Abortion question

[Russell_SA]

The unborn are not unique in this respect. There are special rights that exist at law for many groups. In the UK they are called ‘protected characteristics.’ To my knowledge the unborn in effect fall under the ‘protected characteristics’ category not specifically but in effect.

Would this be the same as say the laws for the disabled we have here in America? Where there are certain building code requirements for the disabled, events must have signers for the deaf, etc?

I don’t think this is correct Russel. Where a pregnancy is terminated at a late stage labour is often induced, and the fetus is not intended to be born live. Where the pregnancy is terminated by choice and ends with a living fetus via a C section, it is as a result of medical advice where mother or child is deemed at risk.

I believe their point here was that, with medical advice, the decision to end the pregnancy is still a woman’s decision to make. So the decision to end the pregnancy by C-section is still her choice and right to make for continuing or discontinuing the pregnancy. That was all the point they were making I believe.

In the scenario you use here I am assuming nothing else is done to the child other than detaching them from the father. Nothing is done to them chemically or physically. Where a termination is performed this is not the case. Something chemical or physical is done to the unborn as the the procedure that is performed is intended to ensure the unborn do not survive. Thus, to use your scenario as a comparison we are obliged to consider not just detaching the child from the father, but simultaneously carrying out a subsequent chemical of physical procedure to ensure they do not survive and not just let nature take it’s course.

What additional steps, medically, that were taken for the fetus’ benefit were after the fact that the mother had a right to make a choice to end the pregnancy. How to deal with the fetus as a result of the ending the pregnancy is a separate issue. Is it born via C-section? Is it going to die as a result of the ending of the pregnancy, naturally, and then become a medical risk to the mother? etc.

Not if the fetus has been subjected to a chemical or physical procedure in advance of the C section to ensure it will be born dead. This can’t be called ‘just a C section.’

C-section can result in the fetus being born alive as well. That is a what they were meaning by their example of a woman applying her right to choose to end a pregnancy late stage via C-Section. The fetus gets to be born in that case and survive. So switch this to a child needing their father to stay alive. At any point in that process the father never looses his right to disconnect from his child, even if it results in the child’s death. At the end of the medical treatment, the father can choose to disconnect early and the child could still live. Just that people are arguing that women loose this right if it’s a fetus, not a child.

How’s Ireland over there? Never been yet, but it’s on my list of places to explore.

 

[Peter_J]

The unborn are not unique in this respect. There are special rights that exist at law for many groups. In the UK they are called ‘protected characteristics.’ To my knowledge the unborn in effect fall under the ‘protected characteristics’ category not specifically but in effect.

I don’t think this is correct Russel. Where a pregnancy is terminated at a late stage labour is often induced, and the fetus is not intended to be born live. Where the pregnancy is terminated by choice and ends with a living fetus via a C section, it is as a result of medical advice where mother or child is deemed at risk.

In the scenario you use here I am assuming nothing else is done to the child other than detaching them from the father. Nothing is done to them chemically or physically. Where a termination is performed this is not the case. Something chemical or physical is done to the unborn as the the procedure that is performed is intended to ensure the unborn do not survive. Thus, to use your scenario as a comparison we are obliged to consider not just detaching the child from the father, but simultaneously carrying out a subsequent chemical of physical procedure to ensure they do not survive and not just let nature take it’s course.

Indeed. Talking about c-sections before the nine months are up is very different.

 

[minkymurph]

Would this be the same as say the laws for the disabled we have here in America? Where there are certain building code requirements for the disabled, events must have signers for the deaf, etc?

That’s disability legislation - but yes disability is a protected characteristic.

Protected characteristics are identified under equality legislation and in addition to disability include among others; gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy, religious or political opinion, race. It’s effects are for example you can’t be sacked because your pregnant, or because of your religious or political opinion or sexual orientation.

I believe their point here was that, with medical advice, the decision to end the pregnancy is still a woman’s decision to make. So the decision to end the pregnancy by C-section is still her choice and right to make for continuing or discontinuing the pregnancy. That was all the point they were making I believe.

I have read of cases in America where a court order was obtained to perform a C-section where the woman would not consent. Sounds pretty draconian and the decisions have received criticism, but it has been done.

What additional steps, medically, that were taken for the fetus’ benefit were after the fact that the mother had a right to make a choice to end the pregnancy.

C sections are not performed simply to ‘end pregnancy.’ They are performed where it is deemed safer to deliver the baby surgically and where appropriate. Have you heard of the ‘too posh to push’ argument? Some years ago doctors in the UK were told to cut back on C sections as some women opted for C sections solely because they didn’t want to go through labour. Most of them were private patients and as such were of the opinion as they were paying they should have what they want.

How to deal with the fetus as a result of the ending the pregnancy is a separate issue.Is it born via C-section? Is it going to die as a result of the ending of the pregnancy, naturally, and then become a medical risk to the mother? etc.

No Russel you can’t argue this one. How the fetus is ‘dealt with’ is intrinsic to what we are discussing. The very questions you pose demonstrate this. The process of termination destroys the fetus. How the fetus will be ‘dealt with’ following delivery would be decided prior to performing the C section.

C-section can result in the fetus being born alive as well. That is a what they were meaning by their example of a woman applying her right to choose to end a pregnancy late stage via C-Section. The fetus gets to be born in that case and survive. So switch this to a child needing their father to stay alive. At any point in that process the father never looses his right to disconnect from his child, even if it results in the child’s death. At the end of the medical treatment, the father can choose to disconnect early and the child could still live. Just that people are arguing that women loose this right if it’s a fetus, not a child.

In the majority of circumstance the fetus is born live as it’s the whole point of having the C section.

There is also a decision making process involving doctors and the father. It’s not a decision that is made simply because it’s what the mother wants - notwithstanding the ‘too posh to push’ brigade that have lots of money.

How’s Ireland over there? Never been yet, but it’s on my list of places to explore.

Fears over Brexit.

Disgust and frustration with the muppets that have a cheek to call themselves our elected representatives. We went to the polls about 6 weeks ago and are set to go to the polls again because the DUP and Sinn Fein can’t reach agreement on fundamental issues - special status for NI and Brexit, an Irish language Act, Legacy and the RHE scandal where our current ‘first lady’ Arlene Foster (DUP) handed out millions willy nilly.

Do visit Ireland - we seriously need tourism. :irish3:

 

[Russell_SA]

Fears over Brexit.

Disgust and frustration with the muppets that have a cheek to call themselves our elected representatives. We went to the polls about 6 weeks ago and are set to go to the polls again because the DUP and Sinn Fein can’t reach agreement on fundamental issues - special status for NI and Brexit, an Irish language Act, Legacy and the RHE scandal where our current ‘first lady’ Arlene Foster (DUP) handed out millions willy nilly.

Do visit Ireland - we seriously need tourism. :irish3:

I figured that the Star Wars movie helped a bit with the tourism. Any good references you can offer for researching the current social condition of Ireland and it’s history? I don’t believe the US is the only nation that whitewashes its history books.

On a side note: I’m hoping the voice recognition software gets taken over by irish companies and we all have to talk to siri in that accent for her to understand us.

 

[Dcn_Terry]

This is a woman’s health issue and a woman’s position on this holds more weight than a man telling women what they should do or how to address this issue.

This is a RESPONSIBILITY issue. All of our actions have consequences for which we are responsible. If a man and woman engage in an act that results in the conception of a child, BOTH are responsible for seeing to it that the child is kept safe and raised the best manner they can.

Abortion is NEVER a viable option.

 

[minkymurph]

I figured that the Star Wars movie helped a bit with the tourism. Any good references you can offer for researching the current social condition of Ireland and it’s history? I don’t believe the US is the only nation that whitewashes its history books.

On a side note: I’m hoping the voice recognition software gets taken over by irish companies and we all have to talk to siri in that accent for her to understand us.

In the last two decade a lot of revisionist history of Ireland has been written.

Concerning the current socio-political conditions in Northern Ireland a good book for you may be Consociational Theory by McGarry and O’Leary. The book is a symposium in that McGarry and O’Leary put forward arguments for consociational governance in Northern Ireland post Good Friday Agreement, other authors then contribute critiques of their theory, and McGarry and O’Leary respond in conclusion. The chapters are short - more a compilation of journals, and there is considerable diversity of opinion which is good.

McGarry and O’Leary are a bit ‘politically correct liberal’ for me. They focus on positives but don’t really address extremes adequately, and as one of my former lecturers once put it there are two peace processes here. One that is progressive and one that is stuck in the past, but those who are stuck in the past where most affected by the conflict. McGarry and O’Leary are progressives. I don’t disagree with what they say in theory, but their arguments are detached from some of the realities on the ground and they don’t adequately address extremes and extremes cannot be ignored, so read the critiques of those who disagree with them.

More radical contemporary works -

The dynamics of conflict in Northern Ireland by Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd. I bought this recently but haven’t read it yet. I bought it as it discusses identity and culture.

A United Ireland - Why unification is inevitable and how it will come about. Kevin Meagher

History of Ireland - Any particular period?

If you want the heap -

A History of Ireland in 250 Episodes Jonathan Bardon

More contemporary - The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000 Diarmaid Ferriter

Big Books - small print

 

[minkymurph]

I figured that the Star Wars movie helped a bit with the tourism. Any good references you can offer for researching the current social condition of Ireland and it’s history? I don’t believe the US is the only nation that whitewashes its history books.

On a side note: I’m hoping the voice recognition software gets taken over by irish companies and we all have to talk to siri in that accent for her to understand us.

You can also get good journals on google scholar. Some sites you have to buy journals to read them.

Conor Cruise O’Brien and Foster are revisionist historians.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

This is a woman’s health issue and a woman’s position on this holds more weight than a man telling women what they should do or how to address this issue.

It’s a pre-born child’s issue more than it is a woman’s issue. Not to downplay the impact that becoming the mother of a born child will have on a woman, but the pre-born child is the one whose life that hangs in the balance. Since we have all been pre-born children at one time, I think we should all have an equal opportunity to speak to the importance of protecting the rights of such individuals and no person should be given greater or lesser weight because of their sex, male or female.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

So I was listening to the Atheist Experience show out of Austin TX and they were discussion the abortion issue in the US.

The argument against abortion was what Christopher Hitchens puts forth: The fetus is a human just at an earlier stage of development, just as a child is to an adolescent is to a teenager, and so on. So the fetus is a group of people that are targeted for removal from society and as a society, we should guard all groups of people from being targeted this way because if we have it in our culture to be able to compartmentalize what we are doing to one group and not to the rest, then one day our group may be the target because the society has developed a comfort level of being about to think that way.

The argument against abortion was what the hosts of the Atheist Experience presented:
Everyone has a right to life in our culture. So the fetus has a right to life.
No one has a right to use someone else’s body for survival without that person’s consent.
So, the fetus has a right to life, just as everyone else does, but it does not have the right to force the mother to continue using her body to sustain it’s life against her will. This is granting special rights to a fetus that is not granted to any other group of people in our society. For instance, a father can not be forced to use his body to keep his son alive if his son needs his father’s body to sustain him. (Say for example, the father was driving and caused the accident that put his son in this condition where his father’s body was needed to save his son’s life.) The father must consent, at the hospital, to allow the hospital to use his body to save his son’s life till the son heals in 9 months.

So until we pass laws that allow the hospitals to force the parents to use their bodies to save their born children’s lives, we can not force mothers to use their bodies to keep their fetus alive.

I think this argument isn’t persuasive because it ignores the relationship between mother and child. One cannot deny that the moment the child is born, a mother cannot kill her child, or mistreat it, or neglect it, without suffering significant legal consequences. And one can make the argument that a born child places significant physical restraints upon a mother. She cannot leave her child alone. She must be present to change, and feed, and protect her child. In a very real sense, a mother continues to sustain her child even after it is born, and there are just laws in place that compel her to take on that responsibility. So I don’t see the distinction that makes abortion okay, simply because the child is in a different location.

Also, the argument treats a child as if it were a parasite or unexpected symbiotic relationship. Not so. The pre-born child exists within an organ that was specifically designed to protect and help its development. And it is no surprise that one who engages in the sexual act will quite possibly end up with a child as the natural result, despite attempts to prevent conception. So, as the person responsible for engaging in the act that is designed for procreation, the mother has a moral responsibility to prevent that new life from coming to harm, even if she intends to relinquish her legal parental rights through adoption.

I don’t find this argument very persuasive.

Peace,
Robert

 

[minkymurph]

We have legally defined a line between material usage for life support and bodily usage for life support. Numerous people need medical aide to stay alive, but they can’t squat in a hospital for that support. Even if someone is squatting in your home and can not leave due to medical issues, the police can come in and remove them to a cell with the medical support they would need. If there are other options available, then those can be implemented, but at this point there is no artificial womb to take the fetus and as a result the fetus dies. But because people may use this right distastefully, should it be removed completely?

The law of ethics is notoriously complex. It is notoriously complex as highly complex and emotive issues are involved. Thus, the law proceeds with caution in this area. It is not simply a case of ‘this person has this right so that person should have that right.’

What I will attempt to do is place the argument within a legal framework as in my view the argument lacks a legal framework and it is essentially a legal argument. A legal framework also gives a mechanism by which to discuss the issue.

I would suggest this argument could be categorized as a discrimination argument in that what in effect is being asserted is current law discriminates against pregnant women. The law is deemed discriminatory on the ground that the law of consent is being applied arbitrarily to pregnant women by comparison to women who are not pregnant and men.

The question this thus raises is, is the current law discriminatory?

cont…

 

[minkymurph]

We have legally defined a line between material usage for life support and bodily usage for life support. Numerous people need medical aide to stay alive, but they can’t squat in a hospital for that support. Even if someone is squatting in your home and can not leave due to medical issues, the police can come in and remove them to a cell with the medical support they would need. If there are other options available, then those can be implemented, but at this point there is no artificial womb to take the fetus and as a result the fetus dies. But because people may use this right distastefully, should it be removed completely?

The issue as I see it is the bodily autonomy v the right to life. In the context of discrimination questions for consideration are; is it discriminatory to place limitations on a pregnant woman’s right to bodily autonomy? Is it discriminatory where the right to life trumps bodily autonomy?

There is no doubt this is a distasteful topic - another reason why I have attempted to create a legal framework to discuss it.

It cannot be disputed we have right to bodily autonomy and a right to life. I would say that even the most hard line Catholic would not advocate the right to bodily autonomy should not be removed completely. For Catholics a pregnancy may be terminated where the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the life of the mother, so it cannot be removed completely. There was a case in Ireland where a woman was experiencing a miscarriage. It was a ‘wanted baby.’ The hospital was a Catholic hospital and thus declined to perform an abortion at both her request and her husbands. She died. It prompted a huge public response and abortion law was amended both North and South of Ireland.

Catholics are not going to buy into the ‘squatter’ argument. To us the fetus cannot be categorized as such, but to put the matter in a legal context the squatter is squatting voluntarily all be it out of necessity. The fetus is ‘squatting’ as a result of a voluntary act notwithstanding sexual crime of which pregnancy was foreseeable if not inevitable. The is the responsibility argument Dcn Terry makes. Rights go hand in hand with accountability. Where you assert a right you simultaneously impose a duty, and rights attract obligations. We do not want to live in society that bestows rights on individuals yet no accountability, obligation or duty.

The question then is what obligations, duties or accountability should the right to bodily autonomy attract?

 

[minkymurph]

The question then is what obligations, duties or accountability should the right to bodily autonomy attract?

We can use all the hypothetical comparisons we choose, but sooner or later we have to deal with realities on the ground. I don’t know anyone who would advocate abortion as a method of birth control It should be a last resort yet in effect it is being used a method of birth control. Ethics and morality aside this is not just ‘distasteful,’ it is medically unacceptable, costly, and high risk.

At the other end of the spectrum to case in Ireland I presented,there was a case in England of a 14 year old who approached a school health worker as she was pregnant, didn’t want her mother to know and wanted an abortion. She approached the school health worker as she had ‘got her mate an abortion without telling her mum.’ She obtained a pessary and was sent home to get on with it. The mother discovered what had happened when she found her daughter bleeding.

The mother had had the daughter at a young age, thus would not have freaked out and would have been supportive. She asked why she was not told and the health workers response was, ‘It was her (the 14 year old’s) right.’ Would it have been discrimination to refuse the 14 year old and contact the mother? I say no. We do not want to live in a society where 14 year old’s go to school, come home with an abortion pessary and parents not told. This is not just distasteful - it’s reckless and this trumps any potential discriminatory effects. You have to be over 18 to get a tattoo and many tattooist’s won’t tattoo anyone under 18 even with their parents consent. This is not considered discrimination.

In conclusion, the young woman in the actual scenario I used was pregnant again 6 months later. She had the child. The mother thinks it was to compensate for the abortion. She says it was not. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[minkymurph]

Forgot to add, the function of the law is not to make bad things we wish hadn’t happened go away.

 

[Rau]

Similar ground (but with a moral focus, not a legal one) was traversed in this quite recent (and fairly short) thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1048096

That thread noted that a person unjustly co-opted into providing life-saving aid to another is morally able to cease providing that aid, but that this does NOT lead to the conclusion that a rape victim may terminate their child (so as to end her “effort” in sustaining the child). [The two scenarios are not sufficiently analogous to yield the same moral analysis.]

 

[minkymurph]

Similar ground (but with a moral focus, not a legal one) was traversed in this quite recent (and fairly short) thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1048096

That thread noted that a person unjustly co-opted into providing life-saving aid to another is morally able to cease providing that aid, but that this does NOT lead to the conclusion that a rape victim may terminate their child (so as to end her “effort” in sustaining the child). [The two scenarios are not sufficiently analogous to yield the same moral analysis.]

The same principle could be applied to one co-opted to perform an act that involves ending a life. Doctors cannot be compelled to perform an act euthanize an individual in the absence of consent short of a court order.

In a legal sense two scenarios must be also be sufficiently analogous to be considered as comparisons.

 

[Russell_SA]

I think this argument isn’t persuasive because it ignores the relationship between mother and child.

Replace mother with father and its the same point you made here. But that’s not what they were discussing. They were discussing the specific sticking point of rights to bodily autonomy to rights of a person’s life. At this point, everyone regardless of born or preborn, has a right to life. That is why the parents get into legal trouble for not caring for the life of their child. But that right to life ends at the use of the body of the parents to keep the child alive. So preborn have a right to the use of the body of their parent, but post-born, they do not. The argument was that is giving special rights to a group of people, the preborn, that the rest of society do not have a right to, even if it kills them. For instance, the drunk driver is not required to give up any of their organs to save the life of the victims they hit, even if it is their own children, because the bodily rights of the individuals supersede the right of other individual’s right to life. Or do you see it differently?

Also, the argument treats a child as if it were a parasite or unexpected symbiotic relationship. Not so. The pre-born child exists within an organ that was specifically designed to protect and help its development.

The use of the organ was irrelevant to the conversation they were having.

 

[Russell_SA]

The mother had had the daughter at a young age, thus would not have freaked out and would have been supportive. She asked why she was not told and the health workers response was, ‘It was her (the 14 year old’s) right.’ Would it have been discrimination to refuse the 14 year old and contact the mother? I say no. We do not want to live in a society where 14 year old’s go to school, come home with an abortion pessary and parents not told. This is not just distasteful - it’s reckless and this trumps any potential discriminatory effects. You have to be over 18 to get a tattoo and many tattooist’s won’t tattoo anyone under 18 even with their parents consent. This is not considered discrimination.

In conclusion, the young woman in the actual scenario I used was pregnant again 6 months later. She had the child. The mother thinks it was to compensate for the abortion. She says it was not. Draw your own conclusions.

This issue becomes a sticky point when people have to weigh in the social consequences of how the parents administer their response to finding out their child is/was pregnant. Society believes that there are too many parents that would respond abusively to their child in this situation, physically and psychologically. So based on that current fear of that threat to the teenager, where does the law stand on that issue?

 

[Peter_J]

I guess the obvious question to ask, or one anyways, is whether there is any nation with laws according to this thinking.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The argument was that is giving special rights to a group of people, the preborn, that the rest of society do not have a right to, even if it kills them. For instance, the drunk driver is not required to give up any of their organs to save the life of the victims they hit, even if it is their own children, because the bodily rights of the individuals supersede the right of other individual’s right to life. Or do you see it differently?

Thanks Russell. Respectfully, I see it differently. As I originally noted, the analogy ignores the relationship between mother and child.

To be clear, we are specifically talking about ending a pregnancy (i.e. ending the life of a child) So, it is only the mother’s bodily integrity that is at issue. A father’s bodily integrity is a non-issue.

Setting aside for the time being a pregnancy arising without legal consent to sexual intercourse, any woman carrying a child in her womb gave full consent to the act that by it’s very nature is oriented toward the creation of a child. Under those circumstances, a woman’s right to bodily integrity for a temporary period of time should give way to a corresponding duty that subordinates for a time that right to the child’s right to live within the environment that the woman is responsible for putting him or her into. This is entirely consistent with child welfare laws that obligate mothers and fathers to care for helpless born children, and impose civil and criminal penalties for the failure to do so. It is also entirely consistent with the notion of a recognizable legal duty arising from foreseeable circumstances and from a special relationship between the protector and the protected.

Russell:

The use of the organ was irrelevant to the conversation they were having.

That was my point. Any argument that disregards the location of the child is unpersuasive. The argument that was described Ignores the maternal relationship and the location of the child where it was entirely foreseeable. These are significant factors that have to be considered when weighing the life of a child against the relatively minor and temporary risks of a normal pregnancy.

Peace,
Robert

 

[minkymurph]

This issue becomes a sticky point when people have to weigh in the social consequences of how the parents administer their response to finding out their child is/was pregnant. Society believes that there are too many parents that would respond abusively to their child in this situation, physically and psychologically. So based on that current fear of that threat to the teenager, where does the law stand on that issue?

Sorry late getting back to you - haven’t been on CAF for a while.

In the scenario I presented the mother would not have responded abusively - hence her objection to the fact she was not informed. The mother in the scenario had her daughter at a young age, not married, and would have been supportive. That of course does not answer your question.

If the parents would respond abusively on finding out their daughter was pregnant, that presents the medical profession with a dilemma. They have an obligation to protect the patients welfare, and also adhere to legal obligations. Where parents may respond abusively the law allows the medical profession considerable latitude under patient confidentiality and welfare. In England it is highly unlikely a doctor would be prosecuted for prescribing contraception to an underage girl who is having unprotected sex, or arranging a chemical abortion where the parents may be abusive. A surgical abortion would be difficult to conceal from parents.

The scenario I presented to you was in England. Abortion is illegal in my part of the world (Northern Ireland), so an abortion would not be arranged even if one parent consented as it against the law. That said, abortion law had recently been amended and it is now permitted in instances of sexual crime and severe fetal abnormality. Outside this women in may part of the world have to travel to England for a surgical abortion. Chemical abortions are illegal but they can be bought over the internet. Recently a political party here advocated placing a travel ban on pregnant women travelling to England to procure an abortion, but whilst I believe abortion is tantamount to murder this is a draconian measure and I think we owe women more. It is also the case women have been assisted to purchase chemical abortions over the internet which is unlawful, but no prosecution was brought - not in public interest I think was the argument.

I would add one thing Russel. It is not a legal argument, but a realistic one. My eldest son is now 15. Two years before he was conceived my husband and I had serious marital problems. My husband is not my eldest son’s biological father. I had a one night stand with someone I worked with. The hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life was tell my husband I did not want abortion. I not only wanted my child, I would have felt forever more I would have murdered my child had I have had an abortion. My husband and I separated for a while but remained friends. He was there when my son was born, and asked me to come back as wanted to be his dad he wanted me. It was not a fairy tale ending. Life has been far from a bed of roses since as having a child did not solve our problems, but it gave a reason to solve them. The only support I had was from a Catholic counselling agency.

The reason I am telling you this is because the decision to have an abortion is not one to entered into lightly, and I don’t believe the majority of women do enter into it lightly. For many women it is a heart rendering decision that cannot be reduced to technicalities, legalities and rationalization. I firmly believe in the rule of law but the law is not our moral guardian, and it is not the role of the courts to impose morals. Your argument is my view a moral argument and not a legal one and as an advocate I know only too well we cannot legislate for every eventuality.

Abortion is a sad business. No woman has an abortion in favourable circumstances. It should not be advocated as a method of birth control, it should not be reduced to a legalistic right, and the termination of a pregnancy cannot be considered solely in terms of removing cells from a uterus that contain the blue print of a human being purely on the ground the woman’s intention on engaging in unprotected intercourse was this natural phenomenon should not happen because she did not want it to - involuntary intercourse, fetal abnormality and serious risk to the woman’s life aside.

Rather than advocate abortion rights I think we owe women more. Sexual crime and don’t blame the victim, . Adoption is a lovely idea but let’s not romanticize it. Stop judging. If someone says they want an abortion and they are judge for considering it,maybe they will have it.

To be honest Russel, I don’t think your line of argument can achieve this objective - and you need to. You’re line of argument views the issue as merely a right, and the issue is more complex.