Friendly question for pro-choice advocates…?

Question

Most of those who are pro-choice, say that one of the main reasons abortions should be legal is that a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body.

Also, most of those who are pro-choice are opposed to ‘late-term’ abortions, including right up to a day or so before giving birth.

How does one reconcile these two philosophies together? How is a ‘late term’ abortion not telling a woman what to do with her body, but aborting it at an earlier term is? When does the baby become its own body in this view such that it would superced the woman's right to choose, since it would obviously not be at the point of delivery? Thanks for your responses….

Answer 1

Because it is the woman's responsibility to get the abortion as soon as possible. Late term is killing a baby, not just an embryo, which most pro choicers see as a clump of cells mulitiplying. Late term abortions are not performed unless it is vital for the mother's health.

Answer 2

As is true with most everything in life, not everything is as black or white as your question might imply. Personally, I'm against abortion, but I'm pro-choice - I think each woman must make up their own minds what would be best for them.

That said, in my mind I think that abortions should not happen if the fetus could actually survive outside the womb - typically babies born a month (or more) early survive with few if any complications.

From what I understand (and I am by no means an expert or even well-read on this subject) most doctors won't perform an abortion after the first trimester under ordinary circumstances - there would have to be something seriously wrong (medically) with the baby or the mother for them to perform later abortions. I think this is the way things should be, but I would not want legislation dictating what medical procedures should be done when - that right should be preserved for women and their doctors. Lawmakers are not medical experts, so they shouldn't be making these sorts of decisions.

Answer 3

First, I would urge you to look up and understand what an abortion, or an induced miscarriage is. If you must debate and/or attack a position you must understand it, including it's strenths and weaknesses. I think the debate is more nuanced than your presentation of it. True, there is a new life at the moment of conception but at the same time, that new life cannot sustain itself until after the second trimester, at least. Many "pro-life" advocates advocate that position from a religious or moral standpoint but what we forget is that such a view and standpoint is tantamount to forcing that morality, philosophy and/or religious views down the throat of others that do not necessarily accept the "pro-life" point of view. It has much more than the choice to do with your own body as you wish. When must a pregant woman be forced to provide for a dependant life? When may a pregnant woman be relieved of the pressure, memory and all association of a regreted event? Whether or not that event was a careless mistake or a rape is irrelevant. If we want to reduce abortions, we must fundamentally change as a society, but I don't think abortions will be extinct by our collective choice in this lifetime or the next. In the early weeks of pregnancy, it may be easier to detach one's self from the abortive act and termination of life wheras in the later weeks, it may not be so easy. However, we men may not have anything to say about it because we don't bear the pleasure, burden or pain of pregnancy. The only pregnancies which we might (and that is a big may be) have a say about are those that are a result of consent; either consentual sex or consentual conception. The "pro-choice" philosphies presented by the asker are not necessarily opposing philosophies, nor can they be viewed as mutually exclusive. It is the woman that is bearing the pregnancy and suffering the physical maladies, as well as the emotional and psychological associations, pleasures and burdens and thought that go along with it. It is for the woman to enjoy or suffer through a pregnancy. All men may be able to do is be happy for them, happy with them, be supportive or ask that another assist in being supportive. Yes, a woman should have a right to do with her body as she wishes, to terminate the pregnacy that her own body must bear, and she should have the right choose not to care what happens to the unborn embryo or fetus after she has terminated it's connection to her, but that is an informed choice she alone should ultimately make and not one that should be made for her. There are ramifications for any decision: a pregancy is tough and an abortion of a pregnancy is just as tough. Every woman contemplating the procedure should be informed of the procedure, the risks and possible side effects as well as any other ramifications, including psychological and emotional ramifications, just like any other medical procedure or treatment. The one informing her should be her doctor, nurses and other women who have gone through this decision and completed the pregancy and aborted the pregnancy. The forces affecting this decision involve much more than freedom of private choice but also freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of will. Until every lawmaker, judge, jury, leader and adviser to every leader and lawmaker have become women, our laws may not reflect or force an already difficult choice that women carry the burden and responsibility of understanding and making. Lastly, very few people, unless they are comfortable with murduring a child that can live on its own will submit to or perform an abortion where the child can sustain itself outside of the womb and the mother's health is not in danger and it will be almost impossible to find the obstetrician or surgeon that will perform that procedure. If the mother can no longer sustain the pregancy for health reasons, a doctor may induce the birth and if the child is prematurely born, treat the child as well as mother. To characterize a "late-term" abortion as a procedure done right up until the day of birth is misleading and very irresponsible, if not an ignorant position.

Answer 4

the best definition I've heard of when a fetus becomes a baby and thus should be considered a separate life form is when it is capable of living outside the womb. By this time, a woman will/should know her situation, and have already made up her mind to see it through.

Thus a late-term abortion as I understand it would involve exactly this stage; if a removal were necessary for some reason, it should be treated as a C-section, and given the opportunity to live -- if it can.

But a collection of cells is not a baby; it may be a potential baby, but it is not, and should not be treated as such; any more than if I collect some sperm and put it in a jar, I can claim it on my taxes as a dependent.

Answer 5

I don't exactly view it that way. But according to medical science, the first few stages of pregnancy is not an actual person... it is just a clump of cells that are forming. They view this a lot like one would look at a cancerous tumor. (I know, not a good analogy, but it's how it was told to me). But in Ky and Ohio, they won't do an abortion after 2 months of pregnancy.

Personally, I'm pro-choice, mainly because I can not answer for every single woman in the world who wants to have an abortion. I can't tell you which one's are legit and which one's aren't. And I know that if it was illegal, there would be even more deaths, because the mothers would do it anyway. Even when it was illegal, and the mothers had abortions anyway... if they survived the abortions, they didn't get jail time for doing it... and it wasn't called "murder" in the same sense if you went out and shot your neighbor and killed him. It was sometimes listed as manslaughter... which is the basically the same if you accidentally hit someone with your car. I know, it doesn't exactly fit, but that is how it was viewed during those times.

One of the biggest things, though, that I see abortion used for is birth control. This really annoys me. To have such disrespect for oneself and life in general... honestly, I think women who have abortions for this reason should have their reproductive systems removed. But, that's just me.

This has to be one of the hardest topics to reconcile on any level. But to say to make it illegal will make it better, well, is just plain ignorant. Anyone who has viewed the cases of abortion before it became illegal will see that it doesn't make it better. Outright murder is illegal, yet our prisons are full. It doesn't make it better.........

Answer 6

Well I see it like this. If something can compreheand that it is alive then it should be treated as such. That includes all beings. Now for a baby the woman should have a choice. Or instead of woman my cousin becuse some people are idots like hear and don't use birth comtroll and screw up there lives, parents lives, gradmas, and the new infants. So the kid should somtimes go. But for the question of when that would be before basic thinking is obtained. If the baby isn't near finished to live, it isn't alive.

Answer 7

I believe that most abortion advocates say that, during the first trimester, a fetus is not developed enough to call it a baby. Pro lifers would quote numbers that say when the heart starts beating, hands form etc, but as the pregnancy progresses, people feel less and less comfortable with the thought of abortion, especially in the late term.

Answer 8

Because at late term abortion, it's now a child that's capable of surviving outside the womb. If an abortion is done before the 4th month, no technology on the planet will likely save it. However, late term abortion is different because technology can then aid the survival.

Answer 9

First of all, that was the belief of the court, not particularly the belief you described above. The reason is simple: the choice in pro-choice. I have no problem with a woman getting an abortion if she feels unable to raise a child. The turtle did not consent to the destruction of the eggs. Forced "abortions" are unnacceptable because they go against the principle of choice. Another factor, though somewhat less important is that turtle eggs are outside the mother. Therefore, they are viable when removed from the mother. The bigger question is why did the man take turtle eggs in the first place? I can't think of any use for turtle eggs.

Answer 10

For me the cut off is when the fetus is at the viable stage that it could survive a premmie birth. To me, that is when it is no longer "the woman's body".

For the record though, I am pro-choice while being anti-abortion. I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control and feel it should only be used in cases such as rape, incest, threat to the mother's life and so on, but it is not MY place to tell people what to do with their lives, just as it is not anyone's place to tell me what to do with mine.