We keep hearing that an abortion concerns a woman's body, HER health and her right to choose. I'd like to ask you to watch this video and give your thoughts. Please explain your reasoning.
__________________
Register at the bottom of the screen to join the room and its discussions. Start your own topic by clicking "Start a new topic", above. Reply to THIS topic by clicking "reply", above.
In most ways, I am probably more liberal than most who are reading this.
As an example, I have NEVER once in my life been intoxicated or high. Never have I ever, once, smoked a cigarette or taken a drink of liquor. AND YET, I believe that YOU ought to have the right to do those things, if you choose. I don't believe that society ought to be able to tell you that you can't.
Having never taken drugs of any kind, I believe that they ought to be legalized as liquor was long ago and that countless THOUSANDS of human beings ought to be released from prison whose only crime was being foolish WITH THEMSELVES in getting involved with addicting substances.
I believe that you ought to be able to cover your body in tattoos, if that is your desire; that you ought to be able to put studs in your nose and tongue if that is your fancy - and that society ought not be able to tell you otherwise.
I believe that if a woman is afraid of getting breast or uterine cancer in the future, that she ought to be able to have them removed as a precaution and that no man ought to be able to stop her. Indeed, it is her body and no one should be able to dictate to her what she does with her body.
I also believe that if one were to get a terminal illness with no hope and with certain pain in suffering in his future, that he ought to be able to end his life at will and that it should be legal.
But all of the above examples have to do with what one does to HIS OWN body and person.
My grandfather once told me that my rights end where the next fellow's nose begins.
And I believe that.
I can't look at the video above and think of the woman's body. I can only think of the child's body. I can't look at the video above and think of the woman's "healthcare". I can only think of the child's healthcare.
While I believe that one ought to be able to do as he pleases with his OWN body, I do not believe that it's right OR WISE for society to give a grown person the right to do this to a baby.
And I don't HAVE to be a woman and I don't HAVE to understand what she's going through to know that this is wrong to pull a baby's arms and legs from his body and to crush his head into pieces.
I'm just sorry that it took this person 1200 murders before he came to realize that what he was doing was wrong. Sorry, indeed.
I'd like to think that I would not have an abortion. But the truth is, when faced with a rape or a disabled fetus, I don't really know what I would do.
If I was faced with a rape or a disabled child, I'm sure I would not abort it. I think that when Im worried more about HOW the child was conceive than I am the child that somethings wrong But if I was faced with my own life or the life of the child, I would die if I didn't abort it, I can't be so certain. That's when it would be the time for the woman to have the right to choose, in my opinion.
It comes down to bodily autonomy. An unborn fetus has no bodily autonomy. A woman does. She should have the right to determine who may or may not use her body. We don't harvest organs from living humans even though it can save another human's life. That's because we have autonomy over our bodies. The government can't force us to give up a kidney or part of our liver to save another human being's life even though we can survive just fine after the "donation." I don't think it matters what I or others think about abortion. It's none of our business what a woman chooses to do with her body. If she doesn't have the right to decide for herself who can use her body then she is a slave. I can't believe there are people who think that they should get to tell a little 13 year old girl that she has to carry her pervy, rapist uncle's baby to term. Or tell a woman who is carrying a child who was very much wanted but is not viable that she must give birth and watch her child suffer for the few hours it can manage to hang on after birth. Instead of trying to tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, I'd rather create a world around them where life is the easier choice. A living wage, proper maternity leave, healthcare, education, these are all things women worry about, especially when they find themselves in a situation where they are alone and pregnant. And adoption isn't the easy answer we glibly pretend it is. Adoption is no guarantee that a child will be raised in a safe environment. There are countless stories of adopted children who have been violently and sexually abused and all sorts of unspeakable things have happened to them. Besides the fact that a woman would still have to put so much of her life on hold for nearly a year for that child to even be born. Risking relationships, jobs and financial security, and even health. This is a decision that is best left up to each individual woman. Only she knows the dynamics of her life and what is best for it.
__________________
You are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.
This particular subject is a volatile issue in today's culture. As a man, I have been often told that I should have no say-so in any discussion about the issue. However, truth is not gender specific. Yet, that is the issue, isn't it? What is truth? That is a question that is as old as the Bible. The infamous Pilate, when standing before Jesus, asked, "What is truth?" (John 18:38). As a man who holds to a biblical worldview, I believe that truth is determined by God's Word. Since Jesus is "the truth" (John 14:6), then His Word is truth. Therefore, concerning women's healthcare and her "right to choose," we must begin with truth.
There are two issues being addressed. One is "women's healthcare," and the other is her "right to choose." They are two issues and must not be merged together. Women's healthcare is a personal choice and responsibility. A woman has the right to select her doctors. She has the freedom to choose when and how to address certain medical issues as they arise. No one disputes that.
The debate concerns the latter issue. By "right to choose," what is meant is that a woman has a right to choose to take the life of the baby that is within her womb. That is where truth will conflict with the popularly held belief of abortion rights. The problem is two-fold. First, truth states that the baby within her is a living human being, with the inherent right to live and develop. It is a God-given life that is created in His image. No mortal being has the right to extinguish that life. Second, truth states that the woman has freedoms concerning her own body, but she does not have the liberty to tear apart the helpless body that is cradled within her. That body is not hers! She does not have the freedom to wantonly extinguish that precious life.
I do realize that the arguments of rape and incest are always used to justify the abortion law of our land. However, statistically, those reasons comprise less than 1% of the abortions of our nation today. The majority of abortions are "convenience" reasons. A young lady is not ready to have a baby, or some other reason. I do not mean any offense or insult, but a woman's choice is to be before the act of creating the baby (i.e. sex). After that, she does not have a choice to kill the baby. Like I said, I do realize there are other arguments concerning rape or incest, where the woman had no choice, but I am not addressing those cases at this point.
Truth also tells us that, at least for the believer, our bodies are not ours. First Corinthians 6:19-20 reminds us that our bodies belong to the Lord, because He purchased them. He owns, not only our soul, but our bodies. Paul also reminds the believer of that in Romans 12:1-2, when we are exhorted to present our bodies as living sacrifices for His glory. Therefore, no believing woman (or man) has the freedom to whatever they want with their own body. Since it belongs to God also, we must first seek His mind and His will concerning doing anything to our bodies. That not only applies to the woman killing the baby within her body, but also to body modifications or other changes to the body.
I have written from a believer's perspective. It is assumed that a genuine believer in Christ desires to know His Word and will. and desires to follow it. However, for the unbeliever, what I have written may not have value. Without a biblical worldview, one is left to his or her own reason and logic. They may well justify the taking of the preborn life. They may choose to cheapen the value of life with a cruel abortion that tortures the life from a precious and innocent baby. They may choose to live their life by their own wits and for their own happiness. Yet, one day this mortal life will soon be over. All of us come into this world with a finite amount of days. The biblical writer, James, describes life as a vapor that soon vanishes away. Then comes Eternity. Each of us will one day stand before the God who created us and gave us life. Then is when too many will realize that choices have consequences.
Before finishing this comment, I do want to say that, if a woman has had an abortion, it is not the unforgivable sin. All of have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). Our Great Savior will still love and forgive you, if you will simply believe on Him and place your faith in what He did on the cross for you. I will tell you that there is no joy like the joy of forgiven sin!
Your definition of "truth" as you see it leaves you as the sole arbiter of "truth." The first truth you fail to recognize is that you have not proven your God to be real let alone THE god. And even if you could prove that to be true, your holy book isn't the law of the land and we don't create laws binding people to your religious beliefs. The Constitution is the highest law of the land and this country is a religiously free country where one religions doesn't get to establish itself as the authority of right and wrong. Read the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. In fact, even if your God were the one and only true god, and your holy book the law of the land, you still have a problem because the Bible doesn't mention abortion at all except for Numbers chapter 5 where God commanded priests to make an abortifacient drink to give to women who were suspected of adultery. The drink would expel the contents of her womb and she would be barren for the rest of her life. It's also important to note that different religions using the same scriptures still come to different conclusions on this subject (as well as every subject) because people interpret the Bible in so many different ways, each declaring THEIR way to be correct. Jews believe that life begins at birth with the first breath. Genesis 2:7 "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Here is where they stand according to the National Council of Jewish Women.
"Does Jewish law state that life begins at conception? No, life does not begin at
conception under Jewish law. Sources in the Talmud note that the fetus is “mere water”
before 40 days of gestation. Following this period, the fetus is considered a physical part of
the pregnant individual’s body, not yet having life of its own or independent rights. The fetus
is not viewed as separate from the parent’s body until birth begins and the first breath of
oxygen into the lungs allows the soul to enter the body.
Does Jewish law assert that it is possible to murder a fetus? No, Jewish law does not
consider a fetus to be alive. The Torah, Exodus 21:22-23, recounts a story of two men who
are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, resulting in her subsequent miscarriage. The verse
explains that if the only harm done is the miscarriage, then the perpetrator must pay a fine.
However, if the pregnant person is gravely injured, the penalty shall be a life for a life as in
other homicides. The common rabbinical interpretation of this verse is that the men did not
commit murder and that the fetus is not a person. The primary concern is the well-being of
the person who was injured.
According to Jewish law, is abortion health care? Yes, Jewish sources explicitly state that
abortion is not only permitted but is required should the pregnancy endanger the life or health
of the pregnant individual. Furthermore, “health” is commonly interpreted to encompass
psychological health as well as physical health. NCJW advocates for abortion access as an
essential component of comprehensive, affordable, confidential, and equitable family
planning, reproductive, sexual health, and maternal health services.
What does Jewish law say about the rights of the person who is pregnant and the
rights of the fetus? Judaism values life and affirms that protecting existing life is paramount
at all stages of pregnancy. A fetus is not considered a person under Jewish law and therefore
does not have the same rights as one who is already alive. As such, the interests of the
pregnant individual always come before that of the fetus.
Do abortion bans unduly favor one religious viewpoint over another? Yes, different
religions believe that human life begins at different stages of development. Science can
explain developmental timelines, but philosophic and religious viewpoints largely determine
what exactly defines “life” or “personhood” for each individual. NCJW believes, as the First
Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees, that no one religion should be enshrined in
law or dictate public policy on any issue — including abortion."
And finally, a woman's right to choose ABOLUTELY is healthcare! You cannot separate the two. If you separate them, then choosing to keep the pregnancy should not be covered under healthcare anymore than ending the pregnancy should. BOTH are healthcare issues. And until you talk to women like my friend who ended up carrying a non-viable fetus that would have been her 2nd and very much wanted child, when this fetus was failing inside of her and her uterus became a raging infection, you should probably keep comments like that to yourself. Her state didn't allow for late term abortions and she was at a Catholic hospital. The healthcare choice was made for her that she must carry that non-viable pregnancy to term. Her son was born severely deformed and she had to watch him suffer for 11 hours as he slowly suffered and died. And because of her raging infection she had so much scaring she was never able to conceive another child. This choice belonged to no one but her. But it was stolen from her by people who supposed that they had more of a right to say what happened with her body than she had. And because of it they stole from her the opportunity to grow her family as she wished. This is wrong. We cannot assume that we know what is best for women all because we have been taught to idolize a potential human life that has no autonomy nor has drawn a single breath. Abortion IS healthcare. And at times it is even a lifesaving measure.
__________________
You are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.
Please forgive any offense, because none is intended. It is always helpful to have a civil and courteous discussion, even in disagreement. Such a conversation will cause people to stop and think.
In response to a couple of things you wrote. First, you say, "Your definition of 'truth' as you see it leaves you as the sole arbiter of 'truth.'" As I said in my comment, one's position of the issue of abortion is determined by their worldview. Everyone has a worldview. For people like me, our view is a biblical worldview. We view everything through the lens of God's Word, who is the Eternal Creator and giver of life. For others, their worldview is a humanist worldview. They tend to see everything from a human perspective that depends on human reasoning and opinion.
Neither of us is an "arbiter of truth." Truth exclusively comes from God. It was Jesus who said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (John 14:6). Of course, there I go again, basing my belief upon what you call my "holy book." So, the bottom line difference is what do each of us call our authority. My authority is the inerrant, infallible Word of God.
If we cannot agree on what is the authority, then it is unlikely we can agree on much else. However, I do appreciate your feedback. We may disagree, but we still share this world together. I am grateful for the opportunity to engage with others of diverse thoughts and opinions. I wish you well.
I LOVED your response. Very classy. I'm wondering though if we can talk about how we should view this subject as Americans? Because although I vote for women to have the right to choose what is best for their own personal lives, health, and future, I myself am pro-life. Just as I don't need to be gay to recognize that people in the LGBTQ community are just as worthy to define their consenting relationships as I am, I can also recognize that women shouldn't be bound by my belief about abortion because the fact is, every woman is facing her own set of challenges. Sometimes it's an abusive partner they are trying to get away from, sometimes it's poverty, sometimes it's a pregnancy that came about from horrific circumstances. As an American, I feel it is immoral to take bodily autonomy away from functioning women in spite of my personal belief that all life is precious. Because the fact is, I have not had to walk their path. I have not been in any type of situation that would cause me to question if I should carry a pregnancy to term. And I've been through a pregnancy as a single woman, and I've had another pregnancy that was a health crisis which terminated itself at 5 months. But I never had to make that hard choice because I had a loving support system. I don't believe we can claim "freedom" while simultaneously trying to force women to use their bodies for 9 months against their will. That isn't freedom, it's slavery. If a woman can't own her body and have the final say over who can and cannot use her body then she is a slave and others have more of a right to her body than she has.
I do want to respond to your "God is the Eternal Creator and giver of life" comment. Because according to the Bible he is also the taker of life. And if we are to believe the Christian teaching that there is an age of accountability then these unborn fetuses are all in heaven. We can assume that if they were carried to term a large faction of them would end up in eternal torment. Also, according to Christian teaching, this world is temporary, it's but a vapor. It's eternity that matters. Maybe this is why the God of the Bible isn't at all concerned about those who have not been born yet? To the point that he commanded that priests give an abortifacient drink to adulterous women in Numbers chapter 5? The Old Testament has several different passages where God commands that pregnant women be torn open and their infants ripped out of their wombs and dashed against the rocks. And never once does the Bible or Jesus condemn ending a pregnancy. Grazing two different breeds of cattle in a field is covered. Mixing fabrics is covered. Even telling his people to go outside of their camp for bathroom purposes is covered. But never once does he say, "don't end a pregnancy." I don't believe God is as concerned with it as the church has become. In fact, until the republican party got it's toe in the door of the church and manipulated them into believing that "Christian" is synonymous with "republican" and they used abortion as their hook, it was not such a big deal to Christians either. It's never mentioned anymore that it was a republican administration and a republican appointed SCOTUS that gave us Roe v Wade in the first place.
I feel if we are to be true Americans who champion individual freedom then we cannot allow our personal feelings to dictate our political stance in our country. We cannot allow the church to deny women the right to her own bodily choices over something the Bible doesn't even teach. It is the teaching in some churches, but it is not supported by scripture or even all churches. What a woman feels is best for her own body shouldn't even be up for discussion. It is her business and hers alone. She has bodily autonomy, the potential life inside of her does not. We do not get to use another person's body against their will. Pro-birthers want to give the unborn MORE rights than any other actual functioning autonomous human. This is wrong.
__________________
You are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.
You and I will never agree on this issue. Because before the abortion ever occurs, you and I disagree as to what the fetus is.
To you, there is only one live person involved. (and if I believed that to be the case, I would agree with everything you said)
But to me, there are two live people.
So we are dead in the water.
As I said, you and I will not agree on this issue and like Dr Wynn, I appreciate you giving your view and I wish you well, as I hope you do me. I hope you will return for the next subject.
Again, I do appreciate your gracious response and your questions. You are correct in stating that there are some things that are commonly held beliefs among Christians. However, not all beliefs are commonly held. There are a lot of Christians who hold varying opinions on varying subjects.
One of those is the idea that "unborn fetuses are all in Heaven." I disagree with such a view. There is no hint or inference in any of the Scriptures that would suggest such a viewpoint. I believe the Bible teaches that life begins at conception. It is at that point that a baby has a soul and life, which is a precious gift from God.
Also, as you state, "The Old Testament has several different passages where God commands that pregnant women be torn open and their infants ripped out of their wombs and dashed against the rocks," there are some that believe that. Yet, the Bible never has such a command from God. Yes, God did tell the Israelites that, when they entered the Land of Promise, they were to "utterly destroy" all of the pagan inhabitants. That included men, women, and children. The practice of cutting open the womb of a pregnant woman was never condoned by God, but it was a practice of the pagan lands.
Concerning the Old Testament laws that you referred to, it is important to understand that the Old Testament Law was given to the nation of Israel, whom God had chosen as a people for Himself. Yes, there were laws that forbad the mixing of fabrics, or seeds in the field, or mixing yolks of oxen. However, none of those law translated to non-Jewish people. In the Old Testament there were three kinds of laws that God gave. One was the Ceremonial laws, which involved Israel's worship of Jehovah. These laws were specific and very detailed, included the non-mixing mentioned earlier. They were to teach Israel about be separated unto Jehovah and not mixing with the pagan world. Then, there were the Dietary Laws, which involved Israel's health. Yes, as you mentioned, even to the point of taking a shovel with you outside of the camp, so that you could bury your bodily waste. God was teaching Israel about the clean and the unclean, and about basic hygiene. There was even a law about washing your hands under flowing water. These first two types of laws were uniquely for Israel in the Old Testament. Any violation of those laws, God said "shall be an abomination unto you." Those laws were done away by Christ, when He came to fulfill the law.
The third type of Old Testament law is the Moral Law, which involved God's holiness. These laws are represented in what we call the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not bear false witness," "Thou should not covet," "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," and many others. In Leviticus 18, God gave moral laws in regard to the sexual act. This included an absolute forbidding of any same sex relationship, or any sexual activity with an animal.
Since the Moral Laws all related to God's holiness, and since His holiness never changes, then those laws are still in effect today. In the Old Testament, God told Israel that, when they violated these laws, then it "shall be an abomination unto the Lord thy God." That is different than the first two. God still today takes violation of His laws of holy living very seriously.
I will also agree with you that too many people have made the terms "Republican" and "Christian" to be synonymous. In reality they cannot be linked. Christians belong to a heavenly country. We live in this world, and we are to be salt and light (i.e., influence) in this world of spiritual darkness. We are to be beacons of hope and examples of God's love for a lost world. Yes, Christians can engage in politics, or other endeavors. However, we must never equate those involvements as being somehow "Christian."
I hope that I have adequately addressed your comments. As I stated before, no offense is intended in our disagreement. We live in a land of diverse opinions, and civil discussion of them is a bonus.
Al, That absolutely isn't true. There are two lives involved. But only one is an autonomous human being. And there is no other instance in life where we allow one human to use another human beings body against their will. That's what I meant when I said pro-birthers want MORE rights for the unborn than anyone else has.
__________________
You are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.
Al, That absolutely isn't true. There are two lives involved. But only one is an autonomous human being. And there is no other instance in life where we allow one human to use another human beings body against their will. That's what I meant when I said pro-birthers want MORE rights for the unborn than anyone else has.
I'm sorry in misunderstanding you: You DO believe that the fetus is living.
Are you saying you believe that the fetus is neither autonomous or human and that it won't become a human until it's out of the body and has taken its first breath
or
are you saying that indeed, it is living and human but not autonomous?
I'm trying hard to get others to come here. How about one or all of you starting your own subject post while I try to get some more people over here. Invite some of your friends here too. Thank you for coming. I guarantee you there are people here lurking (I can tell from my back office) and it irritates me that so few will give their opinion. I need some more people willing to contribute.
A fetus is living and human but not autonomous. Autonomous means capable of existing independently. I do think it's important to remember though, the stages of prenatal development. I know that those who are pro-birth get all up in arms and say, "It's not just a clump of cells" but for much of the first trimester it is indeed a clump of cells. Human cells, but cells nonetheless. Human cells that, with some luck and the permission of the woman, will develop into a human fetus. Because you don't just have sex and immediately have a fully formed tiny human in you. The first stage is the germinal stage, this is the moment of conception. The fertilized egg is called a zygote. The zygote is single celled. Cell division begins between 24 - 36 hours after conception. A large number of zygotes never progress past this stage. If it does survive past this point it will continue dividing while simultaneously traveling towards the uterus. Once it arrives in the uterus AND attaches to the uterine wall it becomes a blastocyst. An estimated 60% of all natural conceptions never become properly implanted in the uterus, which results in a miscarriage before the woman even knows she's pregnant. If implantation is successful the blastocyst continues it's cell division and after about 3 week it reaches the embryonic stage. Once cell differentiation is mostly complete the embryo enters the next stage which is the fetal stage. It is during this stage that we start to see rapid change and development and it begins to develop human characteristics rather than just cell division. It is not a baby until it has been born. Fetus isn't a term to dehumanize as I've heard some say. It is literally what an unborn mammal is. An unborn dog is a dog fetus, an unborn horse is a horse fetus, and an unborn human is a human fetus. Fetus marks a stage of development.
While I have warm, fuzzy feelings towards pregnancy and the potential for a new life, I do not have fuzzy feelings specifically towards cellular differentiation, which is everything before the fetal stage and when most abortions take place. Pro-birthers also get up in arms over late term abortions, failing to actually read those laws. If they did, (and I have) they would know that there is nothing in those laws that allow for a frivolous late term choice. Once a pregnancy has progressed that far names have been chosen, nurseries have been decorated, showers have been thrown. It is more dangerous and more expensive. By the time a woman needs a late term abortion something has gone very wrong, the fetus is no longer viable, she is in grave danger, something, but is it not a frivolous choice. I've heard people say they are against abortion except for when the woman's health or life is in danger. Well, that is what late term abortion is for.
I will always encourage life. Because life is wonderful and amazing and full of potential. But I don't believe in telling a woman she HAS to allow her body to be used for 9 months against her will. I do not have to walk in her shoes. I don't know her reasons for not feeling like she can see it through. I can't make that decision for someone else. We have to be allowed to own our own bodies.
I'd like to start a subject post but I need to get on here when I'm not too tired. ;)
__________________
You are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.
I have known you for a long time now, a decade, at least. And I find you to be a passionate person and a good person. You recently hurt my feelings when you told me twice that I should be ashamed of myself for having voted for Trump. But I thought about it and I realize that you deeply believe that he is or was flawed and bad for the country. (let's don't talk about him in this thread - only using him for a point) and you speak your mind. I respect you for that.
Mary Elizabeth, my spokeswoman here at TheCypressBuilding.com pointed out that this room is for opposite opinions and the discussion thereof. And so, I'm glad you are here.
I'll ask you to try to respect me, too - even if you disagree with me.
We are both in agreement that the fetus is a living human being. And we both agree that there are two humans involved here.
Your concern is for the autonomous living human and my concern is for the dependent living human. I have compassion for the autonomous one and I think you have compassion for the dependent one.
Your stance is that because the living human being is attached to an umbilical cord and not yet breathing on its own, he does not have the same right to life as a living human being outside of the womb. At least that is what I understand you to say; that if the mother decides she doesn't want the living human inside of her, she can opt to have it killed.
My stance is that we must, as a society, have a respect for the sanctity of life. I feel that where the living human being is living and its state, does not "trump" (sorry) the fact that it is still a living human being. I feel that a generation or two out from Woe vs Wade, we are seeing the results of such a lack of respect.
If a mother knows she's pregnant in the first month or so, BEFORE the heart has started beating, I'm not so adamant.
But AFTER the heart has started beating, no.
On in the pregnancy if the doctor tells the mother that she's in danger and that the baby needs to be aborted, I feel that the baby should be delivered, not aborted. And it should be placed in an incubator and given every care to keep it alive. If it were to die, I do not feel the mother should be shamed because I see that as self defense and THE ONE TIME when it really SHOULD BE the woman's right to choose. Babies have survived as early as five months that I know of. To kill it is not necessary.
If he tells her the baby has died, I feel it should be delivered and she should not be made to carry it. But I don't believe it should be inhumanely chopped into pieces.
So, I believe that in matters of health, the woman should have the right to not carry the child to term but that she should not have the right to murder it. But instead, deliver it and have it cared for the best they can, hoping that it would survive; but that no legal consequences should face the mother if it doesn't.
Requiring the mother to carry a child to term and it causing her death is just as much murder as aborting a child. It should be her right to choose in that instance.
My opinion, right or wrong, is that respect for the sanctity of life is more important than autonomy.
It comes down to bodily autonomy. An unborn fetus has no bodily autonomy. A woman does. She should have the right to determine who may or may not use her body. We don't harvest organs from living humans even though it can save another human's life. That's because we have autonomy over our bodies. The government can't force us to give up a kidney or part of our liver to save another human being's life even though we can survive just fine after the "donation." I don't think it matters what I or others think about abortion. It's none of our business what a woman chooses to do with her body. If she doesn't have the right to decide for herself who can use her body then she is a slave. I can't believe there are people who think that they should get to tell a little 13 year old girl that she has to carry her pervy, rapist uncle's baby to term. Or tell a woman who is carrying a child who was very much wanted but is not viable that she must give birth and watch her child suffer for the few hours it can manage to hang on after birth. Instead of trying to tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, I'd rather create a world around them where life is the easier choice. A living wage, proper maternity leave, healthcare, education, these are all things women worry about, especially when they find themselves in a situation where they are alone and pregnant. And adoption isn't the easy answer we glibly pretend it is. Adoption is no guarantee that a child will be raised in a safe environment. There are countless stories of adopted children who have been violently and sexually abused and all sorts of unspeakable things have happened to them. Besides the fact that a woman would still have to put so much of her life on hold for nearly a year for that child to even be born. Risking relationships, jobs and financial security, and even health. This is a decision that is best left up to each individual woman. Only she knows the dynamics of her life and what is best for it.
This is where I tend to land, as well. It's not something to be taken lightly.
