If there was not child involved in the act of Abortion would anyone be against it?

Question

I'm against abortion only because of the child. Without the childs involvement it would be like if a woman were to saw off her own leg. I would care less it's her leg. But somebody needs to be on the childs side.

What do you think?

There is that sticky little point of the third party.

Answer 1

It's would be irrelevant if no child was involved. If a woman "wants to do something to her own body" that's her business, but that's a commonly used lie to mask child murder.

Answer 2

Well, that's where the controversy lies.
Some people think that the child is not a child, but just a part of the woman's body, thus only a decision regarding her body.

In that regard, I am with you. If a woman wants to abort her own leg, that is her choice.

But since an unborn child is NOT just a piece of a woman's body... but a brand new life (created only with the help of yet another human being), then aborting the unborn child is murder, or the taking of another human's life.

If left alone, the unborn child will grow, be born into the world, and develop it's own unique identity, apart from the mom.

On the other hand, if left alone, a woman's leg will become hairier, and maybe more muscular, but will still be a major part of that woman.

Aborting one's own leg will result in the maiming and handicapping of the person who lost the leg (although, in the case of cancer... it might save her life... though she will still be maimed).

Aborting one's own child, results in the maiming of the child, but does not otherwise affect the woman... except, statistics prove, mentally.

Abortion of an unborn child is murder of an unwanted life.

Answer 3

As comedian Dennis Miller once said,"If men were the ones getting pregnant, abortions would be easier to get than food poisoning in Moscow."

I keep hearing all this rant against abortion, but see no significant support for universal access to contraception and comprehensive sex education, so that we could REDUCE some of the teen pregnancies and abortions.

Again, we have the highest teen pregnancy rate on the planet - NINE TIMES HIGHER than the Netherlands, where they take contraception and sex ed seriously.

It's already been proven that the "abstinence" program was an utter failure.

When are we going to get with the program?

Answer 4

You can't legislate morality. You can't tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. You can educate about birth control and abstinence. For both genders. Regardless of the fetus involved it is a choice for the woman. Whatever she chooses is no ones business. That is between her, her conscience and her God. Isn't it about time we stop sticking our nose into each others business. Judgment and finger pointing hasn't gotten us very far as a species.. Even the smallest amount of understanding can do more.. I saw protesters outside an abortion clinic. There wasn't love in their hearts or faces. There was contempt, anger, and judgment. How does this produce anything good? Sorry this subject abortion bothers me. No I have never had one. What I don't like is that people think they are allowed to judge and legislate such a private manner.

Answer 5

I guess I'm in the minority here since it seems everyone wants to take 50 steps backwards in time. Women should be allowed the right to a safe and legal abortion - within limits. If it's done within the first three months, then it should be okay. There are so many circumstances where a woman may choose to terminate her pregnancy early on. What if your young 14 years old daughter got pregnant, would you really want to have her life ruined because of that? What if a woman is late in life and got pregnant, should she be forced to endure a pregnancy and the added responsibilities of raising a child late in life? Not to mention the horrific incidences of pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Women have fought long and hard for the right to a safe and legal abortion. Narrow-minded conservative individuals these days are trying to take that right away. I believe we must fight for the right to our own bodies.

Answer 6

Agreed. Abortion is a human rights issue as it denies someone their right to live. If intercourse were not voluntary and takes a lot of effort to achieve, this too would play a role on my stance against abortion.

People don't become pregnant by brushing up against someone in a crowded elevator. They often go to great lengths to meet someone, court each other, and then arrange an encounter. Thus, they chose to risk getting pregnant. Then they choose to murder the outcome of their willful encounter. But it isn't considered murder because a layer of skin stands between the victim and their culprit.

Answer 7

That's a good point to highlight... and why the real issue should not be framed as relative to the unborn.

You cannot be compelled to donate blood or bone marrow for someone else's benefit. Even if that other person would die if you refuse to be a donor.

That's the legal parallel at issue -- can a woman be forced to donate bodily fluids against her will for ANYONE's beneift? I say no.

But if we had the medical technology to remove the embryo or fetus after two weeks and allow it to continue to grow in an artificial incubator -- we could eliminate 95%+ of abortions.

Because then, the woman can refuse to participate any further, but the unborn doesn't have to die as a result. That gives both sides what they want.

Answer 8

Many women do not understand that it's not their body. That's their excuse for abortion. Indeed, it is INSIDE of their body, but it's there by their own choise 97% of the time. The fetus, placenta, and umbilical cord all have their own, separate DNA from the mother's. It's not their body.

Answer 9

I eat eggs because there isn't a chicken involved. I don't care for chicken, especially legs and wings, but I do love a good omelet.

Answer 10

but if there was no child then there would be no abortion. there should be no abortion. it's denying the child its right to live.