How can anyone possibly think that abortion means a woman is doing something to her own body?

Question

If a woman wants to kill herself, so be it. But in an abortion she will be killing something foreign to her body. You conviently call it a fetus but it's still a human.
I've known three women who have had abortions and the experience fractured them to the core. It not only kills the child but destroys the woman. I will never understand any of this. And yet, the same people decry the loss of human life in the war.

It's legal, thats all youve got?

Answer 1

Abortion destroys at least 2 lives. Usually more, its one of the sad truths pro-choicers never point out.

Ask a pro-choicer how many women have been pressured into having an abortion by their boy-friends/husbands/family. All they ever want to talk about is "back alley" abortions, but never mention this side of the coin.

Abortion exploits women.

Answer 2

I've never met anyone who thinks the woman is only doing something to her own body. People argue that because the fetus cannot live without the woman's body, the woman has a right to determine whether or not she will bear that child.

Seems pretty fundamental, you know, that a person should decide if she becomes a mom or not.

Until the right wing freakos in this country, no religious entity has been opposed to abortion up to the end of the first trimester.

Most woman report relief after abortions, not being torn up.

But, let's turn it around - are you as upset about already born people being mass murdered by our govt as you are about women deciding to abort fetuses?

the love affair with the fetus is pretty sick, especially as it's practiced by these people who love killing iraqis, and hate providing a social safety net for that fetus after he/she is born. really, who needs a lover like that? this is a lover who cares not for the object of love, but only for herself.

Most women who abort go on to have other children. It's not for you or the govt to decide when they should have that child.

Anyway, keep a good thought - maybe someone's aborting the next Hitler right now. Would to God Babs had aborted her lying, thieving, torturing, mass murdering son.

Answer 3

Some thing foreign to her body?

for·eign:

10. not related to or connected with the thing under consideration

How can you possibly think a fetus fits that definiton ?

You know three people and assume that all women expereinced the same thing? I know more than three who have had abortions and were not "fractured to the core". At tha three or five people is not a representive sample that anyone can draw legitimate conclusions from. (oh, I see how your mind works, one person out of at least 15 prochoice answers says "it's legal" and that's the only one you choose to see and coment on.)


"Destroys" the woman? There are millions of women who have had abortions who weren't "destroyed" whatever you mean by that bit of hyperbole.

Answer 4

I understand your argument and frustration. The argument is that it is not yet a baby, but an egg, or that it is the woman's uterus, or that the baby could not survive without the moms body thus it is her body. The fact that the woman is harmed is a sad fact, most women who admit to having an abortion do so with a grave heart. That is a sad fact, but can not be a determining factor in the argument against abortion. I do not understand how the war factors into your opinions, however the argument about legalizing it also means that we are protected from other freedoms being removed. If the gov. things they can control to protect we must wonder what the next step will be. It could be protecting us from coffee or cigarettes. That being said I am appaled by abortions and wish it was not an ordeal, however I thing we as humans, as citizens should protect our children and ourselves. The gov should ot be involved because we should not need them to and the reprucussion of them doing so.

Answer 5

It's the same logic as asking "How can anyone possibly think that masturbation means a man is doing something to his own body?" A fetus is a potential human life just as every sperm particular in a man's ejaculate, but with a man's ejaculate, we know it's ridiculous to regulate that because it's impossible. However, men, and conservative women, can find a way to oppress women through their bodies. This is bad.

What make's human life valuable? Two eyes and a nose? Intelligence? Being severed from an umbilical cord? It's a question of value here, at this point, not what a human being is. Where does value in human life come from? Does sperm have it? Does a placenta have it? Does a fetus have it? Do you and I have it? I think you and I have it. But what should a fetus have it, when sperm doesn't? Come on, reason!!

Answer 6

Because there's a difference between actual life and potential life.

Is a pregnant woman who drinks alcohol a child abuser? What if she smokes tobacco, or uses crack? If a pregnant women doesn't get enough food, her fetus will miscarry, or abort spontaneously. If the government denies her welfare or foodstamps, who has committed murder? Sometimes, a fetus miscaries fo no apparent reason. Whose fault is that?

If a woman decides she doesn't want her pregnancy to continue, and as a last resort, she's willing to starve herself to death to stop it, are you going to lock her up and force-feed her to keep her fetus alive? On what grounds? What crime has she committed? If you're willing to accept THAT logic, who else do you think will be locked up just to prevent a crime from happening? Who decides? If a judge determines that you will probably kill an abortion doctor to save unborn babies, will it be ok with you if he decides you should spend the rest of your life in prison to keep that from happening?

Answer 7

Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact. Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth and abortion is not murder; ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism. The religious community will never reach consensus on the definition of a "person" or when abortion is morally justified.


"Pro-abortion" is inaccurate, as it implies favoring abortion over childbirth. We support reproductive freedom, which means that an individual woman should be able to make her own choice.


The "pro-life" concerns of abortion foes are only for fetal lives, not the lives of women or unwanted babies. "Pro-life" is a term used to make anti-abortion and anti-choice seem positive and good.


Laws have never stopped abortion, but only relegated it to back-alley butchers. The hypocrisy is clear: when illegal abortion was the leading killer of pregnant women in the U.S., there was no Right to Life (RTL) organization.


The fetus is totally dependent on the body of the woman for its life support and is physically attached to her by the placenta and umbilicus. The health of the fetus is directly related to the health of the pregnant woman. Only at birth are they separate.


Legislation cannot create morality. Prohibition did not stir moral outrage against drinking; it stirred outrage against Prohibition itself, and promoted widespread disrespect for all laws.

Most Americans reject the absolutist position that it is always wrong to terminate a pregnancy and believe that abortion may be the morally right choice under certain circumstances.

Answer 8

How is something that is inside a woman's body and growing off of her actions "foreign" to her body?

Not all women have the same reaction to get an abortion as the women you say you know. Yes, there are those who regret it afterwards but the majority feel that they have honestly made the right choice.

Answer 9

I understand your point, but I know several women who have had abortions, and have since had other kids and gone on to live healthy lives.You're right, the fetus is a human, but I feel that a woman should have a say in what she feels is best because it is her body. You can't say something is foreign when thats where it started, and lives.

Answer 10

The fact that it's legal is not an insignificant point...particularly given the battle over just that issue.

However, there's also the fact that many women who choose to go through with abortions go on with their lives. I don't think very many people will choose abortion and be completely unaffected. It's surely a difficult decision. That doesn't mean that the women don't feel they've made the best decision for their circumstances. Remember, not everyone shares your beliefs, nor do they have to... welcome to America.

Answer 11

Have you ever seen the pictures of aborted babies? It brings tears to my eyes. I wish I could save those innocent children. However it's a sad, but personal, decision. I would never consider abortion but I know of many women who have had one. The women and men who choose abortion are often acting out of ignorance or fear, or under tremendous pressures.
It's so easy to think that the actions of others are the result of terrible selfishness, callousness, moral bankruptcy, or a deep flaw in their character. But if the truth were known, under the right circumstances, the right pressures, the right fears, we are all weak and susceptible to sin--even the gravest of sins.

Another way of looking at this is to remember that we should always condemn acts which are morally wrong, but we should never condemn the persons who commit these acts because we can never know what was in their minds or hearts that may have lessened their culpability.