From pro-choice advocates we constantly hear that it is the woman's body so it is her choice alone. It doesn't matter if the choice is selfish or just a matter of convienence.
I'm going to pull a lot of hate for suggesting this, but:
By that same logic, shouldn't it be society's choice on whether a woman should be allowed to have a baby? Can't society look at a woman's lifestyle, morals, ethics, how she treats other children, whether she uses drugs, etc, etc... and be able to say, "Sorry, we don't want you to give birth to a child that has a high chance of being a criminal, a terror to humanity, or a burden to society."?
2006-06-21 08:21:19 · 13 answers · asked by cirestan 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
A lot of interesting takes on the question.
It's most interesting how everyone comprehended the question to suit their own argument the best.
2006-06-21 08:38:32 · update #1
As to "It's the woman's body so it's the woman's choice" argument.
Not taking into account rape. If a woman get's pregnant and then decides she wants an abortion doesn't that tell us something about her ability to make decisions to begin with?
If it's the woman's body and the woman's choice, why do the un-wed mothers seek child support? It was their choice. Apparently the father had no say in the matter.
2006-06-21 08:43:30 · update #2
By the woman's body, woman's choice argument. Men should have the option to pay a one time fee for getting a woman pregnant that is equal to, but not exceeding the cost for an abortion. If they are not given that option or the money is not used for an abortion then the men should be exonorated of any support needed for that child.
2006-06-21 08:47:44 · update #3
Unlike what the previous person said, the logics are not opposite - in the case of pregancy (except in cases of rape), the woman made the choice to have sex (ie her body is her own). I don't know who wasn't paying attention in health class, but pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex.
As such, women who are not old enough, responsible enough, or financially able to support a child should not be having sex.
This holds true for men as well, by the way...
Furthermore, suppose a man and woman have sex and the woman becomes pregnant. She can choose to have an abortion, even if the man wants to be a father, or she can choose to have the child, in which case the man is financially responsible for her child, even if he wanted her to have an abortion. He has no say whatsoever in the fate of his child under our current system, and that's wrong.
2006-06-21 09:10:08 · answer #1 · answered by eagle5953 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Totally agree with you. Since society ends up picking up the slack for those who are not fit to be parents, we should have every right in denying people the opportunity to burden us further. And you're right, having an abortion most definitely says something about a person's attitude toward life. (Easy folks, not counting those raped by their fathers, which really doesn't happen all that often).
Of course, I also think that forced sterility for people having too many abortions and too many kids on welfare is a good idea.
2006-06-21 16:27:06 · answer #2 · answered by Goose&Tonic 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's every woman's right. Noone like abortion. Noone wants to have to look at that option. But the option needs to be there. People are missing the issue: What can we do as a society to help women once they decide to have the baby? What programs can we offer? We need to stop being so "pro-birth", and really start to look at what "pro-life" should mean.
2006-06-21 15:47:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Statistically, when comprehensive sex education courses are taught to coming-of-age young people, they are given the information they need to make good choices for themselves. Abortion rates go down.
In contrast, those children who only get "abstinence only" instruction end up with the most teen pregnancies and a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases.
To avoid abortion, keep the sperm away from where it doesn't belong.
2006-06-21 15:37:42 · answer #4 · answered by xawboo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Essentially you're saying we should give women a license to bear children. As much as I agree that should be true of couples, to do that solely to a woman is unfair. Would you appreciate someone telling you what you that because they don't agree with your lifestyle as a male, then you should have a vasectomy? Because that is the other side of the coin. And who is to say that your lifestyle is wrong? Doesn't that put us on even footing as the terrorists that we're trying to defeat?
2006-06-21 15:30:15 · answer #5 · answered by darkemoregan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that a mother should have no right to kill another human being and when you have a abortion that's exactly what your doing , I saw if you can't handle a baby at your age or time don't open yuor legs.Some people are dieing to have a baby and people are killing them. I also think that the doctors that are helping kill the babies should be arrested for helping them and making it possible.
2006-06-21 16:37:24 · answer #6 · answered by quynifa_bonaparte435 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the two "logics" are completely opposite.
In the first instance, the woman has the right to control her own body.
In the second instance, the woman doesn't have the right to control her own body.
How are these the same?
2006-06-21 15:26:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would like to see xawboo's statistics that prove his points. citing stats w/o sources is an excellent way to look foolish.
i would like to bring up siamese twins. if i am a siamese twin, then medically it is all one body, even though there are two people inhabiting it. it is not legal for me to kill off my siamese twin, even though it might result in a higher/more pleasurable standard of living for me (note: without someone hanging on all the time, i could probably get more dates). but even though it is MY body, i am sharing it with a PERSON distinct from myself. thus, for me to infringe upon another person's rights is morally wrong and has always been philosophically debunked, from Plato to Locke to Hume.
2006-06-21 16:25:32 · answer #8 · answered by N C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I didn't even finish reading what you had to say...all i have to say is the gov't needs to stay out of personal affairs...there are many reasons why women have abortions...schools need to teach more about contraceptives..its a womans decision plain and simple
2006-06-21 15:26:59 · answer #9 · answered by Cassie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the less babies we have mucking everything up, the better this world would be. Look for my new comic this fall, entitled Baby Busters! In it, a teenager and his socially deranged pal are cursed with the ability to sense evil in utero, forcing his hand into destroying babies before they are even born, for all of mankind!
2006-06-21 15:26:49 · answer #10 · answered by Whitemamba 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋