Should a woman have a right to have an abortion without being persecuted for it?

Question

POINT: "The simple fact of the matter is that abortion is murder. What you call a 'fetus' is an unborn baby, a human being, and an abortion is nothing but the deliberate killing of that human being."

COUNTERPOINT: "Murder is the deliberate killing of a human person, and though a fetus is certainly a human /something/, it's hardly a person. The the earliest stages, it is nothing but a mass of cells. Even in the later stages, when it begins to biologically resemble a human person, it still doesn't have anything remotely resembling a human life. It has no hopes, no plans, no concept of self, no stake in its own future. Sentimentalize it all you like, you still can't put a fetus ahead of the woman who carries it."

Can a fetus that is only three months old survive outside the womb? no.

Partial birth abortion IS wrong and that is not what I advocate. Abortion should only be performed in the first three months, after that it shouldn't be allowed.

POINT: "You make it sound as though abortion is the only alternative to rearing an unwanted child. But it's not. Countless couples and individuals are dying to have children but can't. Because of all the abortion mills throughout the country, many of them can't even adopt a healthy infant. So adoption is one alternative to abortion. Even in cases of infants with severe deformities, there are alternatives. If no one wants to adopt them, there are plenty of agencies and institutions to take care of them.

COUNTERPOINT: "Why should a woman be treated as a breeding animal for childless couples? The mere fact that other people want her child doesn't mean she has to face the health risks and discomforts of pregnancy for them. It's her body, after all. Besides, the anguish of giving up a child carried to term can be much worse than aborting a fetus. And as far as infants with severe deformities, what kind of favor are you doing them by sentencing them to miserable lives in institutions?"

POINT: "No woman /has/ to get pregnant. There are plenty of readily available contraceptives on the market. If a woman doesn't take advantage of them, it's her own fault and she has to take responsibility for her carelessness. To condone abortion is to condone her own irresponsibility. Even worse, it's to condone the killing of innocent life as an after-the-fact form of birth control."

COUNTERPOINT: "First of all, no form of birth control is 100 percent effective, except abstinence. To say that every unwanted pregnancy is the result of carelessness is like saying that every driver struck by another car is at fault. But even if the woman was careless, that doesn't affect her right to have an abortion anymore than careless driving affects the driver's right to medical treatment. To deny her that right is to engage in vindictiveness, not to uphold any principle of responsibility."

Did I miss any points?

shaolt2002, I could care less if you went and smashed a birds nest.

Nor am I obsessed with abortion, I just got stuck on a tangent.

Answer 1

Can a fetus that is only three months old survive outside the womb? no.

I like this point.

Answer 2

There is no simple answer for this question. No matter the woman's decision - abortion or no abortion- she should never be persecuted for it.

Abortion is wrong plain and simple, but I will not even begin to put myself in the place of many women who have made this decision. I am sure that it was not an easy decision and for many of them, it is probably something that they have regretted daily. I can't even begin to know why they felt they had to have an abortion and so I can't judge them for this.

I do know that a fetus is a baby- a human being- who should be given just as much right to life as anyone else. I also know that just because I fetus can't survive outside of the womb at three months old does not mean that it doesn't deserve to live.

No matter what I believe though, this is an individual's decision as long as abortion is still legal. I would rather each woman decide on her own to keep her baby or to give birth to it and then hand it over to a loving family than have an anti-abortionist terrify her into keeping her baby.

Answer 3

I would like to ask a question myself; if a fetus is NOT a person, than is a newborn baby a person? after all, we have no evidance it can hope, plan, have a concept of itself or have a stake in its own future; it is simply a (admittingly rather large) mass of cells that, if it survives will one day grow up into a human being and a 'person'. lets try this scenario on for size. there are two children, conjoined twins. the one has control over only one arm, his head and his neck, yet they both have distinct personalities. the one that can control only his head and one arm is a lot slower developed mentally. now, would it be right to kill the slower one in their infancy if we knew there was no way to seperate them simpy because it would inconvenience the other to only have one arm?
what is that happens after the first three months that makes it a person(and therefore wrong to kill)? is it a specific part of the development? if so, then why that one specifically? what if by genetic fault, some child never develops that particular way. does that mean they're not a person? if its not the development, than what other differences are there between a three-month old fetus and a six month old fetus, or a newborn baby?
no, you cannot put an unborn child ahead of its mother, but neither can you put the mother ahead of her child. if a woman kills (even her own) new born baby, it is MURDER. why does time make such a big difference?
also, if they are 'just fetuses' during the first three months of pregnancy, than why do women(some of whom didn't even want to get pregnant) get so upset when they miscarry? try telling them 'oh, it doesn't matter. it was only a fetus. it wouldn't have been a child for another few months anyway'
"Can a fetus that is only three months old survive outside the womb? no."
If its physical independancy that makes one a person, as that statement implies, than what about those people who would die if not hooked up to numerous machines, that feed them, pump their heart, sometimes even breath for them. without the machines they would die. does that mean they are not a person? after all, a womb is natural, and does even less than some of those machines do for some.

Answer 4

I am adopted. I thank god everyday that I was conceived in 1958 when a woman couldn't run to the abortion clinic on the next block and have an "accident" sucked out by a vaccum and then go on with her life. Let me tell you somethings about me. If I had never been born I would never have married and had my son who is a wonderful guy and contributes greatly to society. I would never have gone to nursing school and would not subsequently been here to save lives and now to be with people as they die to keep them comfortable and help them maintain their dignity in their last days. If I had been aborted I would never have had the honor and the privilege to have been raised to be the person I am by the two greatest parents anyone could ever have hoped to have had. I also would not have had the honor of attending my mom while she was dying of cancer and then helping my dad to live on without the greatest love of his life. Yes there are many wonderful people out there who would love to adopt and they have a hard time doing so because they don't have millions of dollars to buy foriegn orphans like the "Jolie-Pitt's" do. Abortion as a means of birth control is just a feminist excuse to get rid of a mistake they made. That's not a good enough reason to abort a baby. Point: A fetus/human/something is hardly a person at three months gestation.
Counterpoint: How do you feel about your life? You were at three months gestation at some point as you are now here a living, breathing, adult. What if your mother had taken the attitude that you have at 3 mths gestation? Would the world be any less better for your not being in it? I am sure that you feel that you are a contributing member of society. You wouldn't have had the opportunity to be one if you had been sucked out and flushed away.

Answer 5

women human beings should not be persecuted whilst choosing an abortion. The previous asserting "it takes 2 to tango" is actual. regrettably the priority of choosing to enhance a new child or abort that's reliant on many factors and in maximum circumstances the female would be raising the new child on my own. i'm genuinely constructive if it advance into the male who extremely carried and raised those babies then abortion could be appeared upon as a valid scientific technique for use in lots of situations. If the alternative is to enhance a new child in a good relatives environment waiting to fulfill all needs then abortion wouldnt be an argument yet in maximum circumstances that's no longer how that's for females human beings. I dont have self assurance adult males could have a say in this challenge except they are arranged to enhance the new child completely themselves if a woman isnt waiting to for however reason.

Answer 6

Abortion is a form of murder true enough, but persecution of another human being can be considered a form of emotional murder for a woman who is already in distress over an unplanned pregnancy. I do think that abortion should be discouraged and women should see adoption as an alternative. Also, encouraging abstinence among unmarried teens and adults may help reduce unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Answer 7

"Can a fetus that is only three months old survive outside the womb? no."

Can a newborn baby survive outside the womb either? Sorry, this is a nonpoint.

You take care of the baby from conception, inside your body for 9 months and then 18 years outside your body. At conception it is the same being and God has the same plan for it as when he/she turns 18 and goes off to college. How can you put a time requirement on life.

I can just imagine the fetus praying it gets past its first 3 months so it won't be ripped out and killed. What a relief...

"Sentimentalize it all you like, you still can't put a fetus ahead of the woman who carries it."

Maybe her life? But that's not the case. You want to put her convenience ahead of the life of the fetus. How heartless is that?

Answer 8

Until a woman is able to conceive a child without the sperm of a man, she has no right to claim that the child belongs to her alone. If I agree to let you bake a cake in my oven, is it my cake?

The right to privacy does not extend to a third party. Technically, a growing human being is a third party, cognizant or not.

Women who say, "It is my body", fail to define what "it" is. A child growing within the body is not the body, no more than food within the stomach is the body.

If the fetus belongs to the woman, then it belongs to the woman at every stage of development, whether within the body or outside. This means that she should also retain the right to kill it at any age, as long as it is dependant upon her for survival. A born infant of 7 months old still depends on the mother for survival. Should she be allowed to dispose of it?

Allowing women the right to kill indiscriminately because they don't want to take responsibility for their own actions means that women alone have the right to decide who lives and who dies. (Why are so many women pro-choice, but anti-death penalty?)

If a woman is on her way to get an abortion, and someone murders her before she gets there, how many counts of murder are there?

If a woman wants a baby, but someone hits her and causes a miscarriage, is it murder?

The answers to the above questions depends soley on the whim of the woman, and therefore is subjective in every case. It's murder if the woman wants a baby, and it's not murder if she doesn't want a baby. How can the value of a human life be so arbitrarily decided?

Answer 9

First off. I am not aware of who is being persecuted. Names please. Secondly. My tax dollars are being used against my will to fund something I am morally opposed to. Thirdly Adult humans are a mass of cells. They use to say an unborn baby is a mass of goo but that is outdated. Can a baby survive by itself outside the womb? Is that an argument to terminate it's life? Nobody is treating a woman like a breeding animal. The fact is she is with child already nobody hired or encouraged her to get pregnant. What they are trying to do is provide the best solution to a difficult circumstance. Not all babies with abnormalities end up institutionalized besides if you think that is a viable answer does that mean you favor ending the lives of those who are living with some deformity? To call the desire to save human life as vindictive is desperately selfish. And for one person who claimed that it is a woman's choice alone I would argue a person doesn't need to be black to no prejudice is wrong. Which is why the courts would not make any such distinction.

Answer 10

What's your question?? Since we are in the religion and spiritualy category i'm gonna give u a Christian answer: I don't know for sure but i'm sure that abortion is a son b/c u are killing a human being even though i can barely see, talk or anything else it is still a human being. But there is 1 thing u said that confused me: Did u say that it is wrong 4 a woman to get pregnant when there are lots of kids waiting for someone to adopt them?
And as far as the deformed or sick babies i don't know what would be the right thing to do: Save them from a misrable life by killing them (abortion) Or keep them alive but we know they'll sufer being disabled and all.

Answer 11

You forget the basic biological princable that like begets like.
Especially, you forget that the Bible says it is wrong.

So what would happen if a person lost literally any hope for themselves. LEts say they lost everything in point one, would they cease to be a person, and would yo uadvocate their parents/friends/ killing them? Remeber sucicide is out of the question. The person has no dreams, even for the desire tocease to exist. But you know in 3 months its will to survive will return, with hopes and dreams. (In reference to counterpoint 1)
Now lets say you find a beutiful (insert animal) on your front yard. This thing was laying there in ur yard like it had given up. But you knew in 3 months it would somehow have a hope. Would yo ustill kill it? Would yo ustill say it is fine to kill?

The only way i understood ur message was that as long as it is a burden, kill the baby. Well, isnt this the same, but on a larger scale, as what the nazis did to the old folks? They were a burden on society. They could not further society in anyway. So they killed them. This was wrong, but would YOU have a problem with it?

You are answering other peoples questions, would you please answer mine?