[footfoot]

First I want to say thanks for reading the article. This is a much more interesting conversation than the circular arguments which have played out 3 pages too long.

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

That is another interesting analogy, however, she did not mention that if a vagrant enters your house and lives there for a year, legally you cannot remove them as they are a squatter and have to leave of their own choice...

There are many laws which precede what I believe should be made law regarding abortion. With regard to squatters, as well as CPR as I mentioned before, you are not obligated to do anything, but after a certain point or a certain amount of time, you are legally obligated to either continue CPR until an ambulance arrives, or allow the person to live in your house until he chooses to leave.

This is the same thing that I want for abortion. Most women discover they are pregnant within 5 weeks. At that point and even a few weeks after, all it takes is a pill to end the pregnancy, and the baby is nothing but a cluster of cells. However, as the author of this article states herself, by 10 weeks the baby "already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable". At this point I would consider it murder to abort the baby, and could only condone it in the case of medical risk to the mother.

Which is why I agree that there should (and is) a point at which abortion is illegal. Of course late-term abortions (for which George Killer was murdered) are thus highly controversial. It is also subjective at what point is a "late term" abortion. I will admit that frowning on late-term abortions is hypocritical in a pro-choice stance, and I have yet to find a way personally to reconcile these two opinions.

Most women don't go on maternity leave until at least 6 months gestation. And by this point they should legally be able to elect to have a c-section to remove the baby, as it would be able to live on its own. Pregnancy can't do anything to financial stability. Its actually keeping the baby that costs money. Pregnancy costs... gas to drive to the doctor's once a month? Most women don't even show until 6 months, so she wouldn't have to tell anyone she was pregnant if she didn't want to. She would just carry the baby until 23 weeks.

I have to disagree. Women have to change their lifestyles, their diets, take nutrition pills, etc. Not to mention a lot of tests that are done (even required in some states) on the fetus to test for preexisting conditions (which is a different topic entirely). While some women have smooth pregnancies, others have horribly intrusive ones in which they suffer morning sickness, exhaustion, bed-rest, etc. These are instances where the mother's life is not in danger but she is physically exhausted by the pregnancy. There's the cliche' Time is Money, so even if say the woman does not have tests, take the extra pills, or go to the doctor often, the inconveniences of pregnancy can affect work-ethic etc (for instance my friend's sister is pregnant and she owns her own company in which she is the only employee. Her pregnancy has affected her ability to work as long or fast as usual and thus her finances are at risk because she has a toddler as well to support.)

This is basically what I have said. Previous to 10 weeks you can terminate pregnancy without any issue as the fetus isn't a person.

After 10 weeks, you can carry the baby for less than three more months and then have a c-section to allow it to survive.

Basically, as I said, I am trying to reconcile my personal feelings on pro-choice with late-term abortions (a point at which a fetus is viable outside of the womb).

Thomson does make issue that what if pregnancy lasted only an hour? Would abortion then be just if it only cost you one hour of your time to have the child? At what point is it not really a burden to carry a child?

Again, suppose pregnancy lasted only an hour, and constituted no threat to life or health. And suppose that a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape. Admittedly she did not voluntarily do anything to bring about the existence of a child. Admittedly she did nothing at all which would give the unborn person a right to the use of her body. All the same it might well be said, as in the newly amended violinist story, that she ought to allow it to remain for that hour--that it would be indecent of her to refuse.

Now some people are inclined to use the term "right" in such a way that it follows from the fact that you ought to allow a person to use your body for the hour he needs, that he has a right to use your body for the hour he needs, even though he has not been given that right by any person or act. They may say that it follows also that if you refuse, you act unjustly toward him. This use of the term is perhaps so common that it cannot be called wrong; nevertheless it seems to me to be an unfortunate loosening of what we would do better to keep a tight rein on. Suppose that box of chocolates I mentioned earlier had not been given to both boys jointly, but was given only to the older boy. There he sits stolidly eating his way through the box. his small brother watching enviously. Here we are likely to say, "You ought not to be so mean. You ought to give your brother some of those chocolates." My own view is that it just does not follow from the truth of this that the brother has any right to any of the chocolates. If the boy refuses to give his brother any he is greedy stingy. callous--but not unjust. I suppose that the people I have in mind will say it does follow that the brother has a right to some of the chocolates, and thus that the boy does act unjustly if he refuses to give his brother any. But the effect of saying, this is to obscure what we should keep distinct, namely the difference between the boy's refusal in this case and the boy's refusal in the earlier case, in which the box was given to both boys jointly, and in which the small brother thus had what was from any point of view clear title to half.

I am trying to figure out if she is saying then, that abortion can be cruel or indecent, but still should be a woman's "right" despite the 'small inconvenience' posed to her such as a one hour pregnancy. She has already stated, as you pointed out, that the point at which a fetus is a person, but it seems that one could use this paragraph to defend the stance that abortion should be a right even if it is cruel.