I heard this question today equating it to the idea that an unborn child is part of a woman's body and therefore it is her "right" to remove "it". I have other reasons for abhorring abortion, which I would gladly articulate, but this is the first time I had come across this argument. I find it quite intriguing.
2006-09-22 08:00:06 · 6 answers · asked by jchristop05 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Nahima did not even address my question
2006-09-22 08:10:14 · update #1
MzJakes.. the pro-choice advocates have and still use the justification that the unborn baby is just a part of the mother's body. The need to show medical cause is not in play until the 3rd trimester.
2006-09-22 08:20:59 · update #2
Whew, boy! While I agree with your position on abortion, I think one can have a limb amputated for non-medical reasons if it is not for the purpose of black market selling it. But, I seriously doubt any US doctor would do it.
2006-09-22 08:09:44 · answer #1 · answered by William T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a flawed analogy in many ways. And it's not worthy of pro-lifers to use such an analogy.
For this analogy to work, one would have to make a convincing argument that a developing fetus is 'part' of a woman's body. A counter to the above would be a tumor.
The fact of matter is that, to justify the abortion, one must convince themselves that the child within is somehow harmful to the woman. Once that leap is taken, then the abortion is no more ethically troubling than removing cancer. That's why, on the pro-choice side of the discussion, the entity inside the womb is referred to an embryo, fetus or it...never a child, baby, he or she.
It becomes very easy to destroy what has been dehumanized...and regardless of whether the unborn is viable or not, it is never less than 100% human.
2006-09-22 08:17:15 · answer #2 · answered by mzJakes 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that may be a legitimate argument on a few cases, but people who's lives or baby's lives are in danger and have an abortion are therefore doing it for a medical reason. If she was just some stupid girl who didnt close her legs and decides she doesnt want it, then she should use adoption. This is a good point, but only in a small percentage of cases will this be a fair argument.
2006-09-22 08:08:27 · answer #3 · answered by Slutlana 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the United States the answer is definitely no. In some countries practicing the Sharia code of Islamic law the answer is yes, unfortunately.
2006-09-22 08:16:09 · answer #4 · answered by Aushbaba 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all it depends on the fetus and if it has a congenital problem or the woman's heath is at risk or maybe she was raped etc. I say it is the woman in that position to decide and none of anyone Else's business
2006-09-22 08:06:29 · answer #5 · answered by ₦âħí»€G 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Eek!
2006-09-22 08:08:44 · answer #6 · answered by Julie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋