The Problem with Legalized Abortion

the problem is that despite the laws we decide to make, scientifically, there is no discrete point of anything. except maybe brain death. but there is no singular point where development has reached a place where one was not fully human a moment ago and is now. i know some 30 year olds who aren't fully human. we, as a race, tend to draw boundaries beyond what we know has to be wrong in order to make sure we're not doing wrong. just like the rule is no longer "don't boil a baby goat in it's own mother's milk" but is now "don't eat meat and cheese in the same kitchen with the same utensils" we don't kill infants because we're not sure if a 5 year cut-off or a 3 year cut-off or a 6 month cut-off is acceptable. why? because humans develop at different rates. this is why making laws about when a fetus becomes viable is foolhardy. this is why we absolutely have to depend on medical professionals to help us make individualized decisions on individual cases.

oral hormone therapy has a statistical one percent or less chance of failing for each act of intercourse for each person. there are a lot of acts of intercourse. that .1% adds up. add this to unintentional misuse (doses that aren't high enough for a given woman) and it may become quite large. that's because statistics has very little to do with reality. the reality is, it may work perfectly all the time on 300 women and fail miserably on me every time. did you ever wonder why there are so many varities of "the pill"?

oh please.

you mean like subordinating it's will under that of it's host?

what defines "credible danger"?if i were to do something to you that prevented you from working, that cost you thousands of dollars, that left you committed to something against your will for nearly twenty years, they'd lock me away and you'd probably sue for damages.it doesn't take a threat of physical harm to constitute endangerment or crime.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

it's not a death penalty. it's not my fault the parasite can't survive on it's own.

the part where it takes nourishment and energy and returns no benefits. nope, skateboard punks rescue babies in dumpsters all the time. more or less.but the point is this. those things, infants and vegetables in various states can survive by someone else's input, not requiring *mine* specifically. if you want to start volunteering good christian wombs for transplant babies, have at. it's not about not being worth time and effort, it's about not putting myself in peril of life or wellbeing.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

"innocuous" to you may be vital to me.a little back pain to you might be a mild inconvenience. but to me as a non-pregnant woman, it's often debilitating. and you want to force me to carry a 40lb weight in front of me? i've had to start sleeping with an electric blanket for my back, not to mention the amount of anti-inflammatories i take for my joints would probably be fatal to a fetus and to me if i were pregnant. you know. i don't really know if i'll ever be able to have children. but, shouldn't it be when i'm medically prepared? and shouldn't i be the one to make that choice? i know you say you're not in support of criminalization, but the arguments you use are the same ones used by those who are. why should i conform my behavior to your standards, when i have perfectly safe and healthful options? i don't think it's risky, but it's not foolproof. your assertion that only an incompetent and irresponsible moron would be at risk of messing them up is unfounded. it's rude and offensive.as it is, i'm on a long-term birth control because i have a disability that prevents me from remembering to take a pill everyday.to some people, because of their potential side affects, they are risky. who said anything about satisfying anyone?you really need to stop assuming that your interpretation of reality is the correct one. this post is a prime example. you presume to know what "peril" consists of, you presume to have the correct behavioral solutions, and you presume to speak for who is irresponsible, and then you assume that sex is about satisfying some urge. since your reality and mine are clearly different, stop presuming to speak for what is best for my reality.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

you're my hero.

a two-month-old doesn't need it's mother's body. so, no, it's life doesn't trump her decisions, because it has no bearing on them.

no, it needs someone to bring it food, change it's diapers, keep it warm... it does not need it's mother.however, a fetus needs it's mother to provide it nourishment and a safe environment. it utterly depends on it's mother. in the mean time, she is sacrificing her health to do this. always.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

in other words, they're not, but sometime in the future they might be, just as the cat may or may not be dead. or the rabbit, i guess.

in sum, the problem with legalized abortion is that there are certain individuals in the world with restrictive ideas of right and wrong and rather than follow their own moral compass, they want to make sure that everyone else follows it.there's no scientific proof that even a living person has a soul, much less a developing fetus.people don't take any issue when animals are aborted while their mothers are being spayed, so why should they take issue when human fetuses are aborted?and finally. a woman is a whole, living person with a definite will and definite rights, capable of demonstrating her hopes, fears, needs, and concerns. all of these must be considered ahead of a "potential" life.finally, it seems the default position is that babies should be brought into the world. i think the default ought to be that babies shouldn't be brought into the world without specific consideration to who will care for them, who will provide for them, will they be able to go to school, will they be safe, will they be healthy, will they contribute to the world or tax it. if children are produced to ensure the survival of the human species, i really don't think we have any need to be concerned. if children are produced to be loved and cared for, then they should only be produced when that will definitely be the case. if people do have souls, even the catholic church has decided "innocent" babies go straight to heaven. but, how can you believe in original heritable sin and believe that babies are innocent?