Abortion: is there a way to separate the question of the woman from the question of the baby?

Question

I have said here many times that both sides in the abortion debate seem to be talking past each other. Pro-lifers are concerned with the baby, and pro-choicers with the woman. It's a gross generalization, but true enough in many ways.

And there seem to be two main justifications for abortion - one, the woman's personal autonomy, and two, the fact that any child born would somehow live a bad life.

But the second argument could be extended to other groups than unborn children.

So, my question is - are there arguments that would support legalized abortion that would not also support the termination of a newborn?

And should we focus on those arguments in debating the issue?

My personal opinion is that those arguments merit more consideration, for what it's worth.

Although I would not label myself strictly on either side.

What do you think?

Heidi, our opinions differ on motivation - it's an interesting question. I've no doubt some sincerely feel they are "helping" the mothers by steering them away from abortion. And some favor abortion so their taxes WON'T have to pay for poor, minority kids. (I've heard them speak - it's chilling.) No analogy is perfect, but others say they are supporting the troops and saving their lives by bringing them home. Others say they are making their job much harder. I think both groups are sincere in their beliefs.

But the personal story is very touching. I have never heard it stated in just that way. I think we all need to pay attention, and respect what you went through.

I'm not saying we agree on everything. We don't!

And i have huge issues with abortion, as you know.

But I think your story has a powerful impact. It takes guts to share it. I'm humbled.

Answer 1

You separate it, when they are separate. If the fetus is viable, it lives. If not, it doesn't. And i take exceptiuon that pro choice crowd cares about the woman, and pro life cares about the baby. I have known enough about 'pro life' to know that many of them care about neither, just want control of the situation (death penalty, not supporting programs like welfare, etc) and may pro choicres care about the baby. In fact, I had an abortion, and I can tell you that I was the last person I thought about. I thought about the life of the baby, I tought about my boyfriend, i though about my family, I thought aboiut my religion, etc...in fact, when I found out, abortion didn;t even cross my mind. It was a decision made later considering all involved.

Answer 2

There is an absolute that we have to tackle. Life is either sacred or it is not. If it is, preserve it at all costs. If it is not, we might as well destroy it at will. It is terribly expensive to keep the sick alive and wholly impractical to prolong the life of an ill person who will die anyway.

No civilized person or society, however, considers expense and practicality to be more important than goodness and humanity. If it did, it would immediately wipe out, for example, drug addicts, the homeless and people with AIDS.

There are arguments questioning why pro-lifers support the death penalty? They don't. To say they do is an outright lie. There may be those that approve of the death penalty that don't support abortion, but they are not pro-lifers, they are anti-abortionists.

There are those (like ervin_parker above) that try to define an unborn baby by calling it a fetus or zygote but the fact remains that it is life. A life whose sex can be determined even before implantation, a life which at 17 days has its own blood cells, which two days later is developing eyes and the day after has an entire nervous system established.

A life that at 28 days is forming arms and legs, at 30 days is developing ears and nose and at 49 days is a miniature person with complete fingers and toes.

So convinced is society now that this is a genuine life that in Britain some pro-abortion doctors want anesthetic to be administered to unborn babies before the procedure.

This has nothing to do with so-called unwanted babies. There are legions of couples who want to adopt children. Even if there weren't, we still do not have the right to take an innocent life simply because we are larger and more powerful. That is the style of the thug and the fascist.

Answer 3

well the argument always comes down to personal rights, and most people would argue that a grown woman has more rights than an unborn baby (call it what you want, but that's what it is). This makes some sense to me, and I heard it explained once that a woman is basically allowing her body to be used as an incubator for this developing baby. This was paralleled in the example to waking up one day with a person plugged into you, telling you that they need to borrow your body for 9 months or else they'll die. You have no obligation really to agree to sacrifice yourself for this person, but yet it would be the nice "good samaritan" thing to do. Some people think this is the same as a pregnancy.
I personally disagree--most especially in cases when rape was not involved. I am against abortion in all circumstances, but I do see both sides of the argument.

Answer 4

If a woman decides to have an abortion, we should acknowledge it as her right to do so.

The United States leads most of the industrialized countries in teenage pregnancies. Ironically, it has become a political platform of the conservatives in the US, backed by the religious right. It has resulted in confrontational tactics for political gains.

In fairness to the young teenagers, we must look at the human side of this issue and ask a simple question:

"What happens when an unwanted baby is born? Who takes charge of the child's upbringing, the nuns and priests in the Church or one of the secretaries of the President.?"

Saying is much easier than doing. Whatever be the arguments for or against abortion, it should not be used as an election campaign issue.

This seems to be the only way to look at this issue in a human and realistic manner both from the woman’s and the child’s point of view.

Answer 5

The 'choice' is at the time of sex, not after the fact. Having unprotected sex has many impacts, including pregnancy and life-threatening disease.

Let's try thinking of it this way - instead of thinking about pregnancy, let's think about HIV. If a woman (and her partner) choose to have unprotected sex and she gets HIV, when did she 'choose'? Obviously, she can't choose to 'abort' HIV. She unfortunately has to live with her decision to have unprotected sex.

Just because a child can be aborted, doesn't make it right or a choice. Two wrongs don't make a right. Murder is murder...

Actually, in my mind, if you consider the alternatives, pregnancy is the least of the 'negatives' of having unprotected sex. Last I checked, there is no cure for HIV...

It's time for our society to start demanding accountability for our actions....

Answer 6

I think this is a tough decision no matter how you slice it and both sides have some good points. Remembering that the world is not black and white.. I decided this is one of those gray areas and keeping that in mind I decided that the choice should be made by the individual.. not by me.

Answer 7

I think that for every abortion performed, a pro-lifer should adopt an unwanted baby.

Answer 8

A zygote, an embryo, a fetus is neither a baby nor is it a sentient being

Main Entry: zy·gote
Pronunciation: 'zI-"gOt
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek zygOtos yoked, from zygoun to join -- more at ZYGOMA
: a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell
- zy·got·ic /zI-'gä-tik/ adjective

Main Entry: em·bryo
Pronunciation: 'em-brE-"O
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural em·bry·os
Etymology: Medieval Latin embryon-, embryo, from Greek embryon, from en- + bryein to swell; akin to Greek bryon catkin
1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
2 : the young sporophyte of a seed plant usually comprising a rudimentary plant with plumule, radicle, and cotyledons
3 a : something as yet undeveloped b : a beginning or undeveloped state of something

Main Entry: fe·tus
Pronunciation: 'fE-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth


Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh(E-)&nt, 'sen-tE-&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : AWARE
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling
- sen·tient·ly adverb

Answer 9

Well, I will get hammered by pro-choicers but:

Abortion should be allowed only in extreme circumstances, and even then I am against it. For example, if the child has a disability how do you know ther will not be a cure for it in the future?

If your attitude is "it's my body, I can do what I want" then why not get spayed and use it without destroying life, blatantly ignoring the responsibilities that come with adulthood.

Answer 10

I think as I said before. This is not a legislative matter. It is private and should not even be up for debate.