(no subject)

[wildestranger]

Note to self: Do not read the BBC forums on abortion. Rage is bad for thesis. *fumes*

In view of all the people saying that women should not abort unless they've been raped - that the choice to have sex implies the possibility of pregnancy, and therefore women who choose to have sex should be prepared to have babies - I would like to present a modest proposal suggested by my friend B. today.

Men who oppose abortions? Shouldn't be having (heterosexual) sex.

ETA: Abortion limit remains at 24 weeks. I may have done a fistpump of joy.

Comments

[aldrea7.livejournal.com]

I think 24 weeks is far, far, far too late. I have quite a few friends who were born that early and lived.

And, as for not having sex if you're not prepared to have a child, I think it's a different argument. Birth control is very simple to get a hold of.

Plus, if you do end up having an unplanned pregnancy, adoption is a far better option. Because to me, it seems like any woman who isn't in danger from the pregnancy, or the pregnancy resulted from something horrible, is just saying that they're too selfish to be uncomfortable for nine months. You don't even have to go through official channels, in the US at least if you leave a baby at a hospital or police station when it's under two days old they'll take it without any questions at all.

The definition of death is when your heart stops beating and your brain stops functioning. It should stand to reason then, that a fetus who has brain activity and a heart beat is alive, and killing it is no different than killing any other living thing.

[(Anonymous)]

You put it better than I ever could.

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

I think 24 weeks is far, far, far too late. I have quite a few friends who were born that early and lived.

If we could extricate the child from the womb at that age and have it live, that would surely be a preferable solution to all. This, however, is not being proposed.

And, as for not having sex if you're not prepared to have a child, I think it's a different argument. Birth control is very simple to get a hold of.

Surely this depends on where you live, how much money you have and such. Not to mention that contraception isn't 100% reliable.

Because to me, it seems like any woman who isn't in danger from the pregnancy, or the pregnancy resulted from something horrible, is just saying that they're too selfish to be uncomfortable for nine months.

I really, really disagree with this. It is not too selfish to want control over your own body, or to decide that you don't want to be pregnant. There's a lot more involved than what you call "discomfort" - all kinds of potential medical problems, effect on work and finances, effect on mental welfare because of an unwanted pregnancy. I strongly support a woman's right to choose not to have those.

It should stand to reason then, that a fetus who has brain activity and a heart beat is alive, and killing it is no different than killing any other living thing.

Sure, but our society kills living things all the time. We just don't kill people. And I really can't see an unborn child as a person.

Anyway, thanks for commenting! It has been an enlightening discussion.

[(Anonymous)]

And I really can't see an unborn child as a person.

So, for you, when a baby comes out after 8-9 months in their mother suddenly then they're a person and if they come out earlier they are not? Or do you not believe they're a person for the whole time they are inside? Baby's can move and hear when they are inside their mothers, like the person above said, they have heartbeats and brain activity. If that isn't a person I don't know what is.

[wildestranger.livejournal.com]

Yes. Unborn foetus whilst it is in the womb, a child and a person after. :)