Please justify a womans right to limitless abortion (late pregnancy abortion)?

Question

I wrote a question yesterday about how I thought women deserve to have "choice" in the matter of their pregnancy, however I do not believe in abortion after the brain and nerves begin to develop (about 2 months into the pregnancy). Many women responded that abortion should be banned and some said a woman should have total choice over what to do with her body. I would like to ask the people who think women deserve total control how they justify killing something that: kicks, dreams, sucks it thumb, have nerves and phsyical feelings, among other things...I mean, don't you think this is wrong? I understand how women deserve a right to choose (before the fetus can think it is basically a growing bunch og organs) but once it can THINK, it is a human being in my book. I want to know how people justify killing something that can think and has feelings...

I will accept "j. a. prufrock's" answer as a legitimate answer, but these only pertain to specific circumstances (and in those circumstances I do agree)...but my question, I guess, pertains to only normal non-complicated pregnancies.

To wendy g: My question was one of morality, not legality (although I did not know that...is that nationwide or only in some states?). I received responses from people who felt that women should have the right to abort at any point in the pregnancy. I am not anti-abortion, but the idea of this appalled me and I felt that I had to find out why anyone would claim this is something that can be justified.

To piepiepie: I'll start by saying that the act of having sex and not using a condom and not using birth control, and then consciously not taking the morning after pill and then waiting through the entire first trimester while the baby grows and not having an abortion shows many multiple levels of choice and irresponsibility in the face of choice. The fact that something has to live off of the mother and she doesn't want it would, at that point, be a result of her own irresposibility. The baby would not have done anything to put itself in that situation, it would be the mother that put it and herself in that situation and therefore no...I don't think the brunt of her irresponsibility should be delivered to the unborn baby, I think the mother needs to deal with it and wait out the remaining two trimesters if she was so irresponsible as you describe. I completely disagree with you.

To Barking Lunchbox: I have no idea what you don't understand about the concept of "brains and nerves developing", but I think you need to take a science class...I mean, I can't hold you hand through this stuff in a yahoo answers board, but brains and nerves enable us to think and have physical feelings, and they start developing 6 - 8 weeks after ferilization. So if you don't understand something I am saying, WHAT IS IT? Secondly, you did not provide any sources for your information, and so I have no way of verifying your facts. Being that you don't understand "brains and nerves developing" I'm going to assume that you are basically not intelligent, your facts are bogus and you are a liar.

To Bonzai Betty: What is inside your body does not "belong to you" (a perfect example would be...If I could fit you inside my body, does that mean you "belong" to me?...The answer is obviously no). Of course you have natural non-ethical right over your own body, we all do, but as as far as SOCIETY is concerned (of which, your living, breathing, thinking, feeling post 1st trimester baby is a part of) NO...You can't just kill something because you feel like it. You better be dying or the baby dying in order for that to happen. Extremists like you and barking lunch are the reason why this world is so divided over these issues...Can't you both see that one another has a point? Women deserve the right to have options, but killing something that can breathe and think and feel is wrong?!!...

Answer 1

This is such a hard question, and people's views are all over the map. It's also black and white - if you believe life begins at conception, there's no compromise, period - no difference between a 2-cell zygote and a crawling 6 month old baby.

In light of this the government made a decision - first trimester abortion is legal, second only on the advice of the doctor (serious medical deformations, etc) and I believe in the third it is only if the mother's life is at risk.

So I think you're going to find very very few people who actually think it's ok to kill a third trimester fetus, for exactly the reasons you put forth. You could argue that in a continuous spectrum between the zygote and a baby someone had to draw the line somewhere, and the first trimester was it. Maybe that was a bad call, I don't know.

But if I had to guess, I would imagine some anti-abortionists were playing you- pretending to be pro-choice, then taking a totally radical stance. I could be wrong, but I've never heard of any pro-choice plateform that wants to change the law to allow at-will abortions in the second or third trimester, or anyone seriously suggest it.

Answer 2

I think a more appropriate question would be what gives anyone the right to judge a woman for the decision she makes? Based on some of your other answers, I’ll assume you are a male. That fact alone means your opinion is worthless when it comes to judging when or even if a woman has an abortion. As men, we cannot experience what a woman goes through when she has an abortion, or when she gives birth, so therefore, we have no right to judge her in any way. All we have the right to do is support her in whatever decision she makes. Piepiepie and Bonzai Betty, I support your views 100%, because it is your right as women to make the decisions about your bodies, no one else’s. As far as the ‘moral’ issues of taking a human life go, you can argue until you’re blue in the face when life starts, but it’s still just an opinion, and it is too easy to counter one opinion of when life starts with an opposing one. The only FACT is that a mammal (human or otherwise) is alive when it can survive on it’s own outside of the mother’s body with no form of artificial life support. Once life support is necessary, you are back into the realm of speculation and opinion.
While we’re on the subject of morality, lets consider the fact that if a woman is forced to give birth to a child she doesn’t want, then what? You have an unwanted child in the world, and you have just increased the potential for child abuse, Adoption isn’t always the answer, because the thought of the child being alive somewhere and not knowing anything about it is more stressful than abortion for many women, and if the birth mother comes back at a later date and sues for her parental rights, the child is the one that suffers again. When you look at the long-term negative effects of forcing a woman to give birth, it would seem the pro-lifers could care less about putting a child’s health and safety at risk after it’s born. After all, I never hear about the pro-life movement doing anything to help new mother’s take care of their children once they’re born, they just like to make a lot of noise before the fact, and let someone else suffer the consequences of their actions later.
As far as justifying cold-blooded murder, what’s your point? Think of how many innocent lives would have been spared if someone had murdered Hitler, or if his mother had had an abortion.

Answer 3

You do know that abortions are illegal after the first trimester (except in cases of danger to the mother), right? (no offense, this is not clear in your question.) So, it's kind of a moot point, but maybe the women that said they should have "total control" are unaware of the biology and the issues regarding it. But, to answer your question, I can't justify it. I believe, like you, that after the fetus' brain is fully formed abortion should not be allowed, however, this happens MUCH later than 2 months into the pregnancy. The brain BEGINS forming at this point, but will take many more weeks (about 20) to even RESEMBLE a functioning brain. To say that it is capable of "thought" is like saying lungs that are just beginning to form are capable of breathing. It doesn't work that way.
EDIT--
I just did a little research, and it is a state by state law, though most states restrict abortion after the first trimester to extreme cases such as genetic disorders that would cause the baby to not survive once born, and danger to the mother. ALL states restrict abortion after the term of "viability," the period of time after which the baby can survive on it's own, after 20 weeks. This correlates to the same time at which the baby's brain becomes "fully" formed (though, of course, technically, the brain grows throughout our lifetime) which makes sense, the baby would need this brain function to survive.

Answer 4

well i get what ur trying to say and i feel the same way. i believe abortion is murder, and i guess there have to be good reasons why docs wait till the baby is somewhat developed before killing it. maybe it has more to do with the safety of the operation than the feelings of the child at all(another very unfair thing). i think abortion is horrible bu it IS in certain cases recommended. i mean what if you get pregnant but then find out u have an STD or aids or smthing. just any heriditary disease at all. wouldnt you rather have an abortion and end this poor childs life no, rather than have him/her live a hard life, paying the price for a crime he/she didnt even commit. the same goes for if you dont have a good lifestyle, no money(bankruptcy i mean), drugs etc. its like, howre u going to raise a child with all these problems and honestly if u think about it, it will be very hard on the child to live like this. i mean its better if u hadnt been stupid enough to get urself pregnant in the first place but tts a different story. so yeah tts just how i feel.

Answer 5

"I would like to ask the people who think women deserve total control how they justify killing something that: kicks, dreams, sucks it thumb, have nerves and phsyical feelings, among other things...I mean, don't you think this is wrong?"

People kill animals for meat every day, and few people stand up for the animals claiming that killing the breathing, feeling, living thing is wrong. There are plenty of animals killed to be eaten that have more of a mind than a newborn human, too.

I'm not a vegetarian, by the way. Just trying to give you another way of looking at the point you're trying to make...

Answer 6

you can't justify third trimester abortions, unless you can justify cold-blooded murder - just as you can't pretend the fetus isn't alive until until it's "brain and nerves begin to develop," whatever that means. Fact is, all of it STARTS developing at conception.

And this tired prattle about third trimester abortions almost always being performed because the life of the mother is threatened is ABSOLUTE BALONEY. What the law refers to is the "health" of the mother being threatened, and this can include mental "health." Get the picture?


And a huge number are performed after 19 weeks (the third tri officially begins at 27), and well into the 26th. Premature babies born in the 23rd week typically have about a 30% chance of survival, and those odds improve every day.

I'm not going to bother to post a bunch of websites where you can verify this stuff. But I thought the congressional hearings blew away that "mother's life threatened" nonsense long ago, anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the nonsense you posted in the details:

You know Al, it ill becomes you to mimick the bad manners of your betters.

Oh, and by the way. You didn't provide any sources either. Let's have the definitive study that states unequivocally that nerve and brain development begins (as if someone had flipped a switch) between six and eight weeks after fertilization. Do that and I will shoot it down with information from as many sources as you like. Do it not, and I will just go on believing you are as full of crap as a corked Christmas goose, which you already pretty much proven.

Also, If you want to take this to a more appropriate forum (like a newsgroup) I'm be more than happy to make hash of you and your argument, as well as any other addlebrained avowals you can come up with.

Answer 7

Even if there was a fully developed human being or even person in there, I think abortion would be allowable. Why? Because a woman should have the right to say, "you know what, I don't want you using my body." If a full grown adult needed to live off your body like a parasite for 9 months, you'd have the right to say, "no!" So, why can't you say no to a potential?

I think much of the pro-life debate forgets about the physical and psychological effects of pregnancy on woman, especially the effects of very unwanted pregnancy. Personally, I feel as if abortion is a kind of self defense more than an act of convienence or whatever else people simplify it to.

Answer 8

Most late turn abortions are performed, when the mothers life is in danger or the child has birth defects that would greatly affect the child's quality of life, or ability to live outside the womb

Answer 9

Whats in a womans body belongs to a woman until it is outside of her body. You can not tell a woman that she has to keep something in her body. Its unethical, so women do not have to justify ANYTHING.

Answer 10

There is no justification for abortion-it is murder of a human life.