Abortion and the half-truth: A women's choice over her body ?
Is abortion really about a womens choice over her body ?
Is this not a matter about a body within a body ?
Who owns this body?
2006-10-30 04:42:40 · 19 answers · asked by Caesar J. B. Squitti 1 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
By the way...The question is directed to most all women who are not the victims of forced sex !
2006-10-30 06:33:31 · update #1
I believe that women should have the right over their own bodies. Note that this does NOT include the right to terminate the life that is developing within the woman. Genetically, the foetus is human. Genetically the foetus is a human that is distinct from either parents. Scientifically speaking the foetus meets every criteria we use to define 'life'. How can the foetus not be a living human being?
2006-10-30 06:41:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Most states have laws regulating how far into the pregnancy a person can decide to have an abortion. Right now the only options where it is LEGAL to get an abortion is BEFORE there is even a body developed. In which case it goes right back to the woman and not even so much the women's body but the women's life.
I completely agree with Funchee with her statement, if you a religous fanatic and have an opinion on abortion go to the Spirituality section. And to everyone against abortion I ask you this: if you had a young teenager that had been raped do you expect that girl to carry her abusers child? Do you think she'd be able to love that child?
Some people shouldn't be parents and some people aren't ready to be, I think its better to end a life before it starts then to ruin multiple lives later on.
2006-10-30 13:24:19 · answer #2 · answered by IceyFlame 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's more about women's right to have the freedom to make their own decisions about their lives, rather than the government or their pharmacists making their decisions for them.
To answer your other questions, the "body with the body" is NOT an independent body and so has no rights.
If you truly oppose abortion, you would fight for availability of birth control and quality sex education. If there were no unwanted pregnancies, there's be no abortions, and everyone would be happier.
2006-10-30 19:12:16 · answer #3 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm Pro-Life but here's my observation on your questions:
1. Abortion & the Woman's choice over her body ... sadly in today's culture, women are taught to be thin, beautiful, and young forever in exchange for being 'Objectified' by society. Media like TV, Movies, and Magazines enforce this standard entrapping women to do all they can to maintain their figure. Babies are viewed as death sentace rather than the "fruit" of completing the sexual act.
Men too perpetuate this feeling often being the primary influence to influence mothers’ into abortion to: maintain her figure, & avoid manly responsabilities. We need to focus as much on men as we do women when waking ppl up on what abortion truly is. We'd have less abortions if men (and extended families like soon to be grand-parents & siblings) were fighting for thier childreen instead of incuraging abortion.
2. Matter of a body within a body? Yes, the baby (fetus or embryo) it is a body within a body. 99% Dependant on the mothers & fathers decisions.
3. God owns all three bodies (Father, mother, & child’s).
Outside thought --- Roe Vs Wade occurred at the cuspate of birth control (pill, condoms, sponges, & diaphragms) ... specifically within this court ruling, it is stressed that abortion should NOT be used as a means for birth control. Guess that was thrown out the window.
2006-10-30 14:43:56 · answer #4 · answered by Giggly Giraffe 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps there wouldn't be as many abortions if men like you were more responsible for your sexual acts with women.
My body is my body. It does not matter what is in it. I own it and I am responsible for it. I am also responsible for taking care of anything that comes out of it. If I cannot take care of it emotionally or financially I am not being responsible if I bring it into this world with a very dim, depressing beginning.
2006-10-31 10:00:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of choice for women MUST remain. Otherwise you are crossing the line of seperation of church and state. I say this because it is the Chjristians that so strongly defend their point of view with the bible. What about atheists? What if it is your belief that there is no sould, there is no heaven? Those that believe that life is ours and ours alone? as for living cells in the body being life, does that mean we shhould not kill viruses? They too are functioning cells and CAN live outsuide the body. They can reproduce AND grow. How about that? STOP MURDERING VIRUSES is not printed on any protest poster I have ever seen.
2006-10-30 22:33:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A question of belief.
Abortion is a woman exerting influence over her own body.
Although I disagree with the term a body within a body, it has a certain flair to it's phrasing. The embyro, I feel, is not a body, merely a collection of cells which has the POSSIBILITY of becoming a human. These cells could just as easily become by-product.
The ownership of said cells is within the body cultivating them - the woman. Therefore, she is within her human rights to dispose of these cells.
2006-10-30 19:17:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is the first time I have seen or heard this question asked by anyone else. It is an ethical issue for sure. The best answer to this question, I believe, is to separately consider the initial group of cells from the growing baby. at a certain stage (not sure what that stage should actually be) the cell are actually a baby. I think a woman has the right to remove the initial group of cells because it is not a baby, and she has no right to kill a baby,
The difficult decision is at what stage the cells should be considered a baby. Anyway I believe my ideas constitutes a start.
2006-10-30 13:18:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Scientifically ... the child in utero IS alive as all cells function with the basic scientific definitions of life, and it is NOT apart of the woman's body: for example, a woman's body cannot be genetically male, the woman's body cannot create more than one blood types in her system, the child CAN be a different sex or blood type... the child is a totally distinct living entity with all the genetic and cellular imprinting specific to itself as an individual, it is NOT its mother.... Bob Dylan may have said, "It Ain't ME Babe", but in this scientific fact
"It ain't YOU, Babe!"
2006-10-30 13:31:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is a religious statment disguised as an anti-choice "question". If you don't want an abortion, don't have one!
You can't just others until you walk a mile in their shoes. What is your solution? To force the 13 yr old incest victim to give birth in an environment where now both her AND her child will be abused?
And where are alll these "pro lifers" when it comes time to feed the kids? I think people who want to take choice away from others should pick up the slack for the extra responsibility... let them pay 25% higher income taxes. Someone's got to feed, clothe, raise, teach, and protect all these unwanted kids. Heck, why don't they practice what they preach and fix the broken foster/adoption and child services system first? We can't even protect the kids already out there from extreme abuses and in some cases murder by a parent.
2006-10-30 12:53:02 · answer #10 · answered by Funchy 6 · 8⤊ 3⤋