Quote:
Originally Posted by footfoot
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.)
|
Fair enough, but I was required to do the tests you mentioned, and it took a couple hours out of my day 4 times during my pregnancy. I am assuming that most women who would want to abort would not have another child to support, since for whatever reason they do not feel capable of caring for the baby they are currently carrying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by footfoot
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.
|
I'm not sure... She is definitely making a point of separating the notion of morality from legality and the rights of the woman. The problem with this analogy is that denying the brother a share of the cookies will not cause him to die. The weight of the scenario is horribly downplayed.
The basis which this entire article seems to rely on is that a woman does not invite a baby to inhabit her body, whether or not the sex is consensual, or contraception was used. I agree with this. The legality of abortion should not rely on whether a condom was used. However if a woman does not terminate the pregnancy by 10 weeks (which is quite a large window of opportunity) , by her negligence to do so, she assumes responsibility to continue the pregnancy.