying you love AD best because we're flashers? Well, you do have point. Especially if you're talking about Des.

Incidentally, glad to hear from you!

C

[dude]

Hi Tracy! Welcome back, Love!

[DesDownunder]

We should put tracer chip on Tracy so we know where she is.

Good to see you posting, Tracy.