Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

1.
Most? What source are you basing this on?



Lets see -
don't want to have a baby,m can't afford a child, don't have a lifestyle in which they could have a child,

are not willing to undergo all of the physical problems, damage and risk that are attendant on even a normal SUCCESSFUL pregnancy and delivery?

Don't want to risk all of the horrible problems and risks arising from even relatively common complications?

Isn't willing to risk DYING giving birth to a baby she doesn't even WANT?

has genetic or mental problems which are likely to be passed on?

Is personally or morally opposed to having a child?
There are people out there who have as much of an anti-maternal instinct as other women have a maternal drive and desire to have children. These people are COMPLETELY repelled by the concept of having a genetic descendant of theirs out there in any way.

And an entire other constellation of reasons.

2. But if there IS a problem to fix? Being accidentally pregnant might not be an unwanted 'problem' for YOU, but you have NO RIGHT to speak for me. It WOULD BE A PROBLEM FOR ME. Do not presume to tell ME that it would not be. You do not speak for my life, beliefs, desires, feelings or choices.

3.
Can you prove this?
You may want to call it a 'baby' but fetus is a more correct term. Again, do not presume to speak for anyone else.

4.
It is not about the fetus paying a price. It is about the fact that to exist it must use the body of an actual PERSON as a HOST, and that person has the final say in whether or not it gets to stay there.
If that person go there by stupidity, that does not mean that they loose their own physical autonomy and control over their own body.

Also this whole 'stupidity' argument really annoys me, it seems a bit of a straw man - it is a way of characterizing all people who have abortions as being just too stupid and lazy to use birth control, as a way of neatly avoiding the problem of birth control failure.

Do you have ANY idea what the rate of failure is for condoms and hormonal methods of birth control?

Are you aware that it is even possible for a TUBAL LIGATION (sterilization) TO FAIL? (There is a rate of failure for even PROPERLY DONE STERILIZATION SURGERY!!!!!!!


And speaking as a woman with a family history of major health problems, if I were to use hormonal birth control, I would be a risk of serious disease and even death. I would also (as most other women) be at serious risk of disease and risk in pregnancy and labor.
Even a celibate woman could be sexually assaulted and be at the same risk of death in childbirth if she did not abort.
THEREFORE - People who don't think women should have the right to abort are essentially saying that NO WOMAN has the right to refuse to be pregnant (again, even the celibate could be raped, and even tubal ligations can fail), and that NO WOMAN has the right to put her own health first, protect herself and refuse to risk dying while give birth!!!!!!!!!!!!

5.
This is your opinion. Not mine.
Any zygote or fetus which is in MY body is little more than a parasite in my system and will be dealt with accordingly.

Where do you think these 'rights' come from?
Please provide proof.

Also, even IF a fetus was a *person*, NO PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO THE USE OF ANOTHER PERSON'S Body - EVEN if the first person would DIE without it.


And even IF one were to call a fetus a PERSON (and I do not believe that it is, either), this does not give it the right to use a woman's body against her will. NO person has the right to the use of another person's body - even if the first person will die without it. This has been established in the case of Mcfall v Shimp*

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/judpol/mcfall.html
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/lawmcfall.html
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/lawmcfall1.html
http://www.trinity.edu/departments/philosophy/sluper/Chapter8guidetoethics.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n8_v111/ai_14900058/
http://books.google.com/books?id=gbksH8TpdG8C&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=shimp+mcfall+wiki&source=bl&ots=duYh6mD6DT&sig=RCLaNONTNlzGum6UCnpxKE-LyDw&hl=en&ei=ZARSSu3vM4-Xtget_sytBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6




from another site - put better than I ever could:

Quote:

pro-lifer: Just because a fetus doesn't have the same brain development as a human being doesn't mean it's not a full human! Darwin & his followers used to argue that WOMEN didn't have the same brain development as MEN and therefore weren't full humans with rights.
pro-choicer: I don't care if a fetus has the same amount of brain development as THREE human beings PUT TOGETHER. It doesn't have a right to use my body without my consent. No one does.
pro-lifer: so you ADMIT it's a full human baby?
pro-choicer: No. I'm saying it doesn't matter, so long as you believe WOMEN are full human beings. Of course, the pro-life movement appears to be on the alleged side of Darwin etc. on that question.

......

pro-lifer: you must show that the unborn aren't fully human, or else the pro-choice position crumbles.
pro-choicer: didn't we have this discussion above? Where I pointed out it's not about whether the fetus is human or not, but about whether a woman has the right to say no to another person's use of her body?
pro-lifer: you would be so SELFISH as to kill a child??
pro-choicer: you think it's SELFISH to deny someone else the free use of your body? You must be real popular with the neighborhood boys...