Freebase Dali

I'm Pro Situational. If it's a health risk or otherwise unreasonable for a woman to carry a child to term, by all means. I'll even go so far to say that I support pretty much any reason, assuming the kid couldn't survive outside of the womb by the time of the procedure, which would be rather sadistic if carried out, although I would hope a responsible person wouldn't let it get that far unless they found out about a health risk too late. In which case, again, situational.

However, I don't agree with the approach regarding "I can do what I want with my body" that seems to be pervasive in women's rights movements. At some point, it's not just your body, just as it isn't your body if you kill your 2 year old child (I'm not sure how to sugar-coat ending someone's life). Whatever arbitrary line we draw between conception and "life" is not for me to say, but it's pretty obvious that it has to be drawn somewhere, which I'm sure most of us agree with, and I'm pretty sure we already have laws for it.

While I won't outright disagree with a woman's decision to terminate for any reason prior to that arbitrary line, I do feel as though there should be some expectation of responsibility involved, rather than advancing an agenda that seems to either absolve people of personal responsibility or, on the other hand, deny the decision outright.
This is why I support easy access to contraception and morning-after pills, which I definitely think should be sold over the counter, and even covered on insurance for free.

The right seems to think that we can legislate personal responsibility, and that's definitely a bad assumption. People will make mistakes, and some of us will be outright irresponsible. I think it's important to make it easier for people to then rectify the issue without having to resort to abortion first. And I think it's completely wrong to both place further restrictions on abortion while not accommodating the sort of preventative measures that would make abortion a less relied upon method to begin with, which is what the right seems to be doing.

No one WANTS to have an abortion. They don't go out getting pregnant so they can get an abortion. So if the right wants less abortions, then they should be advocating for more and better access to preventative measures, instead of flinching at policies that would do just that.

I'm all for using my tax dollars to support methods that would, in many cases, not end up with the need for abortion in the first place.

__________________

Stephen

Fair enough.


My problem with the question of 'choice' is that having seen my own children at 8 weeks on ultrasounds and my niece born prematurely weighing just 550g I can't remove that emotional imprinting from the equation when I consider the question of whether it is someone's right to get an abortion 20 weeks into a pregnancy. I always felt it was a valid choice but my experiences as a father have reframed the question irrevocably. I came to a point where it just seemed like a ridiculously spineless position to take of "Yeah sure you have the right to end that life." Before people start with the sanctimonious tirades obviously you have the legal right to make your own decisions. I am merely stating the reasons for my own personal position on the 'choice'.


Those are choices I support 100%.

Freebase Dali

I've never had any kids. My perspective is one not attached to personal emotion, however, I still can't help but see the actual logic involved with whether an unborn child is considered a sentient life form or not. A potential person, or argued differently, an actual human in the making (unless we're defining humans as "those who have exited a vagina") is still being killed (Or... "gently prevented from existing", if that sounds better) in the procedure.
The obvious separation here is the line society draws between the acceptability of termination and the unacceptability of it, based on what we dictate via the arbitrary line we've come to accept.

While I don't disagree with the decision to terminate as a whole, I would definitely hope that this is less of a "women's rights" thing, and more of a human decency thing, whether it's more decent and necessary for the mother to abort, or allow the child to live. That's all I'm saying.

__________________

Astronomer

I thought my stance would be pretty controversial but I feel the same as here what FD has stated in this phrase- pro situational.

If you become pregnant and there is situational realities that mean you would not be able to care for the child adequately or it poses a health-risk to the mother or the baby (be it physical or psychological), I believe there should be a choice to abort the pregnancy. Same goes for if a woman was raped and became pregnant, or other situations where the sexual intercourse resulting in pregnancy was not wanted.

Being able to just abort any pregnancy you incur accidentally seems to take away from the adult responsibility you have when you enter a sexual relationship (i.e. the knowledge that if you choose to have sexual intercourse you are aware that there is a possibility a pregnancy could result, even if you are using contraception.)

Of course, the whole "situational" aspect of it is vague and subjective, it depends completely on the person who is going through the ordeal, their physical and mental state, whether they feel as though they could adequately care for a baby, etc. So I guess my stance almost leans towards "pro-choice" but I still believe it is situational and adults still need to take some responsibility rather than a "quick fix" because they were short-sighted in their sexual endeavours.

And yes, my decision is probably based more on an emotional connection I have with the issue than it should - I am close to somebody who lost their baby during the second trimester, I also know that my big sister was born at 26 weeks and is today an amazing person.

__________________